Talk:Lenca

Editing
Just made a quick run through and added headings. Might do more thorough editing later. --Wilson(cc) 21:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The two articals should be merged as they cover very similar topics add at the bottom of the history.--Wilson(cc) 21:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a source for this information? It doesn't map to anything I know about the lenca and their history, nor is it reported as part of the oral literature on any of the Honduran Lenca scholarly works I'm familiar with. --rsheptak 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A very good question. If it is not actually original research by some prior editor, then whatever references they used would seem to be rather suspect. It is almost a fantasist work, and is in desparate need of total rewrite with authorative, rather than hearsay, sources.--cjllw | TALK  01:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the links I removed was to a website called something like RoyalMayaLenca.com, which no longer exists, and I suspect was the "source" of the information. The material presented here may map to the beliefs of some Salvadoran group of Lenca, but certainly does not match any beliefs of the Lenca of Honduras that I'm familiar with.  First of all, they aren't the Maya-Lenca, those are two distinct, mutually unintelligible language families.  There were at least 3 Lenca dialects in Honduras in the 16th century, and what lenca survived into the 20th century showed that Salvadoran and Honduran Lenca were different from each other, and had been separated for thousands of years.  All three honduran dialects are now thought to be extinct.  The modern Lenca of Honduras only retain a limited lenca vocabulary. Rsheptak 02:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I found the text from royalmaya.com using google's cache, and the same text at the following live URL: http://biosphere.biologydaily.com/biology/El_Salvador with the additional note that it comes from something called "Historia de Tradición oral Lenca", by Chevez 1990.  I suspect this is the same Chevez who lists himself as the current successor in the royal line in the list. I have not been able to locate this text in Berkeley's system, or other references to it using online article databases or google scholar.  Same text is there in the Spanish version of wikipedia, BTW. In short, Chevez may believe this, but I can find no indication that other salvadoran's share in this belief.  The other salvadoran sites that quote the text state they're quoting wikipedia. Rsheptak 03:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I see- a fine piece of detective work, Rsheptak. As, it would seem, an example of delusional fabrication by a single unsupported source, I would favour scrapping this article and its entire content -nothing seems particularly salvageable- and starting anew at Lenca with something corroborated by published and reviewed research.--cjllw | TALK  12:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename and restart
Per the above, I have moved this article to Lenca people and removed all that was previously purporting to describe the entity "Maya Lenca Principality", which on balance seems to be little more than a highly fanciful, an certainly unverified, claim of one person's supposed genealogy and inheritance of the "Lenca crown". If anyone feels there was something to the previous contents, then please provide independent references to back it up before attempting to re-add. In the meantime, this needs to be worked into a genuine article on the peoples and their culture/history.--cjllw | TALK  08:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm working on a new article and am currently rereading the published sources on the Lenca. Rsheptak 19:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rsheptak, and will look forward to any expansion and needed improvements you are able to make.--cjllw | TALK  00:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This article was extensively edited by a student in the course I'm teaching this semester as part of a required assignment. I've just gone through and done some editing to improve it--mostly in terms of style--but I think it's vastly improved over what was there before her additions. --Hoopes (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

eight billion?
don't we mean million? Elinruby (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No those figures were clearly inserted as a hoax/vandalism. I have reverted back to the more reasonable figure of 137,000 which is nonetheless also unsourced.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Lenca migrated from South America 3,000 years ago. Really?
Are there sources other than the travel guidebook referenced for the scholarly debate in following statement?


 * The origin of Lenca populations has been a source of ongoing debate among anthropologists and historians. Research has been directed to gaining archaeological evidence of the pre-colonial Lenca. Some scholars have suggested that the Lenca migrated to the region from South America around 3,000 years ago

The scholarly articles I am reading think that the Lenca are residual populations from the Maya empire. These include:


 * Barón Castro, Rodolfo (1978). La Población de El Salvador [The Population of El Salvador]. Colección Estructuras y Procesos (in Spanish) (2nd ed.). San Salvador: UCA Editores. ISBN 8484050033.
 * Chapman, Anne (1978). Los Lencas de Honduras en el siglo XVI [The Lencas of Honduras in the 16th Century]. Estudios antropológicos e históricos (in Spanish). 2. Tegucigalpa: Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia (INAH). OCLC 6144872.
 * Rivas, Ramón D. (2004). "Los Lencas". Pueblos Indígenas y Garífuna de Honduras: Una Caracterización [Indigenous and Garífuna Towns of Honduras: A Characterization] (in Spanish) (4 ed.). Tegucigalpa: Editorial Guaymuras. p. 61. ISBN 99926-15-53-2.

And the following literature analysis of the Lenca language discusses Xinca-Mayan parentage for the Lenca language:
 * Atanasio Herranz Herranz, El lenca de Honduras: una lengua moribunda

As I'm no expert, the South America origin could be a valid statement. But as yet I don't find anything about a migration from South American in the articles I'm reading. Based on what I know so far, I would suggest the following change.
 * The origin of Lenca populations has been a source of ongoing debate among anthropologists and historians. A leading argument is that they descend from populations of Mayans who remained after the end of the Mayan empire.

The original source for that is:
 * Barón Castro, Rodolfo (1978). La Población de El Salvador [The Population of El Salvador]. Colección Estructuras y Procesos (in Spanish) (2nd ed.). San Salvador: UCA Editores. ISBN 8484050033.

And I would toss out the sentence "Research has been directed to gaining archaeological evidence of the pre-colonial Lenca." We could put that in practically every article on pre-colonial peoples while adding no substance. I would only refer to the actual studies and their results rather than boring readers that "research has been done."

And If we want to introduce South American hypothesis, put it down in the body of the article, but provide actual scholarly references better than a travel guide. If the only source is a travel guide, no matter how well regarded, then don't mention it at all. Finally, if anyone has done genetic analysis of the indigenous populations in Mesa-America, that would be interesting, as they may better pin down relationships between populations, more accurately than fables, myths and speculation. --Catrachos (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this should be removed pending serious sourcing. Except for the idea of a "mayan empire" - there was never a Maya empire and "Mayan" is only used for the languages. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Good point. The phrase Mayan Empire I saw in the older texts, but I know much has changed in the past 40 years, so citing a 1978 article probably doesn't work much better than citing a travel guide. Language. I just started looking at some more recent articles 2000 and later (e.g. cited here Lenguas lenmichíes). These articles propose and/or reanalyze earlier proposals of linguistics relationships between South American and Central American languages. Do linguistic-cultural characteristics translate to "migrated"? --Catrachos (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Lenca is not currently considered to be related with any other language groups and Macro-Chibchan laguages is not considered to be a demonstrated grouping. So no, there is no real linguistic evidence for any migrations of the ancestors of the Lenca people.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was pondering how to re-write the introductory paragraph. Nicely done. Useful comments here as well, which prompted me to search for more and up-to-date sources. I've collected about 35 articles to read on language and history so far. Any prominent recommendations in that regard would be welcomed. My wife's father was of Lenca parents. A erudite and thoughtful gentleman, who's life spanned the entire 20th century. Ciao.--Catrachos (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)