Talk:Maya civilization/Archive 1

Old talk
I cut the phrase from the description of stelae saying they listed "tribute payments due from various conquered regions". I'm unfamiliar with any Maya stelae which include tribute lists, but I certainly don't pretend I've kept up with all the advances in decyphering the texts in recent years, If someone can give a source/example, I'll be happy to put that phrase back in. -- Infrogmation 23:34 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Just to note: I've moved this back here from Maya civilization in repsonse to a request to do so - it shouldn't be taken as a sign that I think this is a more correct name than "Maya..." --Camembert

I wasn't a party to the move and move back, but I'd prefer the article be at Maya civilization. Any objection to my putting it back there? -- Infrogmation 16:23, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Second, I think it belongs under Maya. -- Viajero 17:25, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Page moved from "Mayan civilization" to "Maya civilization". I've been directing some links to Maya people, now a redirect, because I plan to make that a seperate article in the future. -- Infrogmation 05:19, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Maya people
I finally got around to making a rough start at the Maya people article. -- Infrogmation 16:17, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Writing systems
Sorry if I'm not doing this properly. Anyway, I was wondering if there is a list of pre-Colombian native languages which had some form of a writing system. Thanks. JM


 * Most of the people of Mesoamerica had some system of writing in Pre-Columbian times, but most others relied heavily on pictograms and ideograms; the Maya system seems to have been the only one that could fully represent any word or sentence of a language in the way that the classic Old World writing systems do. IMO it is one of the mysteries of history why it didn't become more wide spread. -- Infrogmation 21:28, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Priority of invention of zero
I cut this text concerning the invention of zero:
 * (indeed, they seem to have been using the concept centuries before the Old World)

since I think this is wrong. Searching the web, I find this claim:
 * The oldest Maya artifact employing both positional notation and a zero is Pestac, Stela 1, with a contemporaneous date of Feb. 8, AD 665. The oldest Maya artifacts employing a zero but not positional notation are Uaxactun, Stelae 18 and 19, with a contemporaneous date of AD 357. The oldest Maya artifact employing the same chronological system as in the previous cases but without a zero and without positional notation is Tikal, Stela 29, with a contemporaneous date of July 8, AD 292 (Michael Closs).

whereas Babylonians had been using a symbol for zero from perhaps the 3rd century BC. Of course the Mayans or their predecessors were certainly using their notation for some before the earliest extant inscription, so they may have got there before the Babylonians but I think it would be better encyclopedic practice just to give the known facts. Gdr 13:14, 2004 May 14 (UTC)

Hm. I know zero was in common use by at least the early 1st century, probably earlier. The earliest Maya or Olmec long count inscription can be taken to show that zero was being used since it's inherent in that calendar's place value numeral system. Zero at least seems to have been in common use by the Mesoamerican civilizations before it was in common use in Europe, Egypt, or apparently even India. So what ever happened to the Babylonian zero? Did it not catch on for some reason? -- Infrogmation 21:45, 15 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The idea of zero being "inherent" in a "place value numeral system" is a very modern way of looking at this issue, with all the advantages of hindsight. But in history it seems that there were big leaps from having a place value system to recognizing that empty columns need to have an entry, to treating that entry as a number rather than the absence of a number.  That's why the article I quoted is careful to distinguish place value system from place value system with zero.


 * Having said that, I find in the same article the quote


 * According to Milo Gardner, Mesoamericans used a fully positional base 4, 5 system, with zero as a place holder, counting 0-19, as early as 1,000 BC.


 * which would give priority to the Olmec (not the Maya). Gdr 13:44, 2004 May 16 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the interesting reply. It might be best to talk about an early independent development of zero by the high cultures of Mesoamerica, rather than attributing them to a specific culture (beyond mentioning whatever the eariest relevent artifacts currently known to archeologists). 20 years ago I think giving priority to the Olmecs would been a reasonable assumption, but recent discoveries are finding ever more sophistication amoung the early Maya of the Pre-Classic contemporary with the Olmec. The Pre-Classic Zapotec were using zero too.-- Infrogmation 16:03, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Statue photo
Hey! I just noticed a rather serious, in my opinion, problem with this page. The picture of the statues from Mexico City that are supposedly of the Maya is actually a memorial to the foundation of Tenochtitlán by the Aztecs. I have removed the image. Micah 14 May, 2004


 * I was wondering. I didn't really think the statue photo added much of anything to the article. -- Infrogmation 21:45, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Omissions from significant site list?
I just came back from a visit to the Caribbean, where we visited the ancient Mayan sites of Dzibanché and Kohunlich. They're not listed among the significant Mayan sites; was that an accidental omission or a deliberate one? If the former, may I add them? If the latter, what was the reason for omitting them? --Jay (Histrion) 20:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Those sites (and a number of others) are I believe significant enough that we could have articles on them. Their absense is more a reflection of our still very incomplete coverage of the topic than any editorial decision. Feel free to add them. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

use of the word "pyramid" to describe Mayan temples
I noticed that infrogmation didn't like my note about use of the word "pyramid" to describe the Mayan temple structures. I just returned from a trip to that region and heard from a local that the Mayan take issue with "pyramid." Is that not true? Perhaps a better word is "ziggurat?"


 * Something like "temple platforms" may be a more technically accurate description for the structures. I removed the added text "Note that many Mayans take offense at the use of the word "pyramid" to describe these temples. They point out that (a) the Pyramids are in Egypt and (b) these structures are technically not shaped like a pyramid; they are simply a series of platforms topped by a small rectangular structure." as I doubted "many Mayans take offense" at the word; if you found that so, perhaps this is a development in recent years. Perhaps we could work on a better wording of the point? Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

more culture
Hey! I think it would be awesome if someone was able to add more about the current mayan culture such as marriages and dating or things like that, which would show how the still-present myans live.

thanks! Alex.
 * I agree, we could use more on such subjects. However info on the modern Maya should be at the Maya people article. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Important sites
I reverted the moving of Joya de Cerén to the "Most important sites" heading. Joya de Cerén (which we still need an article on) is important archeologically since it was unusually well preserved by volcanic eruption, but it was a small farming town of no particular note in its day. All the other sites on that part of the list are also unusually great both in size and of political importance in pre-Columbian history. -- Infrogmation 17:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maya vs Mayan
I know that the people are referred to, even in the plural, as the Maya. But, from looking at this article (and some of the others on related topics) I'm unclear on what the adjective form is supposed to be. I had thought it was Mayan, but it seems to mostly be Maya on these pages. The language page is still Mayan languages though. Beyond just wanting to know for myself, I think there needs to be a quick discussion of the appropriate forms somewhere either on Wikipedia or maybe Wiktionary (with a prominent link from relevant Wikipedia articles). What do the local Mayanists think? --Tox 08:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as academia is concerned (common usage is perhaps something else), the distinction between the two is that "Mayan" has conventionally been used by linguists, and thus is appropriate when referring to an aspect of language ("Mayan languages", "Proto-Mayan"). Everyone else (archaeologists, anthropologists, epigraphers, etc) are in the habit of using "Maya" (serving both as singular & plural) to describe their respective fields. Thus Maya hieroglyphics, Maya mythology, Maya architecture, etc etc. There's no particularly well-defined reason for this distinction, but it is almost universally observed in the field- at least judging from any survey of academic texts (and see for example, Note 1 of this reference which discusses the point). Outside of professional research, the man on the Clapham omnibus would probably more naturally feel that "Mayan" is the right adjective; however, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, IMO it would be best to follow the usage pattern which is observed in the references which are likely to be cited in the articles, to avoid possible confusion. This would also seem to be more "correct", although it is really no more "correct" than other grammatical conventions which are imperfectly observed, without impeding understanding.--cjllw &#124; &#91;&#91;User talk:CJLL Wright&#124;&lt;small&gt;TALK&lt;/small&gt;]] 22:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, that explains where I got my terminology from. I'm an amateur linguist, and the only things I've read were on cracking the ancient Mayan language.  It wasn't academic literature, so the author used Mayan for both the language name and as an adjective.  It sounds like there's a real terminology showdown brewing, especially since language names are often the adjective form of a proper noun.  Well, regardless, I'm an outsider on all things Maya, and I totally defer to the Mayanists on Wikipedia.  I just hope that someone can write up a discussion of this somewhere on Wikipedia or at least list the variants on Wiktionary.  Thanks for your answer, it definitely helped me understand the situation.  --Tox 06:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No worries, Tox; and you are right, it would be useful to have a sentence or two somewhere in the relevant articles to highlight this distinction- if someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll see about addding something in the next day or so. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  22:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The explanations provided here are lucid and concise. I would just like to add, in reference to "why" such a distinction exists, there is actually a simple and logical reason. No, there is no imminent linguistic "showdown" between the disciplines, and the jargon used by linguists is not necessarily at odds with the jargon used by other researchers.

The use of the term "Mayan" in linguistics stems from the fact that it is a proper noun, not an adjective. The fields of history, archeology, and sociology, chose to retain the subject form "Maya" for simultaneous use as an adjective. Either form, Maya or Mayan, serves this purpose equally well, and they are equally grammatical. But, for practical reasons, the disciplines have all settled on one standard form, and Maya has been selected over the other one for consistency.

In the field of linguistics, however, scholars had to come up with a proper name for the language spoken by the Maya. Following the common academic formula for the adjective form, we could refer to it as the "Maya Language," however, this would not constitute a proper name, merely an adjective phrase describing "language," and telling what kind of language it is. We cannot call the language itself "Maya" because, quite simply, it isn't Maya, it is a language; Maya (the proper noun not the adjective) is the name of a civilization, or it can denote a member of that civilization.

No one would refer to a pyramid, a bracelet, or a glyph, by simply calling it a "Maya," in the noun form, although they might call it a Maya tree, or a Maya pyramid, or a Maya bracelet, in the adjective form. So, in order to form an actual proper noun to name the Maya language, linguists have taken, as their root, the proper name for the civilization itself, Maya, and to it added the suffix "-n". The selection of this suffix is purely aesthetic, for it is less phonetically combersome than "Mayaese" or "Mayaish." Linguists simply looked in their repertoire of language-name-denoting suffixes and chose the one that sounded most pleasing to the ear. Also, to simplify usage within the discipline, linguists have adopted another unique convention: the adjective denoting that which has to do with the Mayan language is also "Mayan," as opposed to saying "Maya language," even though both form are correct, in principle.

Confusion arises because the proper noun "Mayan" is identical to the adjective "Mayan," even though they are completely different words, that is to say, they are homonyms, just as "bat," the flying mammal, and "bat," the wooden stick, are homonyms, and are different words with different meanings. In the case of Mayan, the homonyms not only have different definitions, they are also different parts of speech: "Mayan" is a proper noun describing the name of the Maya language, while "Mayan" is an adjective describing either a relationship with Mayan language or a relationship with the Mayan civilization--the first and second are universally accepted forms, while the third is not accepted, but is supplanted in academic usage by the adjective "Maya."

--189.156.185.243 23:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Issues
2 things. First, is it heavily debated what brought down the Maya? I've heard a snail was found in lake sediment that demo drought, the worst in 7KY as I recall, was prevalent & proximate cause; true? (I'm by N means expert.

Also, can somebody include pronounciations? The names & words are a bit tongue-twisting. Please, no IPA, it's gibberish to me (& doubtless many others), unless you can add an equivalent (like dictionaries do). OK? Gracias! Trekphiler 20:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent additions re Maya polities
The new passages on Maya polities, recently added by anon are helpful and informative, but would be more so if the underlying reference source(s) are explicitly identified. Mayanists are not all in agreement as to the formation and character of Classic political entities, it would be useful therefore to identify which sources have been relied upon. Also, I'm not sure that the readings from the Naranjo texts have been so securely interpreted, or at least several of the readings are perhaps more tentative than indicated here. Again, it would help to know from which source these readings were obtained. In anticipation, --cjllw | TALK  06:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason blood sacrifice isn't mentioned? This at the very least is a part of popular culture about most mesoamerican cultures. If it is considered untrue by the current establishment then it should at least be noted. Nickjost 21:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is an oblique reference and link to a subsidiary article on the practice (Maya bloodletting, an article in rather indifferent shape, unfortunately) in the Maya infobox; but it is not further elaborated on in the main article text as yet. I agree that it should be, however after some main sections were recently hived off into their own articles there's been little done since to rework this main article to summarise the main points and sub-topics covered (or supposed to be covered) in more detail by these subsidiary articles. It is overdue for attention.--cjllw | TALK  23:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

New Age Numbers
Another issue is that someone has gotten all New Agey with the worship of circles and obsession with swasticas (which I've never seen and I know Maya--maybe they're talking about poop glyphs?) and bringing back the Carnegie "time and math worship" thing. Anyone else think that this should be deleted?

a big discrepancy
ok, there seems to be a total lack of consistency here. this article states that some writing about mayan women exists, in the following:

" Most surviving pre-Columbian Maya writing is from stelae and other stone inscriptions from Maya sites, many of which were already abandoned before the Spanish arrived. The inscriptions on the stelae mainly record the dynasties and wars of the sites' rulers. Also of note are the incriptions that reveal information about the lives of ancient Maya women. Much of the remainder of Maya hieroglyphics has been found on funeral pottery, most of which describes the afterlife. "

but the linked article Maya women seems to claim the complete oppoisite:

" Ancient Maya women had an important role in society: beyond just propagating culture through the bearing and raising of children, Maya women involved themselves in economic, governmental and farming activities. Yet the lives of women in ancient Mesoamerica were not well-documented: “of the three elite founding area tombs discovered to date within the Copan Acropolis," writes one scholar, "two contain the remains of women, and yet there is not a single reference to a woman in either known contemporary texts or later retrospective accounts of Early Classis events and personages at Copan.” "

maybe i have just completely misunderstood what is being stated, but it seems a contradiction to me. 204.95.67.67 05:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC) edited comment 204.95.67.67 05:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The discrepency is only apparent, but I can see where the perception has arisen. Historical female figures are indeed named in Maya inscriptions at a few different sites, generally as the mother or consort of a particular ruler, but also on a few occasions as rulers in their own right. The quote you mention from the Maya women article however is referring to inscriptions from only a single site, Copán. So, while explicit mention or naming of female personages at Copán may be lacking, they are present at some other sites. --cjllw | TALK  12:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What About the Chiapas Conflict?
I see the history does not seem to go beyonf the 1800's, can I mention the Zapatistas? -- 69.248.43.27 06:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can find evidence for the Zapatistas in Pre-Columbian times :-). Please look again for the seperate article on the modern Maya (which can use expansion). Cheers, -- Infrogmation 14:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation style
While this article contains much useful and valid information (as well as some areas in need of attention), it still needs to be marked-up with citations and references. Before going too far down that road however, we should determine up-front which of the various citation styles are best suited for the task. The contenders would be: My stated preference at the moment would be for the cite.php system, but each method has its benefits and annoyances. I'd be interested to hear of any others' opinions.--cjllw | TALK  04:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * the cite.php/ footnoting feature,
 * Harvard referencing, and the
 * ref/note system.

Check out the new Pre-Columbian templates
The original template is at Template:Pre-Columbian. The "new and improved" version is at Template:Pre-Columbian/Test.

Once we have a usable version of Template:Pre-Columbian/Test, we plan to move it into Template:Pre-Columbian and then insert it at the bottom of the Aztec, Maya civilization and Inca empire articles.

Discussion is at Template talk:Pre-Columbian. Please share any feedback and suggestions that you may have.

--Richard 19:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

re breaking up into sub-articles
I reverted the recent changes which cut out large topical sections of text to be placed into sub-articles, leaving behind only a "see main" pointer. Apart from noting that substantial changes such as those would be better placed if proposed, considered and discussed before they are made, I've some other concerns with that action at this point in time: I reiterate that I think the goal (tidying up the article and expanding coverage in general) is worthwhile, but IMO we need to establish some sort of consensus and 'overall plan' first.--cjllw | TALK  02:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree that each of the topical areas in the article (as well as a few which are presently missing) are deserving of their own articles, I for one do not think that that was quite the way to go about it. This article needs to be able to stand up of its own accord, and by simply removing all mention of such significant topics such as architecture, writing, etc from the article renders it incomplete. If any topic in the article is to be covered in more detail on some (new or existing) subsidiary article, then at the very least it needs to be replaced with a considered and succinct summary, which then can point to the page where that material is discussed in more depth. Secondly, any such hiving-off of material into subsidiary articles will require some consideration as to how to structure the remainder of the article&mdash; otherwise, it looks and reads like huge chunks are missing from the article, and having a see main tag instead is no substitute. As it was, after those deletions we were left with an article which covered only origins-religion-decline-conquest-rediscovery; surely an unsatisfactory experience for the reader, who should not be required to go searching in subsidiary articles for any description of who they were, what they built, what they achieved, etc.
 * I also have a few concerns with the groupings of topics selected for new, subsidiary articles. As a reader, I'd be surprised to find (when I eventually did find) that topics such as architecture and sites are sub-subsidiaries of the maya society article (but nowhere mentioned in the main maya civilization article, and that religion is not mentioned with society but is on the main article, etc. I realise that this is because they were not written that way, but that is rather the problem.


 * Consensus and overall planning is good but so is "being bold". The key problem is that moving text to subsidiary articles is only half the task.  The text being moved should be replaced with a concise summary of the key points in the text that has been moved.  Usually, a first stab at this can be accomplished by using the first paragraph of each section.  Piet should have done this but presumably he didn't have time to do it yet.


 * BTW, in the interim, I have condensed the "Architecture" section in this article a bit and added back the link to
 * --Richard 08:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * One more point, the overall plan can be seen at Template:Pre-Columbian/Test. Piet and I are not claiming that this structure is the "final word" but rather a first stab at bringing some order and consistency to the articles on the major pre-COlumbian civilizations.
 * --Richard 04:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So I see, but discussion on a template's talk page is easily missed. Still, no matter, and as per above I'm supportive of a sensible reorganisation for the article (and others in this vein as well); I appreciate the efforts being made in this direction, just so long as the remaining texts continue to make sense and cover all that they would be expected to cover.

I recognise the difficulties in trying to flesh out some consistency in a group of thematically-related articles, which would be challenging to achieve over a range of talk pages and the like. One method of coordinating such efforts between interested editors is to set up a WikiProject devoted to the task- this way, a common forum is provided away from article name- and talkspace where some strategy and action plan can be mapped out. > TALK 07:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remark that writing a short section at the appropriate place would have been more constructive than simply reverting the changes. The article as it is now is too long and unstructured, so the changes I initiated are still necessary. My apologies for not proposing it at the talk page, that was wrong. Piet 08:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are probably right, Piet, and my reversion was perhaps a little precipitous. But, lacking at that point both the time to make any warranted alterations/repairs and any sign of whether there were any further intentions of "filling in the holes", I made a call to restore the status quo rather than leave it in that unfinished state. There is, I trust, no harm done either way, and I'm sure that an improved article (or series of articles) can result from the process in the end.--cjllw | TALK  12:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Mesoamerica
To this end (and since there is not another with the same scope), I've now created a bare-bones draft of just such a WikiProject :WikiProject Mesoamerica. I'm proposing a scope of Mesoamerica for now, mainly because it makes sense to treat the various Mesoamerican civilizations together since they share many common features and an intertwined history of several thousand years' standing; Mesoamerican studies is also a cohesive field in various academic disciplines. "Pre-Columbian" is omitted from the title partly because it is mostly implied anyway when the term Mesoamerica is used, and partly because the story of Mesoamerican peoples and their achievements does not stop in 1492. A project to encompass all pre-Columbian societies/civilizations could perhaps also be set up as a parent to this one, but might need some more rigorous definition if it is not actually to embrace all history and prehistory of the Americas.

You and any other interested party would be most welcome to transfer and continue any thoughts and scope/planning discussions you have to this WikiProject, as well as to work on building up other aspects of the project page, direction, definition, resources, etc. Cheers,--cjllw | TALK  07:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sort of OK with working together on WP:MESO and I think Piet would be OK with it also. However, I think that Piet and I have a slightly different vision.  The context for this is that we started working together on Hernan Cortes and so we have more of a Spanish colonization of the Americas perspective than just a Mesoamerica perspective.  When seen from a Spanish colonization of the Americas perspective, it makes more sense to talk about Pre-Columbian cultures than just Mesoamerican civilizations.  This is the rationale behind the Pre-Columbian template and the Spanish colonization of the Americas template.


 * Thus, I would prefer to have a WikiProject called Pre-Columbian in addition to the one that you created for Mesoamerica. I will probably create one tomorrow.


 * In truth, the only real difference is that WP:MESO would focus on Aztec and Maya civilization whereas WP:Pre-Columbian would add [[Inca empire] as well.


 * Your thoughts on this are welcomed.


 * --Richard 08:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, my thoughts on proposed scope for WP:MESO would be for it to cover the full range of Mesoamerican peoples and their achievements and histories, including those who as yet have little representation in wikipedia, and those not necessarily described as 'civilisations'. I'd also see room in the scope to address some other areas beyond just pre-Columbian history and archaeology, and to get the fuller picture also consider aspects such as geography, environment, linguistics, sociology, and the field and history of Mesoamerican research itself. Something rather like in fact the scope mapped out by the volumes of the classic Handbook of Middle American Indians publications. It could also usefully extend to documenting the experiences and effects subsequent to European colonisation up to the present-day situation. So, while there are clearly synergies between the proposals, there may as you say be different perspectives and priorities. There's no reason not to have them both in some sort of complementary fashion; WP:pre-Columbian can parent WP:MESO as suggested even if there are some differences of scope.

I gather the intended scope for Pre-Columbian is to focus more on selected civilisations (however defined), than a general review of indigenous American societies pre-conquest? There is another project WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America which also has some of the same concepts (but more for contemporary than historical peoples), but none AFAIK looking at South American historical cultures.--cjllw | TALK  13:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Mesoamerican does not include the Carribean peoples either (I think). That would mean we would need three Wikiprojects to cover Meso/South/Carribean. I would prefer one. But that would mean we're splitting up these peoples along the current borderline between north and latin america, which may not make sense when looking at the historical situation before Europeans arrived. I don't really know. Anyway, starting a project seems like a very good idea. It will cost a bit of time at the beginning but our attempts at organizing more and more articles into a logical whole, has also shown the need for one central discussion point. I prefer the "pre-columbian" idea even though it is a Europe-centered view, because it has a wider scope. We could call it WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Central and South America. And make a shorter redirect of course :-). Piet 14:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We also have to take a look at WikiProject Ethnic groups, which for some reason currently has nothing on South or Central American indigenous people. They probably focus on present-day groups. But I suppose they will have some guidelines that we could follow. Piet 14:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Piet that the "Pre-Columbian" approach is wider in scope. I don't think the Europe-centric criticism is much of an issue.  The indigenous peoples of the Americas went though dramatic and radical changes as a result of the arrival of Europeans.  AFAIK, none of the cultures have survived intact (except for a few tribes in the Amazon jungle and even those are rapidly shrinking and modernizing).


 * I like User:CJLL Wright's idea the WikiProject Pre-Columbian could "parent" WikiProject Mesoamerica.  It could also "parent"  WikiProject Pre-Columbian Caribbean, WikiProject Pre-Columbian South America  and  WikiProject Pre-Columbian North America if there is interest in expanding and developing those areas.  Frankly, these last three are outside my current area of interest.  My main focus is on Mesoamerica but I want to provide linkages to the rest of Pre-Columbian cultures under "one big umbrella".  There are some linkages based on the initial migration from Asia but the major linkage is through the European colonization of the Americas.


 * So, for now, let's stick with WikiProject Mesoamerica and WikiProject Pre-Columbian. We can create the other Wikiprojects if and when we run into other people who have an interest in those areas.


 * --Richard 16:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible approach, and WP:Pre-Columbian can serve as a broader strategy forum which can tie together WP:MESO and any other regional sub-projects which might like to be defined. WP:MESO and other potential subprojects would be the actual workspaces to hold the details of plans for article improvement in their particular field/region, while WP:Pre-Columbian would allow space for discussions, themes and guidelines which are inter-regional and provide any necessary coordination and consistency between regions.--cjllw | TALK  00:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

New Age Numbers
Another issue is that someone has gotten all New Agey with the worship of circles and obsession with swastikas (which I've never seen and I know Maya--maybe they're talking about poop glyphs?) and bringing back the Carnegie "time and math worship" thing. Anyone else think that this should be deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.211.225.78 (talk • contribs) 7 May 2006.


 * The so-called "swastika" motif might possibly as you suggest refer to one of the central elements in glyphs for the 'month' Pop, but it seems more likely a reference to elements in the Distance Number Introductory Glyph (T573), such as in the examples seen here. These have been nicknamed 'swastikas' on occasion by researchers (of course, without any suggestion that there is a relation with the designs known to Eurasia). There are also some motifs in Maya art and incised pottery design which might vaguely be said to be swastika-shaped (such as in Tajin-styled wares), but AFAIK no-one has ascribed any particular religious significance to these decorative elements. In any event, this motif does not have the 'religious symbol' role attributed to it in the text. Agreed it can go, unless there's some reference to the contrary.--cjllw | TALK  06:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sub-articles
What sections do people feel should have sub-articles? Do we need a "History of" or, given that this is already a historic civilization, should the main article be the History of? "Art of" or move "Architecture" to "Art and architecture"? Finally, with sub-articles created how long should the sections be here? The architecture section has been copied and pasted, and we should probably now reduce it, for example. Marskell 13:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say that there'd be ample material and scope to break out subarticles for each of the main themes, and probably several subarticles for certain themes. The main article would still need to be comprehensive (mentioning all of the themes) and stand on its own merits, while the subarticles could go into as much exhaustive detail as may be necessary. The main themes (not necessarily in this order) I'd see as being something like:

A few of the above themes and sub-areas are covered and/or have their own articles now, but coverage of others is presently lacking. This outline needs a little more thought (comments invited) re the overall structure and coverage.--cjllw | TALK  07:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Geography- location, subdivisions (highlands, lowlands, etc), natural environment, climate, hydrology, resources, flora and fauna, etc
 * History- arranged by timeperiod (archaic, early/mid/late Preclassic, early/mid/late Classic, early/late Postclassic, colonial, some mention of present-day heritage), origins, external connections and influences, theories on the "collapse", coverage of main historical documents
 * Society- political structures, social order, rulers and polities, cultural practices, warfare, commerce and trade, population trends, urban and rural environments, gender roles
 * Science and technology- writing and languages, mathematics, calendar, astronomy, metallurgy, medicine, construction techniques, navigation and transport, agriculture and domestication
 * Archaeology and sites- chronology, defined horizons and complexes, architectural styles and regional influences, site distribution and description, function and form, monuments, pottery, notable artefacts
 * Art- iconography, media, styles, influences, ornaments, design and meaning
 * Philosophy and Religion- belief systems, mythology, deities, rituals, philosophy ('world-view')
 * Mayanist studies- history of the field, major players, notable milestones, open questions

This interesting amendment to the "Maya Civilization" article merits discussion and ultimately inclusioin in the article:

"The White Maya"
The White Maya have since time immemorial been an influential minority within the Quiché-Maya populations of southern Mexico and Central America. Cultural anthropologists and archaeologists note that there is no evidence to suggest that the White Maya necessarily enjoyed any special privileges as a result of their geographically unusual phenotype (i.e. their light skin tone, aquiline noses, blue eye color, creased eyelids, prominent chin, brown or blond hair color, and thick beards), although there is both historical and contemporary evidence to suggest that White Maya may have been over-represented in the Quiché shamanic class, and therefore may have, on average, demonstrated higher than normal mathematical and analytical abilities vis-a-vis the rest of the Maya population. Genetic studies and family histories suggest that the White Maya preferred (or where required?) to marry those of their own phenotype. Mayan artifacts recovered from pre-Columbian tomb sites, pyramids and astrological observatories frequently and clearly depict the presence of White Maya in both pre-Columbian Quiché society and mythology. For example, Itzamna, the son of Hunab Ku (one of the most ancient of Mayan gods) is represented in many surviving codices as "an old man with a large jaw, sunken cheeks, an aquiline nose and a beard." Some physical anthropologists have suggested that the White Maya may share a common, though quite ancient, descent with the modern Basque people, as both groups have uniquely high levels of Rh-negative blood factor. An old legend tells of Bishop Diego de Landa, a Basque "by blood and birthright", fluently conversing with the Maya in his own native Euskera (believed to be the oldest language in Europe). There is also anecdotal evidence that during the Spanish conquest the White Maya were among the first and most fervent converts to Christianity, that many White Maya shamans went on to become Christian missionaries themselves, and that, in later centuries, White Maya were often chosen by their communities to serve as teachers of the Catechism. Many European and American visitors to the Yucatan and Central America have in recent times reported visiting isolated Mayan communities and encountering white bearded men with aquiline or even "scimitar-like" noses, men who could not speak a word of Spanish and appeared to be fully acculturated to traditional Quiché-Maya life. And yet, of all the Maya, it appears as though the White Maya have been the least able (or willing?) to retain their ancient identity in the face of the identicidal threats of modern mestizo society. This is surely because, as Bishop Diego de Landa's symbolic interpellation proved, the White Maya have always been both too old and too young for their time. (subarticle references: José Miguel Covarrubias 1956; William C. Boyd 1958; F. Harris III 1992; M. Wells Jakeman 1947; Kirk Magleby 1979; John L. Sorenson 1988; Andrzej Wiercinski 1998)


 * This looks like patent OR. You have names--do you have links to recent journals? Do you even have a popular source matter-of-factly stating the white Maya exist. Google gives nothing. This editor's reading gives nothing. Marskell 07:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. And BTW the references are incomplete; you need the full title of the books or journal being sited. -- Infrogmation 21:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The article was not "joinked." The existence of the White Maya is common knowledge, at least in Mayan communities (i.e. parts of Mexico and Central America). The White Maya are also referred to, somewhat archaically, as Nephites in some older sources. "Nephite" appears in google scholar. Will augment article and provide full source documentation. I'm beginning to suspect there's an element of anti-White Maya bias in your skepticism. White Maya author anon 3 July 2006


 * Patently there's no element whatsoever of "anti-White Maya bias" to the scepticism being expressed here- it would be difficult to form a bias against a group for whom there is no evidence presented that they exist, or of anyone's claim that they exist. You mention Nephites, perhaps you are alluding to certain interpretations of Book of Mormon geography and history? Note that such identifications are discounted by many LDS scholars as well as (universally) by Mayanist scholars - see Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. If you have any independent and reliable sources (see WP:RS) then let's see them, otherwise it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the above is pure concoction.--cjllw | TALK  04:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see the White Maya author's sources too, so far though it looks convincing and very well written. Montezuma made some very very interesting and similar claims himself when he first encountered the Spaniards, I mean what he said really seems to back up what anon is saying. This is a quote from Montezuma's speech:


 * "We have known for a long time, from the chronicles of our forefathers, that neither I nor those who inhabit this country, are descendants from the aborgines of it, but from strangers who came to it from very distant parts; and we also hold, that our race was brought to these parts by a lord, whose vassals they all were, and who returned to his native country. after a long time he came back, but it was so long, that those who remained here were married to native women of the country, and had many descendants, and had built towns where they were living; when, therefore, he wished to take them away with him, they would not go, nor still less received him as their ruler, se he departed. And we have always held that those who descended from him would come to subjugate this country and us, which is where the sun rises, and from what you tell us of your great lord, or king, who has sent you here, we believe and hold for certain, that he is our rightful sovereign, especially as you tell us that since many days he has had news of us..."


 * From The Conquistadors by Hammond Innes, page 134.


 * Marsiliano 01:54 4 July 2006


 * The above quoted text is similar to the view shared by many other Native American groups, ranging all the way from Central America to Canada, as expressed in their religious mythologies. It is popularly believed that the "Return of the White Man" doctrine originates in the visitations by Nordic explorers to America, which is fairly plausible. It is also hypothesized by some that the descendants of these Vikings were progenitors of several groups of "White Indians," including the White Mayans, but that is purely conjectural and has no archeological basis.


 * The reference the "Nephites" by one user is a clear reference to the Book of Mormon. Outside of that text, there is no notion whatsoever of "Nephites" in the field of archaeology, and, as mentioned, even the Church of LDS itself has discredited the literal interpretation of American history that's presented in said book.


 * --189.156.185.243 22:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to Inca
This article states that the Maya had no single leader, unlike the Inca of Peru. However, that is an oversimplification of the conquest of Peru. When Pizzaro landed in Peru, both Huáscar and Atahualpa claimed to be the Sapa Inca. Indeed, the Spanish made a game out of recognizing and using all sorts of people as the Sapa Inca in order to advance their own cause. --Descendall 18:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, have now reworded that passage.--cjllw | TALK  01:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Anime Vandalism
I have removed two references from the "See Also" section of the article, as the relationship between Maya Civilization and the Japanese manga Monkey D. Luffy and Naruto seems nil. Filksinger 17:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Orion Nebula (?)
The recently-added snippet of information re the Maya supposed observations of the Orion Nebula has me a little puzzled, although I don't doubt that the cited book mentions something along these lines. Firstly, it's unclear to me whether the attribution is referring to the pre-Columbian Maya of this article (which seems unlikely, given the nebula's prominence only detected from the 17th C.) or the conquest/colonial era Maya peoples (mention of "folk tales" would seem to favour this interpretation). It also seems implausible, or at least a stretch, to say that "folk tales" demonstrate or prove anything, let alone an interpretation which I am sure is not documented in any inscription; it may be that this particular author has interpreted the iconography this way, but it is not something otherwise attested to in the archaeological literature AFAIK. And which "hearths", exactly- colonial-era, or even modern, Maya ones?

Perhaps if the specific passage from the cited work could be posted here, its intent and the scope of the statement may become clearer, as it stands it seems highly doubtful.--cjllw | TALK  05:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll post the passage when I get a chance and have access to the book. WilliamKF 20:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * O'Dell page 3: "In Central America, the Mayas have a folk tale associated with this region of the sky. Their traditional hearths are composed of three stones, which they identify with the two lowest bright stars in the constellation, together with the leftmost (east on the sky) of the belt stars. In the middle of these celestial hearthstones is Theta Orionis, a smudge of glowing fire. This association is important for telling the early history of the Orion Nebula because it is clear pretelescopic evidence that the ancients saw something diffuse in the sky there, whereas most objects are crisp. It is one matter for modern observers who know that the nebula is there to claim that they can see it with the unaided eye, but it is a better authentication that the object was thought to be a fuzzy star long before telescopes could confirm the fact." WilliamKF 04:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks William for posting the passage. On reading, the basis for the claim is not that much clearer, at least to me - I struggle to picture just what O'Dell is describing, or see how it conclusively shows this celestial object was perceived as being diffuse. I gather O'Dell's speciality is not Mesoamerican history, I wonder what sources he draws on for the association with the Orion Nebula? In any case, it seems to rely upon some element of Maya folklore, which by necessity could only be documented from post-conquest times, and so this may not be relevant to the pre-Columbian Maya. I'll see if I can find any other corroborating references which might be able to make this claim clearer.--cjllw | TALK  00:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll contact the author, Dr. O'Dell and request more info and sources. WilliamKF 01:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is Dr. O'Dell's response: "I used an article by Edward C. Krupp, [he] does lots of historical astronomy and I consider [him] credible. His article appeared on page 94 of the February issue of Sky and Telescope." WilliamKF 18:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I located the beginning of the Sky and Telescope article:


 * Sky and Telescope Feburary 1999 E C Krupp Igniting the Hearth: "A Maya creation myth has its origin in the glowing fire pit of the Great Orion Nebula. By E. C. Krupp Even without evidence of pretelescopic recognition of a smoky star in Orion's Sword, we can reasonably guess it was often noticed by discerning watchers of the ancient skies. The Lacandon Maya, who reside in the tropical forests of southeastern Chiapas, Mexico, still see fumes around the middle star of the Sword. In a recent paper in the Journal of Latin American Lore (vol. 20, no. 1, summer 1997), two anthropologists -- R. John McGee and F. Kent Reilly III -- collect traditional Lacandon star names and verify that the Lacandon regard the nebula as smoke from burning copal incense. Alnitak E. C. KRUPP Saiph Rigel The ancient Maya also kindled a blaze in the Sword of Orion and read a story of cosmic renewal in its flames. For them, Theta Orionis burned in the Hearth of Creation, a celestial inglenook marked by other stars in Orion. Traditional hearths in Maya territory comprise three stones arranged as the corners of a triangle, and the three stones of the heavenly hearth are Alnitak (the southernmost star in Orion's Belt), Saiph (Orion's right knee), and Rigel (Orion's left foot). The flames of creation are fanned in the middle, where the nebular fires are fed. Specialist knowledge of native literatures of the Americas had earlier allowed Dennis Tedlock to certify this tradition among the Quiché Maya of highland Guatemala. With these celestial clues, the late Linda Schele, an influential authority on Maya writing and art, dusted the soot off the old Maya symbols and stoked up the story of the fire of creation. Death is the key transformation in this Maya tale of cyclic renewal. The action really begins when First Father, the divine ancestor who first lifted the sky like a roof over Earth and propped it up with a world-axis ceiba tree, is killed in Xibalba, the Maya underworld, by the Lords of the ..."

Many thanks William for the legwork in tracking down these additional references, which clarify the situation- most interesting. I know of Krupp, Kent Reilly & co, and have no issues regards reliable sources. From the preceding, it seems the attribution should be to colonial/contemporary Maya traditions, with perhaps some tie-in to pre-Columbian iconography as suggested by Schele, although reconstructions of asterisms identified in pre-Columbian times are generally tentative. I think it only now needs a little tidying up distinguish the historical periods the identification of a nebulous appearance applies to. Thanks again, and regards --cjllw | TALK  04:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Aztek 0 19:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC) I agree totally to the use of BCE and CE to mark dates instead if BC and AD, even though they might be equivalent. What I noted in the article is that this convention was not used throughout it. BCE and CE were used consistently up to "Political Structure", where it changed to BC and AD. Thank you for a very good effort.