Talk:Maya civilization/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

E-Groups?

Could someone please explain this to me? I've had a feeling that it might be vandalism, but it's been on the article for months.

Mik 03:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry, Mik, "E-group" is a valid type of Maya structure, documented at quite a few sites, mainly from the early classic period.It takes its name from a structure at the site of Uaxactun, designated as (by Morley, I think) Structure E-VII-sub (apart from a few well-known or prominent structures, most have been given rather prosaic names based on their numbering within a surveyed grid, or some other ennumerative schema). The structure at Uaxactun is believed to have been used as an astronomical observatory particularly for marking solar equinoxes; structures at other sites classified as of the E-group type have similar forms, and presumably had similar functions. See here for a description, and here's a link to an img of the original E-VII-sub structure. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 05:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Though this discussion happened nearly a year ago, there is now a page for E-Groups. -- Oaxaca dan 01:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The name "Maya"

Does anybody know why we call the Maya Maya? We know why the Indians are called Indians. Who came up with the name Maya for the Mayan people? Is this information out there? Anybody know? Info D 07:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The Maya people and language of Yucatan, the largest single group, in their own language. -- Infrogmation 19:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Any reference? Info D 09:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The etymology of the word is obscure/obscured, but there are mentions of "maya" in a few of the 16thC dictionaries, such as the Motul, which gives "Maya: ...nombre propio desta tierra de Yucatan. maya vinic: hombre de Yucatan; indio. ("proper name of the country of Yucatan", maya winik- man from Yucatan, indian")- see some other entries in FAMSI's Combined Dictionary-Concordance of Yukatek. Another likely 16thC dictionary (the San Francisco) gives maya than :"lengua vulgar o común de esta tierra (Yucatán)" (" [name for] the common language of Yucatan").--cjllw | TALK 07:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
In the latest edition (no.125, 26 de Noviembre 2006) of "Revista D", the sunday magazine of the Guatemalan newspaper Prensa Libre, there is a whole article on this topic. Notable from that article: first documented use, the voyage of Columbus, 1502, he encounters a merchant canoe from the land of "Maiam" (recorded in the diaries of Columbus brother Bartolome and son Fernando). The term was used in colonial Spanish to refer to Yucatecan language and ceremonial objects, but never to people; it was used primarily to refer only to groups in western Yucatan (according to Matthew Restall, within the context of a larger investigation of "Mayan Ethnogenesis"). It comes from Yukatek, perhaps from the postclassic Mayan city of Mayapan, which suffered a civil war and diaspora throughout the Yucatan just prior to the arrival of the Spaniards. (the Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel says "katun (~20-year period) 13 ahau, Mayapan was founded, and its people called Mayas. katun 8 ahau (~60, ~320 or ~580 years later? these repeat every ~260 yrs.) its lands were destroyed and its people dispersed over the peninsula. 6 katun (~120 years) after their destruction they ceased being called maya. In katun 11 ahau they ceased being called maya and were called christians.") The word seems to have attained its modern meaning starting in archeological circles, with the use spreading throughout the 19th century, and taking on political significance in the 20th century (according to Jon Schackt). I'm putting this here in comments because I don't know where to fit this into the article.--Homunq 18:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that helpful information. I suppose it and the info above could at some point be worked into the article under a separate section on the term itself. Feel free to give it a go yourself if someone else does not get around to it.--cjllw | TALK 01:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
...but this is appropriate for almost all the "top-level" mayan articles (at least Civ, Languages, and Peoples) in the Maya template, so should it get its own article? Also, it's etymology; does that then belong in Wiktionary, with links in these three articles? And how do I cite this stuff without tracking it down in libraries - I want to credit the original authors without pretending it's not out of a newsprint-magazine puff piece, which very well may be getting its own sources secondhand...? (I don't want to be negative, I just don't know the answers.) The crucial authors are Restall and Shackt. A quick google turns up Restall as author and Penn State faculty, and Shackt as an author who gets published in Columbia in Spanish, but no actual text of anything they write. They would probably also be a good source for the last paragraph in the "history" section of Mayan languages (disclaimer: mine).--Homunq 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel like the frog from the Popol Vuh here: "Says Schact, says Revista D, says Homunq". --Homunq 19:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Impediments for trade

However, Mayans were not equipped to handle trade at such a magnitude because the absence of the wheel made it difficult to move heavy amounts of goods from one place to another.

I'd amend that to "absence of the wheel or beasts of burden" but the article seems protected against unregistered people. --84.20.17.84 09:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, 84.20.17.84. You may wish to consider registering a user account here, the process is quite painless and there are some advantages. Entirely up to you, of course.
The had been semi-protected after a spate of vandalism. I've now unprotected it as the incidents of vandalism in related articles seem to have died off a bit- at least for the present. So you are now able to make any amendments. I actually think that sentence as it stands is quite misleading, the internal and external trade of commodities among the Maya was no small-scale operation, and they made expert and judicious use of water-borne transport, including both coastal and riverine forms, and also using the bajos (seasonal and extensive swamps) which are quite common in many of the lowland areas, esp. the Petén Basin.--cjllw | TALK 23:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the article could be improved by discussion of Mayan trade networks, particularly maritime trade. Also, the trading port of Vista Alegre in Quintana Roo needs to be added to the list of sites. See [1]AusJeb (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Malinche

I wanted to a mention of Malinche in the Colonial section. It is probably too marginal to the Maya for this article, but, in a way, the Maya led to the conquest of the Aztec empire. --84.20.17.84 15:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree there's an interesting connection, and some sources at least maintain Malinche may have been from a Chontal Maya background. Maybe if we had a more detailed or separate 'Maya history' article it could be covered- we need some more lengthy treatment somewhere of the conquest-era events with particular focus on the impacts to the Maya.--cjllw | TALK 02:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-opening the sub-articles debate

I've just come across this set of articles after coming across Mayan children and Mayan health and medicine as part of the wikification drive. I decided to see where they belong and realised that at the moment trying to decide that is rather difficult. I've also noticed that there seems to be significant overlap between some of the main article and sub-articles - i.e. the writing section of Maya society is the same as that on the main article - Maya civilization - page - and ditto for art and architecture. There is lots of fabulous information across all these articles but they really do need looking at systematically - and wikipedia needs trawling for any other articles that could be brought into the fold.

As far as I'm aware from Wiki convention the main article of Maya civilization should provide either all the information on a subject (where it doesn't warrant/yet warrant of its own) or well written summaries with links to an easily understandable set of sub-articles on each major topic - these should not, however overlap as they currently do. I know its going to be difficult to agree on what sub-articles there should be and on what topics.... but this has the potential to be a really great set of articles with a little tweaking. Anybody with me? Madmedea 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Madmedea. You've probably noticed there's already been some discussion on this (see for eg above here for some ideas on the organisation of subsections for this article and sub-articles, but not alas much yet in the way of remediative action.
Some background on the current situation: firstly, a while back now some of the text from this main article was split off into separate ones (eg Maya architecture, Maya society) as the article was weighing in at or above the desirable length. Some of the text was then added back in here, since that had left considerable gaps in topical coverage. Some of the re-inserted text has been rewritten (to summarise main points discussed at greater length in subarticles), but there's still a fair amount of that to do. Secondly, back in about Sept last year a bunch of Maya- (and Aztec-) related articles were separately created, from scratch it seems by several first-time contributors who have made no subsequent additions. You mention a couple of these above, there are probably about a dozen or so in total. Based on the writing style and their (non-)coincidental appearance it may be presumed that these were original school or college-level "essays", or a broken-up larger essay, on various sub-topics. Apart from some minor cleanup these to date have been pretty much left alone and 'quarantined', as they are generally on viable topics but need some considerable work to bring up to scratch, tidy up some incorrect info and integrate into the overall "set" of related articles.
You are right of course, ideally this main Maya civilization article should give a detailed though succinct overview of all the main topical areas, with the array of accompanying 'subarticles' linked to which explore the topics in more detail. It's something which however is taking a fair amount of time and effort to do, or even commence in most cases. You'd be most welcome if inclined to take up on some of this and/or suggest some better ways of reorganising the material. Any help is appreciated.--cjllw | TALK 08:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, I thought this was probably a long running discussion. I may well have a look at how some re-organisation might take place - a fresh pair of eyes might help, you never know. If I want to do anything radical I'll post about it here first. My main worry was the replicated material between sub-articles as this would really confuse the reader and make maintenance impossible. This may be the place to start - ie. removing art and architecture from the society article....I'll get my thinking cap on. Madmedea 13:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for restructure

Right here is a proposed new structure based on analysis of the current articles and what else is lurking in the wikipedia universe....

The first level of bullets will be sections in the top-level article Maya civilisation and the links in the main navigation box. This isn't a big change from the current article structure - but some sections will need to be summarised so they are not repeating the detailed content of the 1st and 2nd level articles.

1st level articles (i.e. Maya art and architecture) would have the second level of bullets as their article sections - some will also lead on with links to "2nd level" articles (i.e. Maya ceramics) which would be summarised in the 1st level article.

N.B. Articles not currently integrated into the series (with "main article" links etc.) on Maya civilisation are in italics.

There are two key things I've tried to achieve with this new structure:

  1. Not to create any new article topics by restructuring - the red links above are either combinations of existing articles to create more logical level 1 articles (Maya religion and mythology and Maya art and architecture or a new level 1 article which brings together existing sections/articles into a more logical place Maya science and technology.
  2. Bring "into the fold" the 14 articles which have been created (and I've come across, there could be others) and do not currently link in with the series of original articles.

I'll leave this list up her for a while to see if anybody has any comments. If nobody objects I'll start the shift around. Madmedea 20:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Madmedea- certainly appreciate you taking the trouble to review the situation and come up with the proposal, which looks generally very sound. Many thanks!
There might be a couple of modifactions which could be made, but if you're keen to make a start then I wouldn't want to delay things too long trying to make a more perfect arrangement. Presumably as things are developed we can see what works and perhaps modify the scheme accordingly.
I can see the value in having 'combination' subarticles such as Maya art and architecture and Maya mythology and religion, although I can also see a value in retaining them separately- if for no other reason than there should easily be enough material to substantiate individual articles (which in turn will summarise a number of tertiary-level sub-subarticle topics).
In the main article itself the "geographical setting" section is deserving of a more extensive treatment on the geography, contrasting zones and natural environment, and there'd be scope for subarticles on these topics as well. But that can be developed in due course.
The ordering of the main subheadings could probably be revised, I'd be tempted to move up 'science and technology' and move down 'society' and 'mythology/religion'.
I think a couple of the subarticles' current titles are sub-optimal, but again that's something which could be revised at some later date once it becomes clearer what the scope of each needs to fill.
As I mentioned before, my (personal) reservation with "bringing into the fold" a few of those existing subarticles was that they are still in need of a good overhaul or even rewrite to fit in with the content and level at which the others are (admittedly far from perfectly) written. However perhaps reorganising things in this fashion will provide some much-needed impetus and addtional attention which can work to clean them up. In any event, your suggested reorg looks to be a fine improvement, thanks once more. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 08:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I agree with everything - i.e. article titles, ordering etc - all is flexible, but you're also right, my intention is to get a basic overhaul done to encourage later editing.... I know the quality of some of the "new" sub-articles isn't top notch, but by not linking in with them at all I fear they are bound to stay that way. I'll make sure they're tagged for their problems so there is a warning to the reader. As far as mythology and religion are concerned my main problem is that at the moment there is no way of defining each topic to make it a clearly separate article; as is the case for many civilizations with belief systems like the Maya (the Inca articles have the same problem). I think if the "List of Gods" was separated off it would make a good single article. I'll do a trial in my sandbox when I get a chance so you can see how it might look. Madmedea 09:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I like it. I find the division between numerals and astronomy (with technology) and calendars (off by themselves) to be a little forced, and think that art and architecture could live separately just as much as together (unlike, as you say, religion and mythology). Also of course "history" needs subheadings. But I think the proposal is good and would support it as is. --Homunq 03:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Andrei Birsan si Maxim Catanoi, istorici nevibatza :-)?

The first section has this title, which I suppose is vandalism. But when I try to edit it, it is not there! I don't understand. It cannot be removed? Francisco Valverde 08:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

68.218.167.44 21:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC) whatevr this is, it doesnt have Bc. it has c. on the date... I am going to edit it to say that and nobodt erase it.. 68.218.167.44 21:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Interlingua

Please add the link to the Interlingua version

[[ia:Maya]]

--190.10.0.110 22:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC) ia:Usator:André Oliva

Hi André - done.--cjllw | TALK 00:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Maya "collapse"

In reorganizing this article and prepping for some revision, I noticed that the content under the Maya collapse could very well be dumped into another newer article - anyone agreee? disagree? My only question would be concerning the title - since the Maya as a whole never actually collapsed, only the network of political systems and city-states in the southern lowlands. It was more of a shift towards the northern lowlands. But i think Decline of the southern Maya lowlands is a bit too bulky as a title... Would Collapse of the Maya or Maya collapse be too misleading? Could we actually call it Maya "collapse" with the quotation marks? (i'm pretty sure that will violate the manual of style in one way or another). Or, because that's what's known to the public at large, use the term collapse and explicitly state that the Maya never actually collapsed in the intro paragraph... hmmm..... Anywho, any input would be welcome -- Oaxaca dan 18:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think as long as the article clearly explains modern scholarship on the subject, the exact title is less important. If it's called simply "maya collapse", then the introduction should clarify. (IOW what's there now is probably fine)--66.30.27.143 04:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference to the other Bonampak image on main Maya page, I do not think it shold be described as 700 BC but 700 AD, even 790 AD as is stated elsewhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.153.124 (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Bonampak image

Original
Current template version
My contrast-enhanced version

Hey. I'm glad to see my image of the paintings at Bonampak used on the Maya civ. template, but I wonder at the way the contrast was increased. The result of the image manipulation was to make the colors really wacky. I'm sure that contrast can be increased without such an effect. So maybe I'll try to make a new version in photoshop and post it. --jacobolus (t) 00:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to the right side →

--jacobolus (t) 00:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in the spirit of WP:BOLD, I think I'll just go ahead and replace uses of the old image with this one. If it's too low contrast, let me know on my wikipedia talk page, and I can try bumping the contrast up even a bit more. --jacobolus (t) 00:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks jacob, I think your retouched img is just fine.--cjllw | TALK 01:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalised

This page has been vandalised, I'l fix it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viccce (talk • contribs) 13:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

whoops, forgot to sign... --Viccce 13:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
In any case, Philofdefuture needs to be banned --Viccce 13:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
They have been now.--cjllw | TALK 00:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

carved jade from private collection

I think this picture should be removed, for two reasons. (1) It is from a private collection and was obviously acquired on the art market. We shouldn't make Wikipedia into an instrument of art dealers. Only its scientific importance could possibly justify its inclusion here, but from an iconographical viewpoint, it has no particular value. (2) We cannot be certain that it isn't a fake (which, by the way, I believe it is).77.162.130.139 13:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi anon (Retal?) - you mean this one? I tend to agree, unprovenanced artefacts (unless notably commented upon in reference sources) are not very good or reliable as illustrative materials. I've no idea about its authenticity- though yes it does look perhaps a little too 'neat'; we should be able to replace it with another more substantive, and substantiated, jade img.--cjllw ʘ TALK 15:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

"At its peak, it was one of the most densely populated and culturally dynamic societies in the world."

"culturally dynamic" --- what does this mean? I dont think this is an appropriate phrase for the opening paragraph, this seems very vague and I can't tell what, if anything, it actually means. Harley peters 02:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I see what the author of that line meant. It means the Mayans, at their peak, were not culturally stagnant or decadent; their art flourished in ways no one had ever seen before, their astronomy was sophisticated, their monuments were numerous and ever more, well, monumental. But it could be better phrased. Something less ambiguous. I think changing "culturally dynamic" for something akin to "culturally advanced" would be worse. "Technically advanced" says a lot and is unambiguous, but it doesn't include many dimensions of what most of us consider culture. "And attained a degree of development equivalent to many great Old World pre-industrial civilisations" or something akin to that. Then, they would ask me what civilisations, and I would say Egypt, China and Greece -- one for each continent, though one could cite many more examples. Old World civilisations are pretty well known, and I don't think I should actually enumerate examples on the article. Or should I?. The word "development" would be attacked as ambiguous, but I think most of us agree that development includes three very important spheres: Education, Health and Wealth (check Human Development Index). So, in my rephrasing, it seems clear the Mayan civilisation, at their peak, was somewhat as educated, as healthy and as wealthy as great Old World pre-industrial civilisations such as Egypt, China or Greece. It sounds unpretentious, unambiguous and impartial; and, adequately for the opening paragraph, it doesn't say anything that is outside the scope or the content of the article. If anyone has an objection to it, please enter in the discussion. Halfleaf (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

the last sentence of the first paragraph says: basically,the mayans were gay.

i tried to delete the entry but in the editing window it just said ha ha.

i sent the link to the article to a mate of mine and for a while all the page said was penis.so i reckon this article should get protected again

nase —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.241.129 (talk • contribs)

I reverted. --Ysangkok 12:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Maya, an Empire, not a civilization

The title of this topic has been absconded, the Maya were an empire, not a civilization, the Maya had Emperors (with names), and fell like empires fall, the Maya held slaves and the Maya practiced human sacrifices. Its not an accurate portrayal and therefore not neutral. The title needs to be Maya or Mayan Empire. An Empire is a domain ruled by an Emperor or Empress. The Mayan Empire fell. Thomas Paine1776 19:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The Maya were not an Empire, you could say many samller empires but this article includes them all refering to the Mayan Civilization. Perphaps your confusing the Mayas with the Aztecs. -ishmaelblues
Um, no. Not at all. One could make a reasonable arguement that the Aztec or Teotihaucan were empires, but I know of no evidence the Maya ever were. Some of the points you bring up seem curiously irrelevent -- what does slavery have to do with it? The United States had slavery up to the 1860s; that doesn't mean the United States was an "empire". -- Infrogmation 22:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
eg. Mayan empire, New Encyclopædia Britannica (1993) calls it an "empire", p. 326. Several scholars refer to them as "Mayan emperors." eg. History Professors Merry E. Weisner Hanks, Ph.D. and Teresa Mead, Ph.D. in their recent work, A Companion to Gender History (2004), p. 88. National Geographic's Lost Kingdoms of the Maya (1997) "the Mayan empire was a cosmopolitan center . . " Lelei Lelaula, President of the United Caribean Trust and former reporter for CNN World Report from the UN, calls it the "ancient Mayan empire". Astronomer E.C. Krupp, Ph.D. "Mayan Empire" in Skywatchers Shamans and Kings, (1999), Magills guide to Military History by John Powell, p. 979. Latin America: A Cultural History (1967) by German Arciniegas, "Mayan Empire" p. 552. etc., etc., etc., Thomas Paine1776 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
yes there were many empires within the civilization and many emperors but the Maya Civilization cannot be fully represented by any one empire. you are wrong go away.-ishmaelblues
National Geographic says you are wrong - "National Geographic's Lost Kingdoms of the Maya (1997) "the Mayan empire was a cosmopolitan center . . " Name the what you are calling the many empires within, make a list with dates. PBS also says you are wrong , "the first Mayan empire lasted from 300 to 900." "For a thousand years the ruled . . " "Seemingly in an instant, the Mayan Empire, the focus of the second episode of Spirits of the Jaguar, collapsed" from PBS: Maya Children of the Corn.,etc., etc., etc., Thomas Paine1776 00:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
read the maya article before editing "[edit] Political structures A typical Classic Maya polity was a small hierarchical state (ajawil, ajawlel, or ajawlil) headed by a hereditary ruler known as an ajaw (later k’uhul ajaw).[9] Such kingdoms were usually no more than a capital city with its neighborhood and several lesser towns, although there were greater kingdoms, which controlled larger territories and extended patronage over smaller polities.
Each kingdom had a name that did not necessarily correspond to any locality within its territory. Its identity was that of a political unit associated with a particular ruling dynasty. For instance, the archaeological site of Naranjo was the capital of the kingdom of Saal. The land (chan ch’e’n) of the kingdom and its capital were called Wakab’nal or Maxam and were part of a larger geographical entity known as Huk Tsuk. Interestingly, despite constant warfare and eventual shifts in regional power, most kingdoms never disappeared from the political landscape until the collapse of the whole system in the 9th century AD. In this respect, Classic Maya kingdoms are highly similar to late Post Classic polities encountered by the Spaniards in Yucatán and Central Mexico: some polities could be subordinated to hegemonic rulers through conquests or dynastic unions and yet even then they persisted as distinct entities.
Mayanists have been increasingly accepting a "court paradigm" of Classic Maya societies which puts the emphasis on the centrality of the royal household and especially the person of the king. This approach focuses on Maya monumental spaces as the embodiment of the diverse activities of the royal household. It considers the role of places and spaces (including dwellings of royalty and nobles, throne rooms, temples, halls and plazas for public ceremonies) in establishing power and social hierarchy, and also in projecting aesthetic and moral values to define the wider social realm.
Spanish sources invariably describe even the largest Maya settlements as dispersed collections of dwellings grouped around the temples and palaces of the ruling dynasty and lesser nobles. None of the Classic Maya cities shows evidence of economic specialization and commerce of the scale of Mexican Tenochtitlan. Instead, Maya cities could be seen as enormous royal households, the locales of the administrative and ritual activities of the royal court. They were the places where privileged nobles could approach the holy ruler, where aesthetic values of the high culture were formulated and disseminated, where aesthetic items were consumed. They were the self-proclaimed centers and the sources of social, moral, and cosmic order. The fall of a royal court as in the well-documented cases of Piedras Negras or Copan would cause the inevitable "death" of the associated settlement."
nowhere in there is any reference to an all encompassing empire, face it your wrong -ishmaelblues
The conclusions of the sources cited above is that the Maya fell as an empire. They use the term that way and they present it that way on professional programs by National Geographic and PBS. By your interpretation, the Maya weren't organized/complex enough or some such thing. This assertion is contradictory and has a PC bias in nature, that does not properly inform readers. It seeks to assert decentralized hypothesis. But that doesn't help your case either because the Maya could also not be called a civilization, so the title is still amiss. More or less you are saying the Maya were an early people. Simple a title of 'Maya' without anything else. The conclusion of the above sources render it as an empire which fell, it had to be an empire in order to collapse, not simply a decentralized group of households or nomads. It is not presented by sources as households that disappeared one by one. The evidence, even in this present article, shows the Maya rulers had organized. They also had slavery and human sacrifices. Thus, the Above sources prove that you are wrong, clearly the Maya fell as an empire, with emperors. not as households. eg. You say there is no evidence of an empire, but the Emperor Pacal was indeed an a Maya Emperor. Thomas Paine1776 18:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
like you said emperors, multiple politcal bodies existing at the same time never on unified empire and even at one time it was the title of Maya Empire does not fully describe the whole civilization. i'm not being baised, i not eurocentric if thats what your implying as an avid reader of Daniel Quinn i'm not even civiliocentric if there even is such a thing. Now go look up greek empire notice how it does not encompass greek civilization. why am i even bothering with you, you do not have the education to tackle mesoamerican history, why don't you go mingle with the people on the simple english page http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page perphaps they would find your insight fascinating then ofcourse you might want to bring a ball of yarn for your big finish. you know what i'm gonna go on a rant here i'm tired of yokels editting history pages and just walking around thinking they have some deep understanding of history cause guess what cletus, you don't! History can be just as complicated as biology or archetecture, but still people think that there half-assed attempts at history wil enlightend the masses, like you've learned something secret in highschool social studies that know one else knoews or you read an article somewhere that you think no one else has seen. i'll put it in simple terms for those of you out there who don't understand the definition of civilization and empire (not pointing to anyone specific thomaspaine1176) history is hard go back to watching spongebob. -ishmaelblues
You are complæetely and 100 % wrong Thomas Paine. There is not a single book dealing with the ancient Maya that would support your claims or talk about one unified Maya empire. Pacal was a ruler of the city state of Palenque, Other citystates had other rulæers at the same time. The knowledge gained in Mayan studies during the past thiorty years have established for a fact that the Maya civilization never "fell" or "disappeared" but there was a certain period where certain city states fell into a decline while others rose. There were still Maya citystates at the time of the conquest and the last Maya citystate fell only in 1697, and the modern maya still embody the remnants of the Mayan civilization. You are speaking against the better knowledge of a host of Mayan archaeologists, anthropologists and historians and frankly you are wasting everybody's time. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Since it seems to be your area of interest . . . First, I never used the term 'unified empire' that is the term used by those ("host of Mayan archaeologists, anthropologists and historians") who would seem to wish stop looking for the heirarchy among the Mayan rulers. (And so those who cannot, simply throw up their arms say alas there was no unified empire). You say, "Maya civilization never fell" yet the title of David L. Webster's work noted in the present article is, The Fall of the Ancient Maya. So you are mistaken. Fell and collapse are terms used by scholars to describe the conclusion of the Mayan empire. And many scholars use the term "Mayan empire," as noted, so you aren't focusing on the issue. It is not presented as royal households simply disappearing one by one, but rather as collapse, that suggests some probable unified reason. The ancient Greeks didn't have the apparent unity whether political or economic that the Maya evidently had. The term Mayan empire is used by many scholarly sources including those cited above. The Maya empire fell as an empire with what evidence shows are the common underpinnings of an empire, with a semblence of organization and commonalities. The cited Pacal was called the Great, and he is referred to by scholars as an emperor. Evidently the titles taken by Mayan rulers were much more than simply a mayor or local sheriff. Its more probable that emperor Pacal was not simply the local mayor of Palenque, the Mayan titles may suggest a collective councillor structure like the Aztecs who also employed the term great. To use the term empire, it is not necessary to prove a 'unified empire' politic, but there are other obvious commonalities that suggest it. However, I would not dismiss that 'unified empire' or some unified concillor structure may have existed. Note, Hoffman, Ochoa, and Tin write (2005) "the exceptional dry spell may have stressed the Mayan empire's governing institutions." The massive Mayan Palace at Cancuensuggests that the Mayan may have had a unified empire, thus your collection of scholars cannot simply assert no unified empire existed, or dismiss the possibility, they can only honestly say they don't know. But the issue is not whether there was a unified empire, the issue is that the title should be Mayan empire, since they were obviously an empire with emperors, not simply a collection of mayors, the evidence that the Mayan empire fell or collapsed or concluded, and did not simply dismantle one by one. They had slaves, human sacrifices, deities, and a universally implemented imperial class ruling with commonality across the empire. A title of Mayan civilization begs some sort of feel good PC bias, and it should go. The title should be Maya empire, or simply Maya, not Maya civilization. . . . . And once again, take note, National Geographic, PBS and others properly call it the Mayan empire - "National Geographic's Lost Kingdoms of the Maya (1997) "the Mayan empire was a cosmopolitan center . . " (Not many empires within) , "the first Mayan empire lasted from 300 to 900." "For a thousand years they ruled . . " "Seemingly in an instant, the Mayan Empire, the focus of the second episode of Spirits of the Jaguar, collapsed" from PBS: Maya Children of the Corn.,etc., etc., etc., Thomas Paine1776 00:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
you loose discussion over -ishmaelblues
I won't add to what Maunus, Infrogmation et al have already provided as conclusive proof that no Mayanist scholar believes the Maya ever constituted an "Empire", which is also borne out by the article's text and references. I will point out that PBS and National Geographic are not considered by authentic researchers as in any way reliable. Coincidentally, this past week a number of prominent Mayanist researchers have vocally criticised a recent National Geographic Magazine special on the Maya for its inaccuracy and carelessness, including a number who had actually been approached by NG to 'review' it pre-publication. See the discussion thread on the AZTLAN mailing list this month on the NG's poor efforts: here for eg is what David Stuart has to say:[2]

[http://www.famsi.org/pipermail/aztlan/2007-July/003097.html

I was shown the preliminary text of this NG article about two months ago, and was thoroughly appalled by what I read. The editors said it was too late to make major changes. So why bother vetting it with the people who know anything, I wonder?? It was like with Apocalypto, when Mel Gibson decided to show me the rough cut here in Austin only months before the release, and then wouldn't take suggestions. It isn't surprising I guess, but it appears these large media efforts in print or on screen -- and National Geographic is now a media company more than anything else -- no longer really care much what experts think or say. They just want a "good story," truth or fiction.

]

Or this from John Carlson:[3]

[http://www.famsi.org/pipermail/aztlan/2007-July/003101.html

I was contacted by a conscientious National Geographic Magazine researcher at about the same time and was asked some specific questions about Maya astronomy, calendar, and the caption for one specific photograph in particular. My conversation with the researcher indicated a sense of what I believe is the "tip of the iceberg" with the status of "research" and quality control at the venerable Magazine. It ain't the good ol' days anymore. I replied with comments in writing, suggesting that the photo and its caption were quite wrong. The photo was a bad choice and a meaningless "throwaway" shot and the caption was wrong. When I got the issue, the photo was in and the misleading caption hadn't been changed. So... why did they bother asking?

]

In short- don't believe everything you read in NG.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
NG takes a broader objective investigative view, that's what honest science does. (BTW, programming has much more vetting than a news photo). Perhaps many of the called Mayanists have boxed themselves in unneccessarily to a narrower point of view. Perhaps Mayanists have adopted some agenda since their field is confined. The public is much more likely to trust NG's view on these matters. It appears some Mayanists dismiss prematurely without awaiting evidence. Many so called Mayanists would be better off being honest and saying they simply don't know yet, just as they did not know about the massive Mayan Palace at Cancuen.. Perhaps NG will do a special on the Palace. Unified or not, many scholars refer to the Maya properly as an empire, with commonalities, not a random collection of royal households with a vague court paradigm. It fell as an empire. Nevertheless, the article needs improvement. It could discuss some variety of scholarship on the empire. It doesn't mention that it is called an empire by scholars. It doesn't even mention the recent finding of the Palace at Cancuen. Thomas Paine1776 16:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
NG is not science at all it is a popular magazine. About what you think you know about the maya and maya scholarship you are wrong on all accounts . You are the one who should admit that you simply don't know, you obviously have no other frame of reference to maya studies than one article in a popular magazine. As for "fell as an empire" it is complete and utter unfounded nonsense and noone has believed this since 1950. If we were to let you edit the article according to your beliefs it would be disastrous for the credibility of wikipedia. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This debate began with the statement, "the Maya were an empire, not a civilization". Is this not a semantic misunderstanding? The term "civilization" is very broad and includes things such as empires. The term "Mayan civilization" does not specify whether there were empires or not. See Civilization and Empire. Pfly 21:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Category

This article should be in a subject category, maybe Maya civilization. Katherine Tredwell 17:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It used to be, but it seems some recent anon vandal edit removing the cat & some other info went uncorrected. It is now restored, thanks for the alert.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Codecs

The article leaves the reader witht he impression that 'codecs' is a tranliterated Mayan word ratther than 'codex' the ordinary English word (from Latin) for a bound book.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.0.49.137 (talk • contribs) 17 August 2007.

{{Sofixit}} (though I didn't get that impression). The Evil Spartan 00:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I rewrote it to make it clearer. In any case the link to codex is there to explain.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Tlaloc and Quetzalcoatl

I Changed the Aztec names Tlaloc and Quetzalcoatl, by the much earlier Maya names Chaac and Kukulkán in the Jade mask image, also added some Preclassic sites in the highlands and pacific lowlands, and the Preclassic San Bartolo Murals in art. mayasautenticos 04:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Authenticmayamayasautenticos 04:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Chombawhomba tribe???

There's a reference to: 

 The Maya participated in long distance trade with many of the other
Mesoamerican cultures, including Teotihuacan, the Zapotec,
the Chombawhomba tribe, and ...

...emphasis above is mine. Is this legit, or has someone cleverly placed a musical reference at the expense of this article? I've tagged it with a "{{fact}}" but if someone can take a look and see if the article history is any help or actively find a source to configm it, that'd be great. Nate (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just some silly prank, now removed.--cjllw ʘ TALK 23:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

I wanted to read the history of the Maya people, but all I found was "hi". Can this be fixed? I got an account just so I could point this out (my first edit!). It also looks like someone tried to undo the vandalism, but it is not showing up. Lilviolinist (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)lilviolinist

add maya in persian

please add Maya in Persian by this name قوم مایا —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.185.3.21 (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Maya in popular culture/literature

I think it would be nice to have information - or at least a list - of the Maya in movies, books, etc. I think a separate entry should be named (but what to call it?) and a link made from here to there. E.g., Kings of the Sun (movie), Apocalypto, The Mystery of the Mayan Treasure (Super Slueth Series), The Lost Treasures of Yucatan: A Belizean Saga, Mayan Gold: A Jack Riley Adventure, The Mayan Mystery (Choice Adventures Series #14), Mystery of the Maya (Choose Your Own Adventure, No. 5); "Copan " by Joya Fairchild, "The Fall fo teh Mayan Empire" by David Keig, "Yax K’uk Mo' by G. Hepner. Kdammers (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. But I find that often these popular culture references sections get out of control (particularly when in list or bullet format), picking up every minor mention in obscure video games, comics, song titles, etc. These collections tell you nothing about the Maya themselves, at most only that game designers, novelists, musicians etc are not very original when it comes to thinking up stuff to publish. Maybe if it was done as a narrative instead of a list, for the purpose of examining differences btw how the Maya are portrayed in modern culture and how they are actually believed to have been. But those kinds of assessments are hard to write without some original research and WP:SYN, unless there are already citeable sources out there that do this. Alternatively, a separate page listing 'modern cultural references and portrayals of ancient Maya civilization' — doesn't intrude into the article, but not sure whether that's 100% kosher within content, style & notability guidelines. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I made this suggestion for a number of reasons, one of which was that such lists (e.g., fiction about Chicago) seem to be popular (there's a way to find views of Wik lists, but I don't remember it, so I can't verify my statement). Yes, there is a tendency to get out of hand, but that's true of Wik in general. It takes a diligent editorship. when You write "separate page," do you mean article? Kdammers (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Maya Sites

Can someone who has editing abilty for this site correct the links to several topics under the Maya Sites catagory? Naranjo, Piedras Negras, and Seibal should all be directed specifically to the Mayan sites rather than a break out page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.222.18 (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

project for school

hi. im doing a project for social studies at school about the mayan people. i have some trouble finding the answerss to some questions. like:

Who were the major trading partners?

What were the major religion, ideas, practices, or beliefs that influenced the civilization?

How is the traditional culture seen today?

thanks. the trading one is the most diffiucult. Ilovleo96 (talk)

add link for tamil language

ta:மாயன் நாகரீகம் —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.10.24 (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's Mayan, not Maya

I have started making corrections, let's all continue to make the necessary corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwilczyn (talk • contribs) 22:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dwilczyn. Those corrections are unnecessary, since for this article and related others we have intentionally followed the common conventions of Mayanist scholarship and literature. Namely, using Mayan for the language and linguistic aspects only, and Maya for everything else, as both a singular and plural noun and adjectivally. For one example in the field that directly mentions these usage conventions, see Note 1 in this reference, by Mayanist epigrapher Peter Mathews.
Hence, "Mayan languages", but "Maya civilization" (note the article title), "Maya mythology", "Maya peoples", etc. This has been discussed in the past, see the previous discussion (in talk archives). Regards --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

End of the World as predicted by the Mayans

I was told by someone that the Mayan people predicted the End of the World in 2012, is this true of false? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.64.116 (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

False, see entry under Dec 21 in the 2012 article.--cjllw ʘ TALK 23:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My reversion

I hit the wrong "revert" button and didn't get to write an edit summary. While the added material appears very much legit, no references were used and the name of the god Bolon Dzacab contradicts the name of the god given in the image description. It's very likely that I don't know about developments in our understanding of Maya deities, so sorry for wasting time, but I don't feel comfortable with seemingly-contradictory unreferenced content. Awickert (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Victoms of self-inflicted changes to environment

At I made an entry about a article to be made about people that become victoms of self-inflicted changes to the environment (which happened to the mayans aswell as the people at Rapa Nui, and the Khmer). This was for the described people (Maya people and the Khmer people) due to increasing populations, deforestation.

The references for this are at http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/07/angkor/stone-text/9 for references

Also in this article, a reference about the Little ice age and its negative consequence on the mayans (noted as even or even more lethal than the spanish invasion) should be implemented.

Merge to Maya peoples

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No merge, by clear consensus --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A merge with Maya peoples should be done, as the older mayan civilisation is a precursor the the current one. The reference about mayans as an incorrect term for the current guatemalans, ... should be removed as a whole, a disambugation page can be placed here; it has no place at Wikipedia

Merging is not a practical solution, referring to related articles is. The word 'Mayans' is an awkward synonym for 'Mayas'. It has probably been formed by analogy to 'Guatemalans' and 'Americans', nouns derived from a topographical adjective. Of course, not all Guatemalans are also Mayas, and not all Mayas are Guatemalans. The ancient Maya civilization is very relevant, however, to the history of the modern Guatemalan state, as well as to some of that state's most burning questions.77.162.130.139 (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree to this merge - Maya peoples, although linked to Maya civilization by history, are a wholy separate subject - broadly speaking, Maya civilization falls in the realm of history/archaeology while Maya peoples falls within ethnography. To merge them would be (very) roughly equivalent to merging Roman Empire and Romance languages. Maya civilization effectively ended with the final conquest of the Peten Lakes in 1697, while the scope of Maya peoples is very much with the modern ethnic groupings.Simon Burchell (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree to keep the articles separate. Both articles are quite substantial already, and a merged article could be easily large enough to justify a split. This is a logical basis for a split, and provided we have proper cross-referencing, I think we should keep the two separate articles as is. Wdford (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't merge. While there is a genetic and cultural continuity between the many different maya peoples of modern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize and Honduras and the precolumbian maya cultures they clearly constitute two completely different topics in an encyclopedic sense.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't merge. There is a profound separation between subjects...Modernist (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't merge. The Maya civilization is a thing of the past (I think very few would call the present-day Maya lowlands the "Maya Civilization"). The Maya peoples are not. Awickert (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Rediscovery" of Maya sites, culture, history...

I edited a small portion of this section which rather inaccurately supposes that John Lloyd Stephens/Catherwood "rediscovered" the Maya after hearing sketchy folklore about lost cities. This is a blatantly anglo-centric perspective and not accurate. It disregards the long tradition of Spanish exploration of Maya sites and writing.

Stephens/Catherwood brought the ancient Maya to a very large audience, undoubtedly an important role, but they were hardly the original pioneers of Maya studies.

While the early modern/modern Spanish clergy and officials were often brutal oppressors of native peoples and culture, they did develop a very functional understanding of Maya writing-- to which subsequent scholarship is indebted. DartmouthRC2009 (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)DartmouthRC2009

While the early modern English-American clergy and 'officials' were oftenly peaceful adorers of 'native peoples' and 'culture'? Again with the anglo-masturbatory ritual... 81.84.77.241 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Chichén Itzá spelling

Someone should correct the spelling of Chichén Itzá. Since accents are clearly used in the article, they should be used everywhere applicable. And since the article is locked and I cannot correct the spelling, someone else with permission must do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlogesualdo (talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no real need to do so, the accents are a requirement only of Spanish orthography, but Chichen Itza is a Maya not a Spanish placename. We generally follow the principle to apply Spanish orthography eg accents to Spanish placenames, but not to placenames deriving from indigenous languages if that language doesn't use accents (for eg). The article itself is at Chichen Itza, not Chichén Itzá. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism (Nov, 2009)

When accessing the page without being logged on this is what I see:

[vandalism]

This case of vandalism is not visible when logged on. Why? And what to do? User:bachdraft 15:52, 23 November 2009

I also wonder how it went unnoticed for such a long time. So far 'logged in' is concerned, there might be other vandalised pages which went unnoticed till date. 117.98.79.156 (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no current vandalism. Please read Wikipedia:Bypass your cache for instructions on how to load the current version. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 16:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand... after I read this notice, I've checked the article using IE, which I never use, so it had no cache whatsoever. The article had the vandalism described above. I tried fixing it, nothing worked. And now it's gone and doesn't show anymore. What happened? --Jashiin (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The vandalism can be attributed to this edit to {{Maya civilization}}, which was transcluded in the article.  Skomorokh, barbarian  16:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Skomorokh. Although I never saw any vandalism (either logged out or in) I purged the server cache just in case any transclusions were causing issues. I don't know how articles are stored but it may be one of the servers was tardy picking up the change if Wikipedia uses a distributed architecture. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 16:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the explanation. I checked that template, but apparently it was fixed before I checked it, and I didn't check its history. Lesson learnt! --Jashiin (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries, now we are better prepared for next time.  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There's really no need to preserve whole pages of vandalism here. -LlywelynII (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Indeed the Maya_Civilization page has been vandalised. I was unable to see who did it since I'm at work but it shows both logged off and logged in.

I wish there was a 'Report Vandalism' button or something so that blatant disfigurement like this gets priority.

Any hints on how such edits can be undone or does it require special user privileges?

Manuvidya (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tried fixing it myself, but couldn't, this is some weird kind of vandalism. So I reported it at WP:ANI. --Jashiin (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"zenith passage" or "zenial passage"

The term used by a leading Maya scholar is "zenith passage" for the passage of the sun across the zenith. See 

 Anthony F Aveni: "Skywatchers: A Revised and Updated Version
 of Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico". University of Texas Press.
 2001 Austin TX. ISBN 0-292-70502-6.

pages 66..67. I have never seen "zenial" in an astronomical context (nor in any other context), but I have seen "zenithal". - Michael Deckers Michael Deckers (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, some wag included this under wikt:zenial passage, but Google thinks you're right. -LlywelynII (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Misleading Image

Currently, the lede map of Mayan Mexico has the caption "Extent of the Maya civilization," which is obviously incorrect: the Maya never settled Durango or Chihuahua. The "Extent of the Maya civilization" is the inner border... but what's the outer one? The extent of recovery of Maya artifacts? I'll change it to that, but does anyone have a source? -LlywelynII (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Author actually did explain on the Commons page. Emended to "Major Maya sites of the Classic and Post-Classic periods. Inner border (red) the limit of Maya civilization; outer border (black) limit of other Meso-American cultures." -LlywelynII (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Header is right: Turkish article is amazing

Can anyone translate it over here? Or did someone already and the information just got shunted to all the subpages? -LlywelynII (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't speak a word of Turkish, but on looking at it looks like someone has put some great effort in there ... the prose /pictures / layout all look just about right... so even if it has been split, the whole tempo looks like it could be an improvement. We need a bilinguist! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
While the turkish article is reasonably broad and has some quite decent content, other parts of it don't look so great and I doubt there's much info there that we haven't already covered (either in this main Maya civilization article or in one or more of the various 'sub-topic' articles we have). For eg, the Turkish one goes into some details on specific sites, but we cover all that (and more) in our en.wiki articles on those sites. Likewise, the material on languages we've comprehensively covered in Mayan languages, and the material in the tr.wiki article about post-conquest/contemporary Maya we cover separately in Maya peoples.
Blocks of the turkish article are imports/translations from the spanish wiki equivalent (which in turn took some elements from en.wiki). The lead of the tr.wiki article largely mirrors the lead written for this en.wiki article, and there are other passages that are likewise familiar—I recognise a few of the footnotes as copies of ones I'd worked on in english wiki articles, eg #'s 181-185. While there are still extensive passages purposefully (& decently) written anew for the turkish article, any general import & translation of material from tr.wiki to en.wiki would need to take care not to reintroduce material we already have, here or in other articles.
Another concern I'd have with this tr.wiki article is that it seems to devote an inordinate amount of space to discussing several fringe and long-discredited ideas:
  • There are paragraphs covering supposed links with the 'lost continent' of Mu and the 19thC musings of Churchward and Le Plongeon. I don't think the article necessarily endorses these outright, but as far as I can tell it doesn't go far enough in highlighting that this is way way out on the fringe, instead treating as almost like one of several respectable alternative views.
  • There's a whole section apparently devoted to listing alleged parallels between Maya iconography/mythology and those of other remote cultures—ancient Egyptian, Dogon, Hittites, Anatolian cultures, etc. Given that there's absolutely no credible claim of any actual cultural or historical connection, these supposed similarities are out of place being mentioned at all & any suggested or implied links lack justification.
  • The language section, plus some parts of the religion and culture sections, seem to uncritically represent claims of a possible direct relationship between Mayan languages and Turkic ones, and by extension an element of cultural origins/derivations as well. Maybe not so surprising that it's mentioned in the turkish article, given that even today the Sun Language Theory (and its accompanying notion that ancient Turkic peoples of Central Asia were progenitors of all civilizations) probably still has its adherents in some robustly nationalistic circles in Turkey, albeit in quite the dwindling minority AFAIK.
  • A couple sentences mention crystal skulls in association with Maya artefacts with what seems an undue credulity
  • A few other unreliable sources appear to be relied upon in some areas, eg pseudoarchaeologists like Adrian Gilbert, von Daniken, & Maurice Cotterell, Haluk Berkmen; or following Domingo Martínez Paredes in the section on Hunab Ku.
These aside, the majority of the article does seem to be reasonable however. But even so I don't see much advantage in an effort to translate and winnow out potential bits (from the non-fringe components) that could be re-used, as most if not all is covered here or in related subtopical articles (a few of which actually used to be part of this page until they were split out into their own a couple years ago, IIRC). If any parts from tr.wiki article are proposed for inclusion here, I'd suggest detailing it here on the talkpage first so it cld be appropriately reviewed first. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

important maya events

are there any really important maya relegios events recorded in history that lets say moved entire cities im doing a project and im curios if there are any thank you!Fdkmx236 (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


Can someone insert the link to the maya codices http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_codices in The Spanish Church and government officials destroyed Maya texts and with them the knowledge of Maya writing, but by chance three of the pre-Columbian books dated to the post classic period have been preserved.[which?] I can't edit for some reason —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.159.11.10 (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Maya codices is already linked from the writing system section, which is probably more appropriate - BTW the page is currently locked against anonymous editing due to persistent vandalism, if you'd like to be able to edit, it would be best to register. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Move

I do not know, but, probably, there was a discussion abut this.... I think it is better to move the content of this page (and its discussion page, of course) to Maya (which is the proper name of this article. And, also make this page (Maya civilization) a redirect to Maya and move Maya to Maya (disambiguation). This last page (Maya (disambiguation)) is a disambiguation page but it is used as a redirect to Maya, and this is not correct. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Daswisher, 18 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} {add in agriculture} Irrigation systems have been reported (according to INAH as told by Monoclem Ediciones) as being used by the Maya. The system is a simple system of channeling water from near by sources such as lakes or rivers, sometimes even by channeling collected rain water. Daswisher (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 01 May 2011

{add to external links} Link to map of Maya sites/region http://www.mayamap.org

Done Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T/S 04:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

History: Pre-classical period

In the 'History: Preclassical period' is says:

The Maya area was initially inhabited around the 10th century BC. Recent discoveries of Maya occupation at Cuello in Belize have been carbon dated to around 2600 BC

The 10th century BC would be 1000BC wouldn't it? So was the area first inhabited in 2600BC or 1000BC? Does anyone know, or be able to clarify the language here? Ashmoo (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Mayans predicated bout 12.21.2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.94.92.117 (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

help

--108.22.248.26 (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)--108.22.248.26 (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)iiItalic textBold text help my dad wants me to explain this and I can't understand any of this

Edit request on 30 November 2011


66.41.54.155 (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No request made--Jac16888 Talk 01:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"It is sometimes believed..."?

It is sometimes believed[attribution needed] that the multiple gods represented nothing more than a mathematical explanation of what they observed. Each god was literally just a number or an explanation of the effects observed by a combination of numbers from multiple calendars.

This seems to have survived for a while without attribution, and smells like nonsense to me. Can anybody attribute it? --Niten (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there can be many that take this seriously. It's unref'd so I've cut it. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a little change

I changed the text "Northern El Salvador" to "western El Salvador." The long axis of El Salvador runs east west and Maya sites (the Chalchuapa sites, San Andres, Joya de Ceren) are located in the western part of the country. One frequent convention is to use the north-south middle to lower reach of the Lempa River as a boundary between Mesoamerica/the Maya area and Central America/the Lenca area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCSaint (talk • contribs) 01:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Maya beginnings traced to the Soconusco?

I just added the [citation needed] tag to this sentence: "However the most widely accepted view, as of 2010, is that the first clearly Maya settlements were established around 1800 BC in the Soconusco region of the Pacific Coast." I think this refers to recent discoveries at Paso de la Amada, but I have never seen anything saying that that area was explicitly Maya, certainly not as early as 1800 BC. I didn't remove the text, because there may be recent scholarship I'm not sure of, but I am very leery of anything that would ascribe a single origin to something as complex as Maya civilization.

That paragraph is citing Coe, but I've just looked at my copy (admittedly 5th ed, not 6th ed) and the cited page is refering to the earliest human settlement in the region, not the Maya specifically - in any case, the date is way too early for Maya, probably 1500 years out. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Excessive amount of illustration

The Art section is excessively illustrated, out of proportion to the amount of text. Pictures can easily be found in the lead article, and the illustrations of many of the other Maya Civilization sections will necessarily show works of art as well.77.162.130.139 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

New information to add

Recent findings suggest the Maya had large reservoir networks which brought filtered water to cities. Such a system has recently been confirmed at Tikal. I propose adding this information.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2174842/Ancient-Mayan-dam-created-man-20-million-gallon-reservoir-uncovered.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-maya-water-system-20120716,0,1580924.story

Tat Xiwan (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Correlations

While the Wik article on Mayan calendar correlations stubbornly accepts the validity of the GMT, astronomers are far from convinced (e.g., http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asna.200710892/abstract). In any case, our Mayan article here gives dates with-out any mention of the entire issue. It is simply wrong to write bald pre-contact dates with-out any indication what-so-ever that this is not a done deal or even that there is such a thing as correlations.Kdammers (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Question

I have a question.. what did the Mayans, Aztecs, and Incas lack where they settled? I have to know this for a project in school. Please help me guys!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielle Bieber (talk • contribs) 13:01, 2 February 2013‎ (UTC)

They lacked guns, steel, European germs, sushi, rutabegas, video games, fire hydrants, samurai, kangaroos, cars, good Polish jokes, school projects, icebergs, vodka, lemmings, and all other manner of things which, like this question, are best discussed elsewhere than the Talk page for the article, which is intended only for discussion of changes to the article.

204.65.34.73 (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Dating Consistency

Can we get some consistency with regard to using BCE and CE, in place of BC and AD? 71.236.136.34 (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2014

there is a misspelling of the word "civilizations" as "civilisations" Zzbolt (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC) you should probably change that.

Done, although "civilisation" is the British form of the word, not a misspelling. I changed it anyway for consistency with the rest of the article. Cheers, LittleMountain5 06:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

How did they build there city's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.154.122.145 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request 11/2014

{cn} requested to fact-check the claim that the Mayan calendar was "more" accurate than the Gregorian calendar: even the Main Article for Mayan calendar notes that its most accurate form (the Haab) was only accurate to 365.0 days (with Mayan knowledge that it wasn't exactly 365 days, BUT an accuracy to only 2 more digits, i.e. "365.xx": http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-mayan.html). The Gregorian is accurate to 365.2425...4 digits or 365.xxxx (see Main Article for Gregorian calendar). The Gregorian has a "leap year," the Mayan Haab doesn't, and Leap Years don't happen EVERY four years (but we might not in our entire lifetime even see one of these cases where we'll skip a Leap Year), which is what gets the Gregorian from 365.25 to the more accurate 365.2425 accuracy. 72.183.52.92 (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2015

maya carved stone really good Kobedimick (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 02:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Tikal

I think there should be more information about Tikal, those are one, if not the most, important mayan ruins of the civlizattion. This including full paragraphs and pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrlujan88 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Since this is an article about the civilization as a whole, it is not appropriate to focus on any one city. I did a quick count, and Tikal is mentioned almost twice as much as any other city, and has four photos, even though other cities rivalled it in importance at different times. Tikal does already have a fairly detailed article of its own, with a number of subarticles on different aspects of the city - such as the North Acropolis, Lost World Complex, Plaza of the Seven Temples, and individual articles on the most important temples in the city (Temple I, Temple II, Temple III, Temple IV, Temple V, Temple VI and Temple 33). This list is not exhaustive, and there are other articles specifically dedicated to different aspects of the city. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. Great improvements here btw! Time to archive the talk page again though (after 7+ years). Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Johnbod - and thanks for the atlatl pic! All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2015

Pennsylvana =Pennsylvania

Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I've fixed the typo. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Faulty English

In the Merchant's section the English is faulty.

The Maya had no pack animals, so all trade goods were either carried on the backs of porters when going overland. If the trade route followed a river or the coast, then goods were transported in canoes. => The Maya had no pack animals, so all trade goods were either carried on the backs of porters, or transported in canoes if the trade route followed a river or the coast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.97.167 (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - I've fixed the faulty phrasing. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Short Count

Simon: The text you support contains gross errors, like the editor saying that the Short Count is the same as the Calendar Round. I don't know what you think is un-cited. The text I added contains links to the main articles about this which discus it in more detail and they don't support the original version. What do you think needs more references? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The article says:"Calendar Round (or Short Count)". No the Short count is not the same thing as the Calendar Round. Read the linked Short Count article. "Scholars have assumed that the Maya continued to regularly count cycles of the Calendar Round since they stopped using the Long Count" This is wrong. There's no reason to assume since the two citations to Milbrath and Tedlock establish that they did continue to use the Calendar Round - until now. Why add a few of the obviously wrong correlations? Many of these are listed in the cited main article:

Main article: Mesoamerican Long Count calendar § Correlations between Western calendars and the Long Count

"The Spinden Correlation would shift the Long Count dates back by 260 years; it also accords with the documentary evidence, and is better suited to the archaeology of the Yucatán Peninsula, but presents problems with the rest of the Maya region. The George Vaillant Correlation would shift all Maya dates 260 years later, and would greatly shorten the Postclassic period. " Huh? Isn't this un-cited? Also these "facts" are very questionabe. Yes, this brief section defers to the main articles (which are linked) and where this is all discussed and cited more thoroughly. Why is this a problem? Isn't the article better with factual text? Did you really read what I wrote carefully, or just hit revert? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The calendar is not my strongest point, and there may have been confusion between calendar round and short count. However, at what point is anything uncited? Everything in the article is cited. None of the correlations is 100% solid, and there is no reason to leave out some of the alternatives, while stressing which is the currently preferred. The text you added should contain inline cites - it is no good at all relying on cites in a wikilinked article. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I know that Wikipedia can't be a reference for itself. I'll try to find more citations. You are wrong about the GMT correlation. It IS 100% solid. Please carefully read Correlation section of the Long Count article is which Michael Coe is quoted as writing in Breaking the Maya Code: "In spite of oceans of ink that have been spilled on the subject, there now is not the slightest chance that these three scholars (conflated to GMT when talking about the correlation) were not right". The correlation question should have been dead and buried in 1950. The studies by the Teadlocks and Susan Milbrath which revealed that many ethnic groups still use the Calendar Round today, that these are all consistent with each other and the GMT correlation should have been the nails in the coffin of this debate. The main article lists many of the other proposed correlations and there is no reason to mention the few you added because none of them have any credibility. You say "The calendar is not my strongest point". If so they maybe you should let others that understand it write these sections. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
An inscription at the Temple of the Sun at Palenque records that on Long Count 9.16.4.10.8 there were 26 days completed in a 30 day lunation. Using the Modified Spinden correlation (489,383 days) you would get seven days. With the Spinden correlation (489,384 days) it would eight days. The Vaillant 1 correlation (679,183 days) would give you 15 days and the Vaillant 2 (774,083 days) would give you three. Using modern computer software it's trivial to test these against astronomical events in Maya inscriptions and codices and dismiss them. As you note, these don't agree with carbon dating of the lintels at Tikal, which was recently redone and agreed even more closely with the GMT. Why mention these? Doesn't it just muddy the waters with mis-information? Senor Cuete (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No 13 bak'tun great cycle

The Ancient Maya by Sharer and Traxler is the source for most of this article and most of it is plagiarized from this source (113 out of 284 references) by Simon Burchell (1654 edits).

The table of higher orders of units of the Long Count copied from page 102 of Sharer and Traxler is correct. There are 20 bak'tuns in a pictun. The evidence for this is described in the Long Count article. Then on page 110 Sharer and Traxler describe the great cycle of 13 bak'tuns three times. This often repeated but apocryphal story is also copied from Sharer and Traxler into this article. This is impossible. Either there are 20 bak'tuns in a pictun or there are 13, not both. The answer is that THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE IN ANY INSCRIPTION OR CODEX THAT THE MAYA EVER HAD A 13 BAK'TUN GREAT CYCLE and overwhelming evidence to the contrary is presented in the Piktuns and higher orders section of the Long count article. This is why the great cycle is not mentioned in either the Maya calendar or Long Count article. I have removed this statement from this article. Please read the linked articles carefully, particularly the Long Count Piktuns and higher orders section. This provides many examples from inscriptions and the Dresden Codex that there are 20 bak'tuns in a piktun. In order to be a reliable source, a secondary source would have to cite a primary source, namely an inscription or the Dresden codex serpent series. There are none. All inscriptions use 20 bak'tuns in a piktun. Senor Cuete (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what sources Sharer and Traxler cite, that is the most reliabel comprehensive source on Maya civilization, used in virtually all university level courses on the topic since the first edition in the early 20th century. There is absolutely no basis for questioning its reliability or for removing facts from it because you personally do not agree. I am reinstating the statement. And you will not be ale to remove it untill you find a more reliable source that explicitly contradicts it. There is no requirement that secondary sources as reliable and respcted as this must cite a primary source for every statement found in them. Your own OR is not an argument.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Your accusation of plagiarism is extremely serious and needs to be backed up by evidence - or else it is a breachof the civilty policy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Your insertion of a malformatted primary reference instead of Sharer and Traxler into a recently promoted FA is also highly problematic. And I have reverted it. If you wish to add it, then add it in addition to Sharer and Traxler, and format it correctly following the article's established style.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, You should carefully read the Piktuns and higher orders section of the Long count article, including the references. This section cites many reliable sources for my assertion that there are 20 bak'tuns in a piktun. Sharer and Traxler don't actually cite any specific source for their assertion that there is a 13 bak'tun great cycle, because they don't use footnotes in their book, just vague nonspecific attributions in their appendix. Think about it Maunus - is it really possible that the Long Count used both 20 and 13 bak'tuns in a piktun? If so then why has nobody ever found one single inscription that is an example of a 13 bak'tun great cycle? Do you really think that the 19 references in the Piktuns and higher orders section of the Long count article with examples is original research? Do you think that authorities like Grofe, who's detailed mathematical analysis of the Serpent Series in the Dresden Codex proves that there are 20 bak'tuns in a piktun, are wrong? Do you think that Thompson really didn't find examples of this at Palenque and Copan? Do you think all of these authors are wrong? Sharer and Troxler is excellent but not infallible. You are probably using it as your textbook. It's Sharer and Troxler that don't cite any reliable sources for their text which is self-contradictory. Would you really like me to add text that specifically proves that there is no 13 bak'tun great cycle or is removing the incorrect assertion better? Senor Cuete (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Published textbooks by respected scholars read by hundreds of students every year and published in 10 editions are. Furthermore, most of the sources at the article you refer to do not look like they are of comparable quality as Sharer and Traxler. If you can provide an equally respectable source that explicitly states that there is another number of baktuns in a piktun then that claim can go in addition to the claim of Sharer and Traxler. It would have to be a recent, well-respected, academically published and peer reviewed, review source to be able to compete with Sharer and Traxler. Sharer and Traxler has been through 6 editions, each time with peer review and corrects - so no it is not infallible, but if a fact appears there there is VERY good reason to expect that it a good portion of Maya scholars find it to be correct. I used Morley and Sharer 4th edition when I took my first introduction to Maya culture in 1998, today my archeology colleagues use the 6th edition for their students. And I have never seen an introduction to Maya archeology syllabus that did not use one of its editions, it is quite simply the basic text in the field. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, here's a compromise: I'll add some text saying that there's really no 13 bak'tun great cycle, citing the infallible bible of all things Mayan, the table on page 102 of Sharer and Traxler. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit late here, not much wiki time at the moment - but the accusation of plagiarism is obvoiusly false, and offensive. Everything in this article is cited, and I mean everything. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
"Plagiarism" was a bad choice of words, I apologize for that. Everything is NOT cited because Sharer and Traxler don't use any footnotes, only general loose attributions in their appendices. Theoretically you can't prove a negative, only a positive, by means of evidence. So theoretically I can't prove that there is no great cycle, only present a great deal of really great evidence, like Maya inscriptions, the Dresden Codex and page 102 of Sharer and Traxler. The same standard applies to those who say that there's a great cycle. Shouldn't they have to present some evidence for this? Somebody says there is, but without presenting any evidence for this it's a kind of academic weasel words. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is cited because Sharer and Traxlers use of notes is of nore consequence for wikipedia. We cite it to them, because they are a reliable source. That is all we need to do. If there is a contrasting view then we can cite that also.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • We know that there is regional and historical differences in the use of the higher counts (Van Stone 2011[4]). David Stuart gives at least one example of a 13 baktun cycle, where the baktun count reverts to 1.0.0.0.0.0.0. after 13.19.19.17.19.(Stuart 2011:240 [5]). Hence it seems likely that the Maya sometimes did use a 13 baktun cycle, although perhaps not always. I would suggest perhaps a more cautious wording regarding the cycles above the baktun level.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Maunus: I very carefully read the the text of Stuart to which you linked and the abstract of Van Stone. Both of them agree with me that there are 20 piktuns. I don't see an example of what you say in Stewart. In fact, Stuart says that the next pictun will occur in the year 4772. I'll re-read this. The Van Stone abstract says that there is a possibility that some Maya group used 13. I don't have the full text of Van Stone, but I'll try to get it. Van Stone is an outspoken debunker of the 2012 Mayan Doomsday Hoax because there are 20 piktuns so I would be very surprised to see that he has changed his mind. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
They all agree that a piktun is 20 baktuns, but they also say that there are examples of the baktun cycle resetting after 13. Read Stuart again if you have to. He is quite explicit in saying that this is exactly what happened in at least one case.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Maunus: I decided not to continue to discuss Stewart and Van Stone anymore because this is a Red herring. Even if we could agree that the Maya sometimes used some other variation of the Long Count this would not prove that there ever was a 13 bak’tun cycle of the long count as described in Sharer and Traxler. Changing the subject doesn’t help this debate. The burden of proof is on you. If you can find no evidence for a 13 bak’tun great cycle of the Long count, then this must be removed from the article. Your irrational belief in the infallibility of Sharer and Traxler doesn’t count. Sharer and Traxler is conflicted about this and vaguely cites several possible other secondary sources that may or may not mention this but you can be sure they don’t cite any primary sources because there aren’t any. Therefore I feel justified in removing the erroneous text to improve the article. You might want to read the comments about the calendrics in Sharer and Troller that I wrote on Simon Burchell’s talk page. Also your statement that I can’t edit this article to remove this error is a blatant case of WP:Ownership_of_content.

  • No, the burden of proof is on those who would contradict what is clearly a reliable source.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Again Senor Cuete (talk · contribs), you need to make a better case for why Sharer and Traxler should be discarded - and then you need to get consensus for your proposed changes. You can't just driveby tagbomb an FA like that. Especially when you know the content is sourced and that two editors disagree with your argument.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Maunus: the table shows that there are 20 baktuns in a piktun then the text says that there are 13. How is this not self-contradictory? This is not "driveby tagbombing". You are a bully, carrying out a personal vendetta against me. Senor Cuete (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah yeah and you are a paranoid fool, but that shouldn't stop us from having a civil conversation. You are right that there is an implicit contradiction between the table and the last paragraph, but there are several ways that this could be resolved. As we established above, the most accurate would be to specifically mention that the piktun is sometimes described as having 13 and sometimes as having 20 baktuns, depending on the scholar and on the specific source.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2015

What is this? What is it you want? Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, what he is after can be seen on this sub-page diff. He had pasted the entire article, plus changes, here. He wants a new section "Present-day Maya people" "Currently, there are thousands of Mayan decedents across Mexico, many of which still live by Lake Tenochtitlan. The mayan language still lives on in Mexico. It is spoken by many natives, as an attempt to keep their culture alive. One of the most famous things that the Mayans left behind was their infamous calendar that allegedly predicted the end of the world in 2012."

Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Won't add as is - no references (& various spelling errors etc). This is covered in the "Persistence of Maya culture" section, if you got that far. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggested edit in section "Postclassic period (c. 950 - 1539)"

Pursuant to discussions had with a fellow editor (User:Maunus), I would like to make the following suggestion for an edit, meant at clarifying the reason for Mayapan's demise. The suggested edit, if accepted, will be added in the third and final paragraph, and reads as follows:

Mayapan was abandoned around 1448, after a period of political, social and environmental turbulence that in many ways echoed the Classic period collapse in the southern Maya region. According to Diego de Landa Calderon (1524 - 1579), the city was abandoned following the country's enslavement by a certain chieftain of the Yucatecan nation (in collusion with a garrison of Mexica Indians), and which ill-treatment eventually led to internecine war, culminating in the city's demise in circa 1441.[1] [2] [3] The abandonment of the city was followed by a period of prolonged warfare, disease and natural disasters in the Yucatán Peninsula, which only ended shortly before Spanish contact in 1511. (the continuation here remains unchanged, as it appears in the article)

NOTES:

  1. Yucatán Before and After the Conquest, by Diego de Landa.
  2. Mayapan Yucatan Mexico, H.E.D. Pollock, Ralph L. Roys, T. Proskouriakoff & A. Ledyard Smith, Publication 619: Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. 1962, (Introduction) p. 8
  3. Kukulcan's Realm: Urban Life at Ancient Mayapán, Marilyn Masson & Carlos Peraza Lope, University Press of Colorado 2014, chapter 8: Militarism, Misery and Collapse ISBN 978-1-60732-319-8
But what is the reason that including the sentence on da Landa's statement would improve the section? I honestly don't see the need for this - the section is about Maya civilization in the post-classic - not about Mayapan. Also there are some language problems, e.g. "and which ill-treatment eventually led to internecine war". Also I have never heard of a post-classic "Yucatecan nation".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Since the section refers to postclassic Maya civilizaton, and since it mentions Mayapan explicitly - including its demise - it is only being fair to historians to give a more complete picture of its fall, just as mentioned in historical records, and by scholars of our generation.Davidbena (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
"Yucatecan" nation is the actual word used in the earliest historical records to describe the Maya who lived in the Yucatan Peninsula.Davidbena (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
This is a giant topic and it requires concision and avoidance of excessive detail. The complete picture belongs in the article on Mayapan. And as Marilyn Masson pointed out, Landa is not a good source to take at face value and simply quoting him is likely to be misleading unless accompanied by interpretation and critical analysis from historians. I would support only the inclusion of the setences "Mayapan was abandoned around 1448, after a period of political, social and environmental turbulence that in many ways echoed the Classic period collapse in the southern Maya region. The abandonment of the city was followed by a period of prolonged warfare, disease and natural disasters in the Yucatán Peninsula, which only ended shortly before Spanish contact in 1511.", cutting the mention of de Landa.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I agree with your assessment. We'll make the insertion according to your "abridged" suggestion. Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Definition sentence

Apparently a couple of editors don't like using the word "Maya" twice in the definition sentence preferring instead to contort the language in different possible and impossible directions. None of the proposed wordings (striking "Maya peoples", eponymous people, its people) are preferable and both alter the meaning of the definition making it either inaccurate or uninformative. First of all there is not one but many Maya peoples, and they do not belong to the civilization (making "its people" improper) rather they constructed it and it has therefore been named after them - hence it is the civilization that is "eponymous" not the peoples (see this guide to the use of the word [6]) - and furthermore "eponymous" is just a terrible word to use in an encyclopedia especially in definitions, unless you are writing about rock albums. And finally Maya civilization is defined by having been developed by Maya peoples - hence any attempt to avoid explicitly saying this in the definition makes the definition inaccurate.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the context requires duplication of the word Maya in order to accurately define the topic. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Please explain what is inaccurate or uninformative about "The Maya civilization was a Mesoamerican civilization noted for its hieroglyphic script". Yaris678 (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not an accurate definition because the definition is that it was developed by the Maya peoples, not that it used a specific script.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
There's a link in the template. Using "Maya" twice is utterly redundant. You can explain the fine details in the article's body, perhaps in a dedicated "etymology" section, but please keep it out of the first sentence of the lead. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
No, it is not redundant, but necessary. It would be redundant only if it didnt add information, which it does.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

“conquest stripped away…” There were on-going battles in the subsequent decades and centuries since the arrival of Europeans. At first the armies that defeated the native empires comprised primarily of indigenous allies. Due to the Old World diseases wiping out a large portion of the native population Westernized biracials thrived and gained the ascendancy and fairly quickly outnumbered those who were considered of mostly European ancestry. So describing the process of absorption/assimilation as Spanish isn’t entirely accurate. A bit like describing events prior to 1776 in the US as being carried by the English when the USA had carved out a separate identity long before that date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.122.42 (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Definition

I reviewed the closure after reading the ANI thread and the talk page of the original closer. Clearly there was no bad faith involved here. The question was worded as a double negative, making it difficult to understand for outside parties what 'yes' and 'no' meant, and I had to read the RFC a few times before I got it. Consensus is to include the double wording - "Should it be omitted?" has been answered "no." Please, please be clear when you're asking questions so we can avoid this kind of misunderstanding. Katietalk 14:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This RfC asks if the wording of the definition sentence should omit a second mention of the word "Maya". And if so which construction should be preferred. Please answer by Answering either "yes" or "no" and if Yes add also your preferred wording.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • No The definition of the Maya civilization is that it was developed by the Maya peoples - there is no accurate way to define the topic without mentioning this explicitly. The doule use of the word is therefore not redundant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. The dual use of the word is utterly redundant - who else would develop a Maya civilisation than Maya people!? Further that it actually was developed by them can be introduced in a far less tautological manner in the remainder of the article, so the lead sentence should be "The Maya civilization was a Mesoamerican civilization noted for its hieroglyphic script" as noted above by Yaris678. The current formulation is literally being laughed at on Facebook and I'd be amazed if it wasn't also being laughed at elsewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
But this is not a definition, which Wikipedia requires in the first sentence.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
As a concrete suggestion for how this could be achieved, just change the start of the second sentence from "The Maya civilization developed in an area" to "Developed by the Maya peoples, the civilisation arose in an area". Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't solve the problem of the definition. If there is a consensus to change it, I would suggest instead dropping the "maya civilization", so that we writie "The civilization of the Maya peoples developed in Mesoamerica and is known for its script...."·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:IAR is there for a reason... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but this does not improve the wording, only make it inaccurate.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - either from the wording I enacted in my edits or Thryduulf's proposal above works. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No - I see no problem with the prior wording, and the current {now reverted} version maintains redundancy, using the word civilization twice in the same clause. This is a common situation with articles on various empires, dynasties, and civilizations, but the previous wording dealt with it adequately. Further, WP:BEGIN states that "the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." The change makes the opening more awkward than any perceived redundancy of using Maya twice. Unnamed Facebook users are laughing? Oh noes! Ask them how they would word it; that should be really good for a laugh. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Just pointing out that WP:BEGIN says tells us to "Remember that the title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. I also think some people are missing the point about redundancy. If we are insisting that the first sentence gives a definition... OK... but let's not give it a circular definition. A more sensible definition would talk about the location and the time period. Yaris678 (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The definition is not circular, Maya peoples are not defined by being the people who drove the Maya civilization, but by speaking languages of the Mayan linguistic family.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Is it coincidence that they all contain the word Maya? Or was one named after the other? Yaris678 (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
It is a little complicated but basically the naming order is language > peoples > civilization. It would also be an accurate definition to say "The Maya civilization was developed by peoples speaking the Mayan languages".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I also think that:
  • All the arguments given for the "The Maya civilization was a Mesoamerican civilization developed by the Maya peoples" are reasons why the wording is not as stupid as it sounds, rather than reasons why we shouldn't use less stupid-sounding wording.
  • The above wording also says "Maya peoples, noted for their hieroglyphic script—the only known fully developed writing system of the pre-Columbian Americas" and so appears to be going off on a diversion about the script of the people, rather than talking about things specific to the civilisation. (As far as I can tell, the script is actually specific to the civilisation. Certainly, the article on the Huastec civilization says that they were Maya people that didn't use the Maya script.)
  • The above wording grammatically odd. It says "The Maya peoples, noted for ... its art" we would expect "noted for their art" ... but I am guessing "its" refers to the Maya civilisation.
Yaris678 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Yep, its refers back to the civilization, which was developed by Maya peoples. And yes the Huastecs didnt use the Maya script, and neither do most maya people to do, which is also why the script has "its" and not "theirs". It is the civilization that is noted for these things. The peoples are noted for having developed the civilization, but that is a different story.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you see what I mean about grammatical oddness? Or do you think "The Maya peoples, noted for ... its art" is OK? Yaris678 (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you see what I mean about the apparent diversion? Or do you think it is OK to appear to talk about the people's script, in an article about the civilisation? Do you see that if the script is specific to the civilisation it is easiest not to mention is immediately after we have mentioned the people? Yaris678 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't agree, I think this is a perfectly normal and intelligible construction. The unintended reading can be further averted by inserting an "and" before "noted".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Cool. I have fixed the "grammatical oddness" / "unintended reading" as you suggested.
It would be nice if someone could address "All the arguments given ... are reasons why the wording is not as stupid as it sounds, rather than reasons why we shouldn't use less stupid-sounding wording."
Yaris678 (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Adding the "and" is fine. On the other argument you are incorrect, I have given quite detailed argumentation for why the proposed alternative wordings are worse than the existing one.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
In response to "The Maya civilization was a Mesoamerican civilization noted for its hieroglyphic script" you said this wasn't a definition. This is taking a narrower understanding of the word "definition" than is often applied in Wikipedia. Furthermore, it can be easily addressed by adding the words "largest" and "classic", as in "The Maya civilization was the largest Classic Mesoamerican civilization, noted for its hieroglyphic script".
In response to the idea of defining the Maya civilization in terms of its location, as was done on the Main Page, I've seen nothing specific. Do you also hold that this is not a definition?
If we look at WP:BEGIN, the sentence on a definition says "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a specialised term, provide the context as early as possible." This "definition" in terms of Maya people does not put things in context for the non-specialist reader. You have to be someone who knows who the Maya people are. I have seen no argument put forward about everyone knowing about the Maya people. I've only seen the assertion that Maya civilization must be defined in terms of its people. I've seen the assertion (by Keegan) that this is how anthropology works. I've seen no evidence that this is how anthropology works. I've seen no argument as to why, if this is how anthropology works, we should go with this definition that is understandable by anthropologist (i.e. specialists) but not by non-specialists.
Yaris678 (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No I get Maunus's point. Assuming that X civilization is named after X people makes common sense, but it's not how anthropology always works. X civilization is named after Y people, and it only generally happens that the civilization is eponymous. There are many civilizations founded by peoples not named after/for the civilization, so I think that saying that the Maya civilization is named after the Maya people is an absolutely fair and important part of the definition. Keegan (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No This needs to be specific. It does not necessarily follow that the Maya civilization would be developed by the Maya people. For example, the Huastec civilization was also developed by the Maya people. The defefinition is not circular. The Maya people developed the Maya civilization, but there are many millions of Maya people alive today who belong to the Maya culture, or speak a Mayan language, but do not belong to the historical Maya civilization. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    I think you have just made a very good argument that "The Maya civilization was a Mesoamerican civilization developed by the Maya peoples" is insufficiently specific. Yaris678 (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Not that I can see. In fact that pretty much sums it up, and ideally requires two uses of the word "Maya". Simon Burchell (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Not that you can see. OK. I will try to spell it out. If there was more than one civilisation of maya people, saying "was a civilisation of maya people" could refer to either, whereas saying "was a Mesoamerican civilization in an area that encompasses southeastern Mexico, all of Guatemala and Belize, and the western portions of Honduras and El Salvador." tells us which civilisation we are talking about, which is funny cos that is exactly what appeared on the main page when the article was featured. Yaris678 (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I would say that I disagree with Simons argument in that I dont think most scholars talk about a separate "Huastec civilization" - Huastecs are simply one of the Mesoamerican Gulf cultures along with the Totonacs.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No for the various reasons given above. I don't think I have anything to add. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No per Maunus. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No for the various reasons given above, although I don't think it matters that much. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No - Summoned by bot. Agree with Maunus' arguments. Seems pretty clear at this point. Meatsgains (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No - I agree with Maunus' argument as well. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-closure comments

  • I think this closeure is highly problematic. The closer states that there is a rough consensus for the position voiced by three editors, against the position supported by 9 editors. The closer also states flatly that the minority position is correct, and does not provide an actual or acceptable rationale for how the weighing of the arguments with a 3/1 ration can fall in favor of the minority position.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree - it doesn't appear to reflect the actual discussion at all. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I am undoing the closure which Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) himself acknowledges is based on a misunderstanding.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of edits to calendar section

This is a personal vendetta against me by Maunus, who will always revert anything I do to correct the gross factual errors in this section. Even though he knows what I have written is absolutely correct he will never allow it. He won't study this. He won't read what I wrote. He won't read the supposed references in Sharer and Troxler - which contradict what it says in their book. Shame on you Maunus. What you're doing is totally contrary to all of the principles and rules of Wikipedia. Also this article is nothing more than a condensed version of one book - Sharer and Troxler. Senor Cuete (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No, no vendetta. But you didnt get any consensus for these edits the last time round so I dont know why you would think you could simply insert them now with no discussion. I did see the basic point that you were objecting to, the way that the section didnt clearly distinguish between the different cycles and the ling count. I've made some edits to try to address that but I am open to a discussion on how to represrnt it bettwe, but it would need to be based on sources this time and not just on your own claims about what is right and what is wrong.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm willing to cite a huge number of sources as I mentioned in the previous discussion - principally the authors that Sharer and Troxler supposedly studied to write the calendar section of their book and came to the conclusion that there are both 13 and 20 Bak'tun cycles. Also you should actually read the Van Stone article you mention because it says that I am correct and there is no 13 bak'tun cycle. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The quality of the arguments is important. My willingness to cite numerous definitive references vs. Sharer and Troxler can't be contradicted. Yes, obviously some sort of vendetta or other logical problem. Also it's not really two contributors vs. me. The other editor you use to claim the moral high-ground is being silent except to say that he doesn't know about this. Senor Cuete (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Would you also be willing to begin spelling Loa Traxler's surname right? There are two sources that mention the existence of some inscriptions with 13 baktun cycles one is Van Stone the other is Stuart. I think you should probably provide those sources you have and then we can file an RfC to get wider outside input.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Maunus PLEASE READ the Van Stone article. You keep claiming it says that there are either 13 or 20 bak'tuns. It doesn't. You are simply mis-interpreting the abstract. The page to which you link in Stuart is incomprehensible gobltygook which contains arithmetically and historically impossible nonsense. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed the quality of argument is important. So far your main argument has been that major Maya scholars Sharer and Traxler are incompetent, that the reknowned Maya epigrapher David Stuart writes gobbledygook and impossible nonsense. Your only source has been the Wikipedia article to which you are the main contributer. And the your main counterclaim to Van Stone article is that you believe he writes the opposite of what he is clearly writing. So excuse me if I am not particularly swayed. I have added a sentence noting that both 20 and 13 baktun piktun counts are found in different cities.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Mark van Stone, 2011 p. 190 "Maya Long Counts invariably reset the Era Date odometer from 13 Pik (13 Bak'tuns) back to 1, so one might assume that the next order up, also at 13, would reset as well, and perhaps the next, and the next, and on up" ... "The surprise here is that the coefficient of the Piktun (the next higher order above the Bak'tuns) is (still) 13. As mentioned above, one might expect that, when the Bak'tun coefficient reset to 1, the Piktun coefficient would also have reset, triggering the next higher-order coefficient, etc. Alternatively, it might perhaps have risen to 14. But Yaxchilan HS2 Step VII’s Piktun coefficient stays stuck at 13. Apparently the calendar-priests of Yaxchilan (and perhaps also at Cob´a) considered these higher-order coefficients as purely symbolic; they do not accumulate time like the ‘real’ lower-order coefficients. Perhaps the priests in these cities did expect that the Long Count would restart after the 13.0.0.0.0 in December 2012. They do not, unfortunately, tell us explicitly one way or another" (i.e. at Yaxchilan and Tortugero piktun = 13 Baktun) But at Palenque: "In terms of understanding the 2012 date, this text is critical. It tells us two important things. First, the Palenque priest-prophets did not expect the Long Count calendar to reset after it reached 13. Instead, the next Bak�tun will be 14.0.0.0.0, and then 15.0.0.0.0, and on up to the 20th, when it finally resets and the odometer clicks over the next-higher digit to reach 1.0.0.0.0.0". What van Stone is saying is that there is variation, and some cities used 13 baktuns in a piktun and others used 20.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
No, he's not. Perhaps if you read this again and study this subject, someday you will comprehend it. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I comprehend it fine thank you. And this is in fact the main point of the entire article. So maybe either you produce a source and a coherent argument or you leave the issue alone? You are not engaging in an actual discussion here just hand waving. We will have to start and RfC if you insist to have it your way. So prepare some actual arguments and some actual sources which you will need to convince people that you are right. I have written an email to Dr. Van Stone so that he may himself clarify the proper interpretation of his article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Maya Calendar: How many piktuns in a kalabtun?

There is consensus to mention the 13 baktuns/piktuns. The argument against mentioning this view did not supply any sources. It also claimed that including the information is original research, but this is clearly not the case given the sources, which participants unanimously consider reliable. All participants are reminded to assume good faith. This RfC was quite a bit more contentious than it needed to be. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 13:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This Rfc asks how the article should describe the Maya calendar, in terms of the number of piktun cycles in a '. Should we

A. Describe the Maya calendar system as uniformly using 20 piktuns per kalabtun? (Sources include: )

or should we

B. Mention that some inscriptions use seem to 13 baktuns in the previous piktun and 13 piktuns in the current kalabtun? (Sources for this include Sharer & Traxler, Van Stone 2011, Stuart 2011 (also [7], Carter 2014)
Survey
  • B. Three major specialist sources describe how some inscriptions clock over after 13 piktuns (at least forthe piktun from 3114BCE to 2012CE). Van Stone specifically argues that this is because of local variation in how the larger cycles are counted. That is enough that we need to include this view. Describing it as if the Maya uniformly used the base 20 clock for the higher order cycles would be false. I propose using the following text to describe this:" The Maya used the Long Count Calendar to fix any given day of the Calendar Round within their current great Piktun cycle consisting of either 20 or 13 bak'tuns. Specifically texts in Palenque demonstrate that the bak'tun cycle that ended in 3114 BCE had only 13 bak'tuns, which means that the current piktun cycle is exceptional in containing 13 + 20 bak'tun. There may have been some regional variation in how these exceptional cycles were managed."·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • B. Maunus' arguments seem solid, and the counterargument seems little more than "I disagree" without producing any referncing. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

According to Maunus, The Ancient Maya by Sharer and Traxler says that Long Count inscriptions can have either 13 or 20 bak'tuns. This is a lie. The Ancient Maya has a poorly written section about the calendar that contradicts itself about this. Maunus deliberately INTERPRETS this to say this. Maunus' deliberate misinterpretation of this material can't be in the Wikipedia because it's original research. Ironically this section of The Ancient Maya is supposedly based on Thompson who wrote: "I have throughout assumed that the baktuns were grouped, not in 13's, but in 20's, for the evidence supporting a vigesimal count of baktuns in Dresden and at Palenque and Copan is too strong to be overridden."

According to Maunus The Van Stone article says that some Long Count inscriptions used 13 bak'tuns. This is a lie. The Van stone article shows a non-standard Long count inscription. Even though Van Stone says in the next sentence that this does not shed any light on whether the scribes in this location expected 13 or 20 bak'tuns, Maunus deliberately misinterprets this text to say that there could be 13 or 20 bak'tuns. This can't be in the article because it's original research. Ironically Van Stone was one of the most vocal debunkers of the 2012 Mayan doomsday hoax. His argument: There is no 13 bak'tun cycle in the Long Count.

In 2012 Many authors rushed books into print to make money on the 2012 Mayan doomsday hoax. Sadly one of these was Stuart. The passage in Stuart that Maunus wants to cite is so horribly written that it's quite difficult to understand what Stuart was trying to say but just about the only thing that this doesn't say is that there was a 13 bak'tun cycle in the Long Count. Once again, Maunus is lying. This passage is so confusing that it's easy for Maunus to deliberately mis-interpret it to say that Stuart believes that there was a 13 bak'tun cycle. Once again this can't be in the article because it's original research. In his other writing, Stuart has been absolutely clear that there are 20 bak'tuns in a piktun.

Maunus points out that all existing Long Count inscriptions give the starting date of the current creation as a whole lot of 13s.13.0.0.0.0. He misinterprets this to prove that there was a 13 bak'tun cycle in the Long Count. Even if this was right it can't be in the article because it's original research.

In order to make his point Maunus resorts to the classic techniques of pseudoscientific disinformation: Cherry picking the evidence, lying about what it says and misinterpreting it.

Do you want this to be a high-quality article containing main-stream scientific consensus, citing numerous reliable sources or the fringe theories of a single author who is actually quite ignorant of this subject and has an axe to grind.

The choice is yours.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Cuete (talk • contribs)

I shall disregard your nasty tone and your accusations of bad faith. Again you provide no sources in support of your claims that I am mistaken. Yesterday I received word from professor van Stone, who confirmed that I did indeed correctly interpret his argument in the 2011 article. I also checked with my former colleague Nicholas Carter, who pointed me to a recent article of his that I now integrated into the article. Van Stone and Carter additionally corrected me in one part of my understanding of the issue, but pointed out that I was correct in another: I was incorrect in understanding that the Maya in general were undecided about the standard length of the Bak'tun and Piktun - indeed the standard length is considered to be 20 cycles. But Van Stone and Carter pointed out that the Maya Calendar considers the cycles in which they themselves lived to be exceptional in containing first 13 cycles, then resetting again to 1 and going up to 20 before the next cycle begins. They point out that creation texts show definitively that the Bak'tun that ended in 3114 BCE had only 13 k'atuns. For the current Piktun there is variation, with some texts describing it as having 13 bak'tuns (Yaxchilan, Tortuguero) and others as having 20 (Palenque). So the current description of the issue in the article is correct, and it does not commit any of the atrocities that Senor Cuete attributes to me.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Coment from Mark van Stone regarding the interpretation of his 2011 article

"Dear [Maunus],

When I set out to write "2012: Science and Prophecy of the Ancient Maya" in 2009, I was under the impression that the archaeological record supported both sides of the argument.

As my research progressed, I never found any emic evidence that *any* Maya believed that a Piktun consisted of only 13 Bak'tuns, save the one obvious 13.0.0.0.0 Period-ending at the beginning of this Creation. There was plenty of *etic* evidence, starting with Dr. Coe's conjecture that started this whole meme in 1965 (1st edition of "The Maya"), which he expanded in "Breaking the Maya Code."

Then, it became obvious in the 70s that the Palenque Maya believed *this* Piktun contains 20 Bak'tuns (thanks to decipherments by Linda Schele & co., as detailed in my book). Archaeologists & scholars looked at each other and said, sheepishly, 'I guess we were wrong about that 13-Bak'tun thing. It seems that the Maya believed the 13-Bak'tun period-ending in 3114 BC was a *one-time* event.' Like Noah's Flood. Like Christ's birth. Every piktun after the 13.0.0.0.0 "Planting of the Throne-Stones" in 3114 BC would have 20 Bak'tuns. The scholars moved on, but the meme voiced in Mike's books had escaped cultivation into the wider world. Now it was picked up by less-reputable scholars and pseudo-scholars and soon a whole subculture was preparing for the "end of the Mayan Calendar." Let me repeat: There is NO evidence that ANY ancient Maya believed that the "present" Bak'tun would *end* or reset to zero. *This idea is a completely modern conjecture.*

Now, a pair of monuments in Yaxchilan and in Cobá has put scholars' knickers in a twist, because they seem to contradict each other. (Again all this is in my "2012" book.) One has a then-current 5-digit date preceded by eight coefficients of "13," suggesting that the upper-order coefficients were "frozen" at 13; while the other one (with 20 "13" coefficients followed by .0.0.0.0) implied that the Piktun would be raised by one, to 14, in the coming cycle. It's kind of like an odometer clicking over to 1,000,000 miles (in some cars 100,000 miles), even though there is no seventh (sometimes sixth) digit to show it. On your dashboard it shows 000000, and looks like your car is all-new again. The record is unclear, but that discrepancy is why I said some calendar-priests seemed to believe one thing, and some another.

Mike and I have discussed this at length. He insists that the Maya "must have" imputed some extraordinary value on the then-in-the-future 13.0.0.0.0 date. His argument is strong, but there is actually no known evidence that they did. (At least, not yet.) A possible bit of support in that direction might be cited: The two known ancient mentions of the "2012" 13.0.0.0.0 date: Tortuguero Mon. 6 (on the cover of my book) and the La Corona step-text found in June 2012. (Too late to be included in my book). Both monuments were carved in the 9.13.0.0.0 K'atun, and the rulers seem to have been linking ahead to the next Big 13 date, for some reason. I conjecture (we do a lot of conjecturing) they were reflecting their "special" K'atun's numerology to the next "special" date. But there is nothing else to support that.

An even more-off-the-wall idea comes from the same Palenque inscription that mentions the 20th Bak'tun (the Temple of Inscriptions text). It counts ahead from the 9.12.0.0.0 (12th K'atun) during which Pakal the Great died, to the next Period-ending (9.13.0.0.0, the 13th K'atun), and says he would celebrate the P.E., wherever he was. Then it says he'd celebrate the end of the next-larger cycle (10.0.0.0.0, the end of the next Bak'tun), which was at that time 140 or so years in the future. Then the text goes to the NEXT-larger cycle, the 1.0.0.0.0.0 *piktun*-ending in 4774 AD (I think, forgive me if I misremember), and repeats that, "He'll be back."

The text is not terribly well-understood, but it also mentions two other future Bak'tun-endings: the 12.0.0.0.0 date (around 1619, if I recall), and the 14.0.0.0.0 date (around AD 2405[?]). Strikingly, it skips right over the 13.0.0.0.0 date, without a mention. Why? Perhaps because Pakal the Great missed the 9.13.0.0.0 date by nine years, and so he could not legitimately link himself to the 13th Bak'tun (though he *could* link to the 12th...).

Or perhaps it had to do with rivalry: Tortuguero and La Corona were part of the Calak'mul confederacy, and it was the Calak'mul ruler who celebrated the 9.13.0.0.0 (and linked to the 13.0.0.0.0) dates at La Corona; his liege/subordinate at Tortuguero did the same. In other words, the Palenque scribes were deliberately downplaying the great event (9.13.0.0.0) celebrated by her enemies (Palenque was part of the Tikál confederacy, blood-rivals to Calak'mul's). Maybe they disrespected the date specifically because it was so important to their rivals. All conjecture. No basis in fact or inscriptions, just a scholar/scribe trying to make sense of a confusing and fragmentary history. Do these theories make sense to you?

So, in short, I think that at least at Palenque, the calendar-priests disagreed with Sharer and Traxler. There may well have been schools of priests who would have agreed with S & T, (perhaps divided from Palencanos like Catholics from Protestants, see below), but there is no real evidence for such a belief... Yet.

Myself, I think it VERY likely that there was a spectrum of interpretations on the 13.0.0.0.0 vs. (20).0.0.0.0 Bak'tun.

Best, and thanks,
Mark Van Stone, Ph.D.

PS. By the way, David Stuart tried to reconcile the Yaxchilán and the Cobá dates by suggesting that the Piktun coefficient only changed after a cycle of 13 Bak'tuns, followed by a further 20 Bak'tuns. And likewise, the 13th Piktun would reset to zero, but its larger order, Kalabtun, would *not* reset till 20 more Piktuns had passed. In other words, there are *33* high-order cycles have to pass before the next-higher cycle clicks over a digit.

I think his interpretation extremely unlikely. He is trying to reconcile inscriptions from two different sites, one in which the calendar-priests apparently believed the higher orders fixed at 13 (like a stopped clock) and another, in a different city, where (in my interpretation) the priests believed the higher orders behaved like real numerals do: they click over to the next digit when the lower orders reach 20.

To me this discrepancy makes more sense than David's convoluted scenario. It seems as likely that some cities' scribes disagreed with each other on Calendrical matters, as Catholics and Protestants disagreeing about certain "truths" (or Sunni vs. Shi'a Islam; or Theravada vs. Mahayana Buddhism; or Guelph vs. Ghibelline in Medieval Italy); i.e., that one city's priestly "schools" had an interpretation different from some others'."

text refactored into quotebox by Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Leaving aside personal attacks against Maunus (comment on the content, not the editor, and assume good faith), it seems to me, without having read the Van Stone book, that Maunus' arguments are solid. None of what Maunus is citing is a fringe theory, and all of it references respected Mayanists. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Maunus, thank you so much for having Van Stone confirm that what I said is correct. Obviously a Long Count Inscription can't locate itself in a 13 bak'tun cycle if there are 20 bak'tuns in a piktun. So the table is correct but the text is wrong. I'll fix the article accordingly. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Van Stone is not confirming what you said. Your edits will be reverted unless they have consensus behind them. So maybe you should propose them here first.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry Maunus, I was just kidding. I know you will always revert any good faith edits I make to this article, engage in editwaring and display WP:Ownership_of_content because of your personal vendetta against me. You said on my talk page: "You were right that Sharer and Traxler were incorrect in considering the number 13 to be the standard number of bak'tuns in a piktun". Also: "I have never claimed to be an expert in Maya calendrics, I have taken classes on the topic, but I am not an expert and the fact is it doesnt interest me much.". No kidding? You and Simon Burchell can't live without a crappy section of the article, plagiarized from Sharer and Traxler. Too bad for the readers of Wikipedia. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I said those things, and I stand by them. If you had made a coherent argument and produced sources, instead of starting out with editwarring on an FA and making personal attacks against the editors who are following policy, then this process would ave been much easier.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Senor Cuete, once again you accuse me of plagiarism. As I have previously explained, such an accusation is obviously false, and offensive. Before making such accusations, I suggest you understand what plagiarism is, and what it isn't. The section is not plagiarised (in fact nothing in the article is), and is referenced to reliable sources, whether you like those sources or not. Unless you can come up with solid references to support your point of view, this argument is going nowhere. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I was called her by the feedback request service and know nothing about Mayan history. After reading the discussion so far, though, I would like to point out that when there is a disagreement about interpretation of historic data among sources written by subject experts and journalists, the article should reflect that in a neutral way, such as "This has been interpreted by most historians to mean XXX. This has been challenged by YYY, who concluded that ZZZ, but this idea has met with resistance from WWW, who claim that VVV" ---or some such thing, provided that both points of view are cited in reliable independent sources (even if the sources are citing them in order to refute them). If, however, one of the points of view is written about by one author and no other historians or science writers bother to discuss it at all in their publications, then it shouldn't be in the article.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Anne: Obviously this isn't an argument about whether the text should be changed, the point here is that self-appointed Führer of this article, User:Maunus, thinks it's OK for him to decide whether and which other editors can make good faith edits, citing reliable sources. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
You havent cited a single fucking source in support of your changes. You just claim that whichever source I present in support of mine say the opposite of what they say. I don't doubt your good faith, but seriously unless you cite sources yuor proposed changes are a non-starter. Making changes to a wikipedia article requires two things: consensus and sources. You have failed to provide either.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Why is this being brought up here on the Maya civilization article and not the main article of Maya calendar or the sort-of sub article of Mesoamerican Long Count calendar? The section of this article should be just a summary of the Maya calendar article. How about just lifting the Introduction and Overview section from Maya calendar and deleting the chart? This is a survey article – short, sweet and simple with links to other articles for those readers who care to learn more. Simplify any wording that is controversial to the point where it no longer is and then explain the controversy in the main Maya calendar article. I would delete most of what is in the calendar subsection, including the chart, and add one thing -- a reference to 2012 (movie) and 2012 phenomenon along any other important current, cultural reference, not nothing more than a passing half-sentence reference. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Good idea but Maunus will revert it. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I do not revert edits that are supported by consensus. Iloilo wanderer's idea strikes me as entirely wrongheaded and a basic misunderstanding of what the job of this article is. The article's job is to inform the reader about the Maya civilization. The Maya calendar is an important aspect of the civilization and as such there needs to be a section summarizing the calendar. What the article does not need to do is to inform te reader about how recent pop culture has described the Maya civilization, hence links to the 2012 movie (which has absolutely zero relation to Maya civilization) or to the 2012 phenomenon (which was a fad with only a tenuous connection to the Maya civilization) are unwarranted. But if these ideas for changing the article are to be pursued that would have to happen through another RfC - because the substance in this one is another.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The calendar does need to be summarised here in order to offer a complete treatment of the civilization - I doubt it could have passed FA without it. As Maunus says, the movie and the 2012 phenomenon are not particularly relevant to the Maya civilization - there really is no need to cover them here. This article is about the historic civilization, not New Age misconceptions or Hollywood renderings. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree about pop culture. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shouldn't the opening have references?

The entire opening has no references, how is that possible? --UnidentifiedHuman 04:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnidentifiedHuman721 (talk • contribs)

The opening is a summary of the rest of the article. Everything in the opening is already references in the article body. That is why per policy the opening or lead does not need references - except in cases where some information is specifically controversial.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
As Maunus says, referencing is often not required in the lead - all the information in the lead is a summary of the article body, and is referenced in the appropriate section - nothing here is controversial, so no additional cites are necessary. See WP:WHENNOTCITE. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Bibliography

I suggest to add the following in the list of further readings:

Axel Riblekic (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC).

Given that Diamond is not recognized as an expert on Maya civilization, and that his arguments contradict and ignore those of actual experts I think we definitely should not cite Diamond in this article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Likewise. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2016

The Maya developed a very useful calendar based on the sun's directions.

Tacolover70 (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The Maya calendar is described in the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Johnson 2013

I have removed references to Scott Johnson's 2013 "Translating Maya Hieroglyphs" since it has been accused of plagiarizing other epigraphers' work (Law, Danny. (2015) Review of "Translating Maya Hieroglyphs by Scott AJ Johnson." American Anthropologist: 117:2 pp. 431-432.). Instead I have added the updated 14th edition of Kettunen and Helmke's freely available (but of course copyrighted) work.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maya civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Maya civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maya civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

"Anthropology professor is skeptical about LiDAR Maya hype"

That's the title of this article. It's an interview with Michael E. Smith who says at the end of the interview:

"these data have tremendous potential to contribute to our knowledge of the ancient Maya. They can revise our figures for Maya populations, for their farming systems, their housing and domestic organization, and other topics. But right now, these things exist only as potential results, not as actual findings. So that is the “no” sense of my answer. Right now, with the available information, we have no greater understanding of the Maya. That will have to wait until the hard work gets done. The LiDAR data have to be ground-truthed (checked on the ground), processed by computers and analyzed carefully.

It is significant that these finds are reported by the National Geographic Society, an organization whose interest in publicity and spectacular claims often takes precedence over their interest in solid scientific results. Many public announcements of archaeological findings are based on technical articles published in peer-reviewed journals. That is a sign that there has been a real advance, sanctioned by colleagues and journal editors. The new LiDAR finds have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, because they are still preliminary. Another feature of the hype that comes from an organization like National Geographic Society is that the finds are announced as if they were the first time anyone though to apply LiDAR to the Maya area. But in fact, archaeologists have used LiDAR in other parts of the Maya zone for seven or eight years now."

I think he's right about National Geographic also. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You are so right about this. National Geographic is a dubious source. Senor Cuete (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
A more detailed article by him.[8] Doug Weller talk 17:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree, we need to wait and see the published research, and the response to it. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2018

190.85.25.250 (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

pronounciation

how do you say it in English, "may-a" (ipa mæiːʌ) or "my-a" (ipa mʌiːʌ)? OsamaBinLogin (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2019

72.79.58.108 (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2019

Hello, and I am just querying if I can alter corrections in the Maya civilization. I vow myself to assist the Wikipedia team and substantially improve the article. I assure you that my vocabulary and punctuation are second to none and I have an extensive expanse of memory. If you accept this request, Wikipedia will acknowledge me for my eminent and compelling job.

Thanks, Safairy. Safairy (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2019

please add entry under External links http://www.precolumbian.org/ The Pre-Columbian Society of the Penn Museum Clayser131 (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see WP:EL. That site is not relevant to an encyclopedia article on the Maya civilization. NiciVampireHeart 21:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2020

I noticed a few factual errors, and as a history teacher i would like this to be corrected 13xan (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Add more about drought as cause of abandonment?

Hi, according to this article, <<https://getpocket.com/explore/item/ancient-mud-reveals-an-explanation-for-sudden-collapse-of-the-mayan-empire?utm_source=pocket-newtab>> there was a 2018 Science study that analyzed more evidence about the role of drought in the collapse of Mayan civilization. University of Cambridge and University of Florida scientists concluded in this study that severe drought was the chief factor. Should there be reference to these findings in this article, as updating or adding confirmation of previous theories? I haven't yet tried to find the Science article or other sources, but thought editors working on this more regularly might be interested.Parkwells (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I suppose you may be referring to this Science article: Evans, Nicholas P.; Bauska, Thomas K.; Gázquez-Sánchez, Fernando; Brenner, Mark; Curtis, Jason H.; Hodell, David A. (3 Aug 2018). "Quantification of drought during the collapse of the classic Maya civilization". Science. 361 (6401): 498–501. doi:10.1126/science.aas9871. The study's findings are briefly discussed in Classic Maya collapse#Drought theory. --Arjuno (talk 15:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry for not reading further before posting this morning, but was on my way out. I get excited as new information is put together.Parkwells (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit request 12/27/2020

The line

"The city will continue to be inspected and scanned by archaeologists under thick forest canopy using LIDAR technology (light detection and range) in June 2020"

should be re-worded since June 2020 has already happened. Proposing change to

"As of March 2020, archaeologists planned to inspect and scan under thick forest canopy using LIDAR technology (light detection and range) in June 2020"

Secrets Of The Maya Underworld - BBC Natural World (2005)

I watched this amazing documentary yesterday, i recommend it to everyone. I'm just wondering why there is no mention of the water pools (sinotays) in the rainforest and the underwater cave system in this article. They were vital to the Mayan civilization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.1.141.190 (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Type of English

Shouldn't this article use American English. I think Mexicans use US spelling when writing in English. LittleJerry (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Foreign language usage doesn't count as "close ties" - plenty of continental European EU subjects use American English. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Ditto. The subject matter here has close ties only to one Anglophone country (Belize), and as Belize uses British or Oxford spelling (not American spelling), so should this article. Asdfjrjjj (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2021

Jhon kp (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 Not done Please don't copy-and-paste information from the internet. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Jhon kp if you have something specific to change (with a more reliable source), please open a new request with that. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Joya de Ceren

please change ((Joya de Ceren)) to ((Joya de Cerén)) 2601:541:4580:8500:ADB0:7517:667F:A919 (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 19:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022

Footnote 343 lists "John Finlay" whereas the bibliography lists him as "John Finley". The link shows his name as "Finley" and I recommend changing the footnote. Togekiss157 (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done  melecie  t - 10:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Mayan history revisited.

There's some articles coming out on Facebook about how Mayan history isn't exactly accurate and the Mayans are now correcting it with the anthropologists, etc. 

Is this  Wikipedia page updated with that information? 2601:200:8002:C5F0:D0E9:DD80:9C66:8060 (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Additional remarks to Mayan history revisit it.

It's the Peabody Museum of archeology And Ethnology. Also Harvard museums of Science and culture. 2601:200:8002:C5F0:D0E9:DD80:9C66:8060 (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Maya or Mayan

My understanding is that it's Maya for almost everything, but Mayan when you're talking about the language(s). Here are a few links but it'd be nice to get a consensus on usage in this article.

I understood "Maya" or "the Maya" to cover a wide range of situations where we might naturally want to say Mayan, Mayans, Mayas, etc. Do you want to get consensus for recommending a style for articles in the category? It might attract more feedback and still be useful here. Louis Waweru  Talk  03:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Ask at one of the Wikiprojects? Doug Weller talk 09:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Yep, that is what I meant to suggest. Louis Waweru  Talk  02:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2022

Request to change the word "pyramid" and "castillo" to "temple", respectively "templo". The words pyramid and castillo/castle are incorrect references to this building. The correct word is a temple, since the Mayan population called and still calls it a temple today. The function of the building is religious and spiritual. This aligns even more with the use of the word temple instead of castle or pyramid. Pyramids were not known to the Mayas, but more to the populations of the Middle East/certain African regions. This is an incorrect westernisation. It should be made clear that this building was intented to function as a temple and to remove this mistake from the description of the page.

Change "1892 photograph of the Castillo at Chichen Itza, by Teoberto Maler" to "1892 photograph of the Templo at Chichen Itza, by Teoberto Maler" 217.92.106.195 (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  •  Comment: "El Castillo" is the long standing and well known folk name of that particular temple pyramid at Chichen Itza. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is a somewhat major change to the style in which the article is written. Please provide reliable sources to support the changes you want to be made, and establish consensus before requesting an edit. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

co relate Maya civilization with southern west cost of India ...Konkan

co relation of maya civilisation with southern part konkan , India is interesting. There is a temple of local deity "Maya Purvachari" the idol of the god resembles the idol and sculptures of maya civilisation. Any scholar interested for further information and study is welcome. I would like to help him . contact parag_samant@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.5.39.210 (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Maya people did not likely call themselves Maya and had no deity named Maya. Many other religions have a deity called Maya.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You can have also discussions in this talk page, maybe there are reliable sources that indicate such correlation. Thinker78 (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

There being no evidence linking the Maya to South Asia didn't stop someone from editing it to say that in the infobox. Gonna get rid of that. AngryZinogre (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Maya Civilization

They were one of the earliest mesoerican 47.209.200.4 (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maya_civilization/Archive_2&oldid=1172870390"