Talk:Ruler X (Rio Azul)

Disputed: "Ki"
I have my doubts about whether the occupant of Rio Azul Tomb 1 has been identified as a ruler named "Ki". I am unable to locate any reliable source for this. I haven't come across any reference in the various publications of the Rio Azul Archaeological Project, and in the most recent material from the lead archaeologist Richard Adams he refers only to "Governor X", or "ruler X", associated with this burial. Theses on epigraphic analyses at Rio Azul as written recently as 2007 also make no mention.

Of course, I haven't reviewed all the literature, but even if there has been some subsequent decipherment work on the glyph (only assumed due to its positioning to be a name) in the tomb's mural, I would be very surprised if it was being read as "Ki", since this AFAIK has no semantic meaning in Classic Mayan langs.

The only place where a "Ki" is mentioned in the context of Rio Azul I can locate is in the writings of Clyde Winters (for eg here). However, I would place no confidence at all in Dr. Winters' "readings", which are notoriously idiosyncratic and intended to demonstrate a linguistic relationship with Africa- I would go so far as to say not a single practising Mayanist gives any credit to his readings, or the alleged "African connection" hypothesis in general. If Winters is the source for this name, to me this would clearly fail WP:RS and WP:FRINGE for starters, and we should not be stating this as fact in the face of overwhelming academic consensus to the contrary.

Also, there appears to be some confusion between this article and its companion Ruler X- as mentioned, this latter designation has been used for the occupant of Tomb 1, whereas the inscriptions in Tomb 12 have a name glyph tentatively labelled as "Six Sky" or "Six Caan", tho' I gather there's more recent doubts raised. And Adams mentions that only one of the two associated 'subsidiary' burials in the same structure as Tomb 1 may have Teotihuacano characteristics, but the basis for that statement seems unclear.

Unless some more reliable source than Winters can be provided attesting to this name, I will propose this article is deleted, and the Ruler X one be changed to refer to Tomb 1 (not 12). Given the paucity of secure information on Rio Azul's personages, it may not even be all that useful having separate articles in cases when all that's basically known is an undeciphered glyph and a looted burial. I think it would be more productive to clean up & expand the Rio Azul article first, before branching off into minor stubs. But will see. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 01:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Will you be proposing this article for deletion? There is also another candidate at Ruler X.  Let me know, Madman (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of moving this to something like Rio Azul Ruler X or Ruler X (Rio Azul) and rewriting, as it's about the Tomb 1 occupant. The current Ruler X article should probably be turned into a dab pg since there are a couple of other figures designated this way, such as at Tonina, Caracol, probably others. Will prob do this in the next day or two. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 13:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I have now moved this away from the spurious "Ki" title and filed it under Ruler X (Rio Azul). Also rewritten the stub; the bit about supposed Teo influences needs to be qualified with some further research. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 06:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)