Talk:Chunchucmil

Some additional review comments
Hi dan and Chun/DH- seeing as how there was unfortunately only a minimal response to the Peer Review request (alas there's generally quite a backlog there, and 'specialist' topics like this often find it hard to attract volunteer reviewers), I've made some additional observations and comments. See below, these are with a view to helping out in preparation for a future FA nomination; if you've the time you might wish to review and consider these. That's about it for now- once again, kudos to the two of you for an excellently developed and interesting article! Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  04:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The article's opening para says "virtually no [stelae or other grand monuments] have been found there". This implies perhaps a couple such monuments have been recovered- are the details of these finds worth mentioning, could they be added here?
 * 2) The CMHI has a code for a site at Maxcanu (MXC). Is this site related to Chunchucmil at all, or even is it 'part of' the overall complex, or at least nearby? Are there current or former site designations for areas included in Chunchucmil's sprawl?
 * 3) If Maxcanu has a CMHI code then that could presumably imply some kind of inscriptions have been recorded for the site. Any ideas what these are? Does Chunchucmil itself completely lack any evidence for inscriptions, calendar dates etc? If so, how usual/unusual is this for sites in that region/time period?
 * 4) Are there any archaeological phases /ceramic complexes defined for the site?
 * 5) Maybe some more detail on how Chunchucmil's known occupational history compares with chronologies established for other nearby / significant sites (if possible)
 * 6) Is there anything more which could be usefully expanded on the architecture/style of the site's structures- typical or atypical for the region/timeperiod?
 * 7) Maybe the major structure complexes at the site (some are mentioned in img captions) could be mentioned/listed by name
 * 8) Any known burials could perhaps be expanded on /described (given the 'subsistence' section implies skeletons from the site have been analysed)
 * 9) Any notable artefacts, motifs or other artworks (incl. ceramics) retrieved from the site which could be mentioned / described?
 * 10) What is the general state of the site's preservation? Has it suffered much from looting and/or encroachment?
 * 11) Maybe a brief precis of the main excavations could be added; has there been any restorative work undertaken?
 * 12) The images are great, perhaps some of them could be resized or repositioned a bit- for eg the detailed map of the Chunchucmil area would be better enlarged so it can be read without having to open it up separately. The reconstructions could also look better enlarged. Might have to play around a bit with the layout to see what works and what crowds out the surrounding text. (Incidentally, I'd say the reconstruction imgs would have a fair chance of being 'passed' as a Featured picture...)
 * 13) Minor stylistic point- some expressions like "see above" or "as previously mentioned" can become a little redundant in wikipedia, as there's no guarantee the text won't get shifted around or even altered at some point in the future. If you need to refer to something covered, it may be safer to refer to the ext source/reference, at least in addition to referring to some other portion of the article's text.
 * 14) As mentioned above (note irony!), Harvard referencing should not be a prob for an FA nomination. We could still implement the templates which would hyperlink the inline cite to the relevant reference, if desired.
 * 15) Additional data such as ISSN, ISBN, doi, and/or url could be provided for some of the references themselves in the biblio (optional, but sometimes FA reviewers can be picky)
 * 16) In the "references", The Pakbeh Regional Economy Program: Report of the 2004 Field Season is given twice, with two different publication years (2005 & 2006). Should the title of the second mention be 'Pakbeh Regional Economy Program: Report of the 2005' Field Season ..? fixed
 * 17) What is the association of the name pakbeh with the site (I gather the research project was renamed to that to avoid a little squabbling by neighbouring municipios)- ie is it actually a regional designation taking in more than Chunchucmil or just something bestowed by the proj. team? Also (just for my own curiosity), is the glyph block used like an insignia on the project's site spelling out "pakbeh" taken from some inscription somewhere, or is it modern?
 * 18) Can or has Chunchucmil been grouped in any larger regional designation (ie some arch. sub-zoning of nthn Yucatan)? Would calling it a Puuc site be appropriate?
 * 19) A site map, similar to the one at the project's site, would be a nice-to-have, demonstrates the intricate and extensive layout
 * 20) From that site map there doesn't seem to be a predominating alignment of the quadrangles and structures in any particular direction..? Usual or unusual for the region/timeperiod?
 * 21) Are there many or any other Maya sites known to have had significant "commercial centres"? Any comparable (in function) sites, in Maya or non-Maya Mesoamerica?
 * 22) Maybe a little more expansion on what a "multepal" polity entails (although I guess it's reasonably easy to deduce)


 * very quickly (as I'm about to shut off the comp), on behalf of Chun and I, thank you profusely Cjllw. This was exactly the sort of response we were hoping for when we sent it to peer-review, but did not receive (getting lost in the shuffle over there).  You povide some very good points, a couple of which, especially concerning the chronology and ironing out ceramic data, are things project members are currently discussing.  I'm sure Chun will chime in shortly, and we'll get cracking on this.  Thanks again! -- Oaxaca dan 05:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, THANK YOU! Those are excellent comments, and hit right to the heart of what makes Chunchucmil so interesting.  As oaxaca_dan said, we've been having offline conversations about some of these topics with the other archaeologists who work at Chunchucmil.  This is a great time to review the items you mentioned.  THANKS AGAIN! Chunchucmil 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I've added a couple more points I thought of subsequently (Nos. 17-22 in the now-ordered list), just to keep you guys busy....!--cjllw | TALK  09:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, CJLLW, you are quite astute regarding our project name (your comment #17). Not many have picked up on that.  The term Pakbeh was (as you surmised) invented by the project so that we would not antagonize local villagers who objected to the site being named after a town that does not technically "own" the whole site.  The logo on the web page you saw (spelling "Pakbeh" using the ancient Maya glyphs) was designed by me with the help of Victoria Bricker, and is a complete fiction (as is the name of our project).  You can email me (I think I've activated that feature on my signature page) and I'll tell you what it means, but the project director likes to treat it like an "easter egg" so we keep that under our hats.  As for your other comments, they are golden.  Thanks for your input. Chunchucmil 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and as for your comment #20 (site orientation), you are generally correct that there is no single orientation to the major groups. However, they do "tend" to have an orientation rotated to be perpendicular to the coast and other natural ecological zones (slightly "clockwise" from the cardinal directions).  And while some quadrangle groups face various directions, the majority have a pyramid on the east side, facing west.  This is not enough data to comment on any possible intent by the ancient Maya, so I would not include it in this article.  And as for comment #18, the site should be lumped with other "northern plains" sites (Dzibilchaltun, Ake, Mayapan, etc.) DEFINITELY not Puuc. As for Maxcanu, it can be found just down-hill from Oxkintok.  It's a modern town, but sits on top of some ancient remains.  The CMHS is just noting some carved stones or painted caves in or around the modern town.  It's not in any way part of Chunchucmil.  The nearest site that may be noted in various publications (besides ours) is Santa Barbara.  It is a northern plains site with Puuc architecture (probably sprang up after the fall of Chunchucmil).  It is mentioned in surveys of Puuc architecture, and did (at one time) have a mural that was reported.  A colleague of ours worked up there for a while, and posted his results to the FAMSI website.  But, again, it is not a part of Chunchucmil - just a regional site on the outskirts of Chunchucmil's hinterland.  Chunchucmil 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Location
Need the latitude and longitude (and preferably altitude) of this site, as sites such as Tikal have. grr (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Dates
This article seriously needs dates of the site expressed in AD, BC, BCE, CE, or BP. I'll work on finding them, but someone else may be able to supply them without much work. Smallchief (talk 13:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chunchucmil. 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:
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20061003211218/http://www.prairienet.org/maya/chunchucmil_prehist.html to http://www.prairienet.org/maya/chunchucmil_prehist.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)