Talk:Maya civilization/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: Second, I think it belongs under Maya. -- Viajero 17:25, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Writing systems 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statue photo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Omissions from significant site list? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  use of the word "pyramid" to describe Mayan temples 

message: 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)
thread_title:  more culture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Important sites 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 | TALK 22:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  ''Maya'' vs ''Mayan'' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent additions re Maya polities 

message: 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)
thread_title:  a big discrepancy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: What About the Chiapas Conflict?

message: 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: 
*the cite.php/<ref> footnoting feature, 
*Harvard referencing, and the 
* / system.
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)
thread_title:  Citation style 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Check out the new Pre-Columbian templates 

message: 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)
thread_title: New Age Numbers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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:
*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
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)
thread_title:  Sub-articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fair enough, have now reworded that passage.--cjllw | TALK 01:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison to Inca

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anime Vandalism