Diskussion:Llullaillaco

Entdeckung der Mumien ein Betrug?

In der Vergangenheit wurde in den Llullaillaco Artikel wiederholt ein Link eingefügt, der zu einer Website führt, die die Entdeckung der drei Kindermumien auf dem Llullaillaco als einen inszenierten Betrug durch Dr. Johan Reinhard bezeichnet. Ich habe Dr. Reinhard daher um eine Stellungnahme gebeten und er antwortete mir folgendes:

---

"Dear VetDirk, Thank you for your email alerting me to the false information that has appeared in the German Wikipedia. The ability of anyone to write anything on Wikipedia--without there being a way to insure accuracy--is, of course, one of the main drawbacks of using Wikipedia as a source of information. I appreciate your kind offer to correct the Llullaillaco entry. I will go into some detail in this email about the facts relating to the the accusation made about the "fraud" we are accused of having perpetrated on Llullaillaco, since I plan to also send a copy of it to others who might find it of interest. Needless to say, I normally would not bother to reply to the kind of malicious attack made in Wikipedia, which is based on the fraud fantasy published by Federico Kirbus on his website. Similarly ridiculous accusations are often made whenever a major discovery occurs. (I comment on this in my book The Ice Maiden on p. 376, ft. 25. For example, I have also been accused of taking the Inca mummies' DNA to make "superhumans"!) Serious scholars rarely pay any attention to these kind of ad hominum attacks, in part because to do so would only bring them more attention and lower oneself to the level of the accuser. And, of course, scholars have found that it is a waste of time to deal with the lunatic fringe, who will believe any nonsense without bothering to learn the facts (or respect them, if they do learn). That is one reason I have not responded publicly to Kirbus' accusation of fraud, although my publications describing the expedition clearly provide the facts. (By the way, Kirbus had already formulated his accusation before hearing Mr. Bravo's statement that he had informed me of a "tomb" lower on mountain, since Kirbus originally told people that he thought I'd brought the mummies from Peru!) However, Dr, Juan Schobinger, one of Argentina's most respected archaeologists, has publicly responded to Kirbus' accusations, pointing out their absurdity, and I am including his article below. I should first explain that Mr. Kirbus is around 80 years old, and for this reason alone I had thought it best not to respond in a way which would demonstrate what an ignorant and unethical a man he has proven himself to be. Despite his malicious attack, I respect the fact that he has done much as a travel writer to promote tourism and knowledge of Argentina's cultural patrimony, and in any event I felt that few people--and none with any knowledge of the facts--would believe the nonsense he wrote. Unfortunately, it appears I was wrong. Kirbus has long shown a disregard for facts and a lack of knowledge of the scientific process when they come in conflict with his personal biases. For example, he has for many years denied that the Incas ever were in Argentina, and he at one time called all archaeologists who stated this (which includes every Inca specialist who has worked in the region) as being "liars." We had an exchange about this several years ago, and I terminated my correspondence with him at that time due to his having proven himself to be such an unreasonable and difficult man. Kirbus is not an archaeologist and his rantings about the Incas have simply been ignored by the academic community. He states as much on his own website page in the same section where he accuses us as having committed a fraud on Llullaillaco. Perhaps his lack of acceptance by archaeologists in general--and by me in particular--are reasons why he has convinced himself of the nonsense he has published about our work on Llullaillaco, i.e. as a way of demonstrating his knowledge and ability to ascertain the "truth"--at least as seen through his myopic eyes. Note, that I have used the terms "our" and "us" to discuss the excavation on Llullaillaco. What Kirbus has failed to note is the obvious fact that there were several Argentinean and Peruvian archaeologists and climbers with me and that I had an Argentinean co-director who was present at all times, Dr. Constanza Ceruti. In addition, Sergio Lazarovich, the brother of Mario Lazarovich, the then Director of Cultural Patrimony of Salta, was with us up until we established our camp on the summit. Thus Kirbus is accusing not just me, but nearly twenty other people, including representatives from three universities, of having lied and committed fraud. He has done this without his having climbed Llullaillaco or for that matter having done any high altitude archaeological excavation (or any excavation of any kind, as far as I am aware) or having any facts to substantiate his attack. He has ignored advice given him by other colleagues that he was wrong to believe in the fraud. His egomania and arrogance in this matter are astounding and in my opinion are reflective of a person of mental instability. I have included a copy of my reply to an early inquiry he sent me in which he implied that it was impossible for us to have excavated the site as we have described in our publications, which were in Spanish and easily available to him-(see below). Since he chose in his reply to me to ignore clearly established facts, I saw that he had not changed his character in the intervening years and therefore there was no reason to have any further communication with him. Later he decided to publish his accusation of fraud on his website, and this is obviously the source for the attack made in the German Wikipedia. It is absurd to think that any professional archaeologist would do what Kirbus claimed, namely spend all the energy, time (and thus money) to excavate mummies and artifacts lower down on a mountain and then rebury everything higher up. The summit excavation was documented by video and photographs, and all the data, including detailed measurements, have been published in several articles and in two books, both in Argentina and in Spanish (see, e.g., Ceruti 2003 and Reinhard and Ceruti 2000) and easily available to Kirbus. Of course, according to Kirbus, all of the videos, photos, and archaeological data were faked. In addition, it had to have been done with every team member having participated in the fraud--an obvious insult to the integrity and professionalism of people who literally risked their lives to do the work. All of this time, effort, and money was supposedly invested for the sole reason that I could guarantee having a world altitude record for mummies! Furthermore, I would have had to risk losing my reputation and career for such silliness. At the time of the 1999 expedition I had already spent two decades in the Andes, found over a dozen mummies at high altitude sites, and had the "mummy altitude record"--something I have never even considered and I find ridiculous to even claim as worthy of being called a "record." I had also received awards for my work in several countries (see my website for details) and I was already well-known and respected not just for the discovery of the Ice Maiden in Peru, but for my other work in the Andes (see the Bibliography on my website for a list of publications). And, keep in mind that, according to Kirbus, I had already found the world's best-preserved mummies only a couple of hundred meters lower down on Llullaillaco and thus already would have had the world record. Why would I do all of the things necessary to perpetrate such a silly fraud as reburying them on the summit in front of numeorus witnesses just to gain a couple of hundred meters (or less)? How should I reply to such an absurd scenario from someone who has no experience and ignores documented facts and calls all the eyewitnesses liars? In the case of Orlando Bravo, I did indeed meet him in 1985, almost two years after my first ascent of Llullaillaco. He did inform me of a wall of what he suspected was an Inca "tomb" on the south ridge ("en el filo sur") below the summit. However, in 1983 I has already made plans of the ruins on the summit in addition to those that exist on the way up the mountain. I sent these to Antonio Beorchia who published the summit plan in 1985, and I published it again in my own article about Llullaillaco in 1993 (see references below). (Rebitsch also wrote a description the summit ruins, but he did not publish a plan.) I had already climbed to the summit of Llullaillaco twice (and surveyed for outlying ruins in another expedition) by 1985. In 1999 we found the mummies inside the summit platform, not anywhere near where Bravo thought a "tomb" existed lower down "el filo sur." In my opinion he interpreted some simple retaining wall (perhaps of the trail built by the Incas) with a "tomb." He did not state that he knew for certain that the wall was of a tomb, only that he believed it might be one. Obviously, he did not state that there were three mummies buried there, and I feel confident that he was honest enough never to have made this statement. Furthermore, my recollection is that the place that Bravo said he saw walls was between the summit and the ruins at the "saddle" at 6,400 m. Now, if as Kirbus has alleged, this is where we supposedly found the mummies, then the only rationale for going to all the time, trouble, money, and risk to my career to commit a fraud by reburying them one or two hundred meters higher, would have been for me to guarantee that no one would later find mummies at some higher altitude on Llullaillaco--where we excavated anyway! No one, and certainly not Kirbus, knows for certain if there isn't a mummy buried higher on some other peak, such as Aconcagua, Ojos del Salado, etc. Again, all of this is assuming I am some egomaniac who would do all this solely to have a "record" which no one--including myself--cares about. Kirbus doesn't realize that it is he who has proven himself an egomaniac, and a malicious one at that. How ridiculous can this get? I should further emphasize that neither I, nor any other climber that I am aware of, has ever seen a "tomb" on the "filo sur." Indeed, I would be most interested if someone should document such a site. Thus, Mr. Bravo's information was obviously of no use to me whatsoever, and that is the reason there is no mention of it in the chapter in my book about Llullaillaco. I know that this has been a lengthy answer to your question, but clearly it is time that I made my position clear and your email has energized me to finally do this. Thank you again for your interest, and I wish you every success in your future climbs. Best regards, Johan Reinhard

Johan Reinhard, Ph.D.

References:

Ceruti, Constanza 2003 Llullaillaco: Sacrificios y Ofrendas en un Santuario Inca de Alta Montaña. Publicación del Instituto de Investigaciones de Alta Montaña, Ediciones Universidad Católica de Salta, Salta.

Reinhard, Johan 1993 Llullaillaco: An Investigation of the World's Highest Archaeological Site. Latin American Indian Literatures Journal 9(1): 31-54.

Reinhard, Johan 1997 Llullaillaco: Investigación del yacimiento arqueológico más alto del Mundo. In Anales de Arqueología y Etnología (Mendoza, Argentina) 48/49: 105-129.

Reinhard, Johan and Constanza Ceruti 2000 Investigaciones Arqueológicas en el Volcán Llullaillaco, Ediciones Universidad Católica de Salta, Salta.

Reinhard, Johan and Constanza Ceruti 2006 Sacred Mountains, Ceremonial Sites and Human Sacrifice Among the Incas. Archaeoastronomy 19: 1-43."

---

Ich bin überzeugt, da ich selber im April/Mai 2006 am und auf dem Llullaillaco war, dass die wissenschaftlichen Beweise von Dr. Reinhard nicht anzuzweifeln sind. Daher werde ich den betreffenden Link "http://www.andesargentinos.com.ar/FraudedelLlullayllaco.htm" als eine unwissenschaftliche Quelle wieder löschen!

--VetDirk 20:48, 26. Okt. 2008 (CET)

Der Link zu "Technische Beschreibung des Llullaillaco" es derselbe wie "http://www.andesargentinos.com.ar/FraudedelLlullayllaco.htm" und ist aus gleichen Grund ausgelöscht.

Edit-War

hallo ihr zwei Streithähne, kommt wieder zurück auf den Boden. So werdet ihr euch nicht einigen können und wenn der Artikel gesperrt wird, hat einer von euch kräftig das Nachsehen. Vorschlag: ihr versucht euren Dissens in Form von Position und Gegenposition im Artikel zu Ausdruck zu bringen, möglichst gleichgewichtig, mit reputierlichen Quellen für beide Standpunkte. Vielleicht nach Vorarbeiten hier in der Diskussion. Danke --Herzi Pinki 22:50, 25. Nov. 2008 (CET)

Hallo Herzi Pinki, ganz auf dem Boden wieder angekommen stelle ich fest, dass ich bereits vor einiger Zeit eine ausführliche Stellungnahme von Dr. Reinhard nebst der einschlägigen wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen zitiert habe (s. Diskussion oben). Ich weiß nicht, aus welchen wissenschaftlichen Quellen 190.244.149.219 seine Informationen bezieht, die die Anschuldigungen von Herrn Kirbus stützen könnten. Auf eine Gegenposition bin ich gespannt. Grüße nach Wien --VetDirk 14:32, 28. Nov. 2008 (CET)

Nachdem das mit diesem Link immer noch nicht geklärt ist, hier meine Meinung (s. a. Herzi Pinki): Ein Link, der einfach so ganz der Aussage des Artikels widerspricht und unkommentiert dasteht, ist tatsächlich ungünstig, ich hab daher die Entfernung einmal gesichtet. Dauerhaft wäre es allerding günstig, Kritik an der Forschung Johan Reinhards (ob sie ernstzunehmen ist oder nicht, vermag ich als Laie derzeit nicht zu beurteilen) nicht totzuschweigen, sondern im Artikeltext in neutraler Art und Weise zu erwähnen (unabhängige Quellen etc.). Diesbezüglich auch Nachricht auf Benutzer Diskussion:Johan Reinhard hinterlassen. --Svíčková na smetaně 14:12, 3. Nov. 2009 (CET)

Die vielen "LL" sind schon etwas ungewöhnlich. Falls das Wort aus der Ketschua-Sprache stammt, ist wohlmöglich die übliche spanische Aussprache des "LL" nicht angebracht. Oder auf den Punkt gebracht: Wie wird das Wort Llullaillaco ausgeprochen? (nicht signierter Beitrag von 62.204.109.143 (Diskussion | Beiträge) 11:59, 8. Jan. 2010 (CET))

www.spiegel.de

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/inka-ausgewaehlte-opfer-bekamen-koka-blaetter-und-alkohol-a-913671.html

Auf spiegel.de wird im oben verlinkten Artikel auf eine der Mumien ( Jungfrau von Llullaillaco ) bezug genommen, die auf dem Llullaillaco gefunden wurden.

Rainer E. (Diskussion) 07:51, 30. Jul. 2013 (CEST)

Absatz über ÖAV Expedition nicht gerechtfertigt?

Warum gibt es einen Absatz über eine einzelne ÖAV Expedition? Was war an dieser so besonders? Der Berg wird ja nicht so selten bestiegen und dass die Ruinen noch da sind ist doch erstmal zu erwarten? TheDLH (Diskussion) 10:12, 13. Feb. 2020 (CET)

Übertragung eines Kommentars aus dem Artikel

Übertragung eines Kommentars aus dem Artikel: „ERSTBESTEIGUNG = 1. Dezember 1952 durch die Chilenen Bión González León und Juan Harseim (wie konnten sie als Erstbesteiger oben Mumien finden?)“ Hans Urian 15:35, 30. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Lavaströme

"Die Lavaströme fließen hauptsächlich in westlicher Richtung." Wie können Lavaströme fließen, wenn der Llullaillaco I schon seit prähistorischer Zeit nicht mehr ausgebrochen ist? Man sollte vielleicht besser schreiben: "Die erkaltete Lava erstreckt sich in westlicher Richtung." --141.30.247.167 20:31, 24. Apr. 2023 (CEST)