Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mesoamerica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:MESO
WP:MESO General content and strategy forum – Discussion page
This is a talkpage associated with WikiProject Mesoamerica. This talkpage is for discussion relating to the Project's activities in general, inquiries, notifications and other items of interest to the Project. As such it is the main forum for Project-related discussion..
Other WP:MESO discussion forums:
General • Structure and design • Guidelines (General • Categories) • Strategy and activities• New requests • Archives

[edit] Discussion archives

Archive
Archives
Contents index of WP:MESO archived discussion topics



Contents

[edit] Nahuatl at WP:GAR

Nahuatl is listed at WP:GAR, and may lose its GA status. --Ling.Nut 04:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, LingNut, will look to see what can be done to rescue the situation. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is "greenstone"?

I continually run up against the description of many Mesoamerican artifacts as being made from "greenstone" (the most recent being in the new San Andres (Mesoamerican site) article). Do any of the distinguished editors here know exactly what "greenstone" is? I once thought it meant "jade", probably the nephrite version. Could it be another term for greenschist? Or chlorastrolite?? Any insight would be appreciated, Madman 02:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK it's the common generic term for green-hued minerals and stones in general that were valued and used to fashion artefacts from, and would be inclusive of jade, serpentine, etc. Probably it's commonly used in context to refer to materials other than jade (ie, if it's jade, it will most likely be called that specifically, though it's still a 'greenstone'). The Glossary in Hendon and Joyce's Mesoamerican Archaeology: Theory and Practice yields: "greenstone: Term used to label the green stones, including jade and serpentine, preferred for ornaments and ritual tools by Mesoamerican people. Emphasizes selection for color which appears more typical than selection for mineral type." Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Wahoo. Thank you very much. Another mystery solved. It would be nice to put together a stubbish article. Thanks again, Madman 11:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are Mesoamerican cultures "prehistoric"??

Twice in the past week, I've seen Mesoamerican cultures, e.g. Olmec, Maya, and others, desccribed as "prehistoric" here in Wikipedia. I guess I just don't see these cultures in that way. The Prehistoric article is not much help (being rather poorly structured and poorly written in my opinion). Any opinions out there? Madman 16:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

One might make an arguement for the Olmec and perhaps some of the other early civilizations, but certainly the Classic Maya and the post-Classic empires have no shortage of preserved history. -- Infrogmation 18:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. IMO, the label 'prehistoric' is so ill-defined and inconsistently applied, that it has no real informative value. Even when used in the sense of "pre (recorded) history", it doesn't make much sense in Mesoamerican contexts. I would suggest replacing "prehistoric" with particular reference to the very well-established periodisations of Mesoamerican chronology. This would be a far more apt description of any Mesoamerican culture, and have the virtues of consistency and specificity.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Milestone - 1000 articles!

Hi all.

We've just now reached the completely arbitrary but nonetheless pleasing milestone of one thousand articles tagged as being in-scope for WP:MESO - that's quite a lot to be getting on with!

A handful are disambig pages and the like, so it may be a little premature, but I think it's a substantial achievement given only some 16 months of live operation as a WikiProject. It's probably all the more noteworthy since most of us are frequently busy in Real Life and often pursuing other contributary interests somewhere else on wikipedia. Consequently there's usually only a few editors at any one time chipping away at the coalface.

Even so, it's thanks to your interest and efforts that we've seen a measurable improvement in coverage and content in many Mesoamerican subtopics. However frequently or infrequently one contributes, or whether formally or informally associated with WP:MESO, everyone's efforts are appreciated and are producing tangible results.

That said, there's clearly a substantial and ongoing task ahead to drive up the overall quality of the existing articles. Creating new articles for previously unaddressed topics is great and should continue, but it would be extremely worthwhile to also work towards getting at least the top- and high-priority articles up to a reasonable and consistent standard. I'm sure we've all seen articles on key Meso topics that have some deficiencies in certain respects. Just looking at the current auto-generated rating table, there are more than 60 top- and high-importance articles languishing at start- and stub-class, and a fair few of the B-ratings are at the lower end of the range. On the upside, there's a few articles out there which are within striking distance of being polished to FA (certainly GA) status, so hopefully we can add a few more of those to the inventory in the not-too-distant future.

I'd suggest, to pull out the top few articles of clear importance and divert some efforts into at least going through to remove inaccuracies, identify questionable or arguable statements, and beefing up their coverage. Ideally, all our toplevel overview articles should at least not misinform, even if their prose and completeness leaves room for improvement. Would be totally open also to any ideas or suggestions for improved collaborative measures and efficiencies.

Anyways, congrats to all once again, it's been enjoyable as well as instructive collaborating here, look forward to continuing on in that vein. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Rah rah, sis boom bah! Go, team go! Thanks for (cheer)leading this effort, CJLL.
For what it's worth, I agree that some of the more important topics need to be (re)addressed. I've been working away at Mesoamerican ballgame, which has accumulated a lot of, er, unwonderful things over its life. Next up on my mental list is Toltec, which Michael E. Smith cited as "heavily biased" over a year ago now (although anyone is welcome to jump on it before I do!).
Thanks again, CJLL and everyone else. It's been great working with you. Madman 10:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mesoamerican reconstructionism

About Mesoamerican reconstructionism article, I posted this on the talk page. I'm a Aztec recon myself, but I do not think that this subject is notiable. At least not yet. So I was wondering on 2nd opinions and so forth, wether the article should be deleted. We do have many lack of primary sources. I mean I belong to Aztec recon groups and so forth, but there isn't any book or established "religion" with it, unlike w/ Kemetic s or Asatru.

Xuchilbara (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that it's non-notable, then nominate it for deletion. I looked at the article and you are correct that it has no references. I'd support deletion, but it seems that there is a large body of editors who will keep nearly anything. My 2 pence, Madman (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd support any deletion nomination. While there has been some reinventing and recycling of Mesoamerican cultures' belief systems by modern-day adherents, I don't really think there's any evidence of some concerted pan-Mesoamerican "reconstructionism" (only isolated borrowings and incorporations here and there). The term itself seems an obscure neologism, can't find any other source that uses it. I don't see much potential for this being backed by citable sources, and the article itself doesn't really provide any information (is also incorrect in places, for eg where it describes the Aztec as being 'outside of' the Mesoamerican sphere). Maybe tidbits could be added to other articles on 'pagan', New Age and other contemporary spiritual movements, but that would be about all- not a sufficiently and validly defined concept to warrant its own article. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mesoamerican chronology

As I'm sure all but the newest editors know, phase names (e.g. "Middle Postclassic") are typically linked back to Mesoamerican chronology. My concern was that Mesoamerican chronology did not supply an immediate indication of the timeframe of, say, the Middle Preclassic until quite a bit down into the article, and even then one had to work at it.

Therefore, to supply folks redirected from, say, "Middle Preclassic" to Mesoamerican chronology, I took the chronological table at Mesoamerica and pasted into the Mesoamerican chronology article right after the lead paragraph. That way, if Sally Average-Reader is redirected, she has a quick reference of the dates (etc) for the "Middle Preclassic".

I oppose placing identical information in two articles, but we definitely needed a quick reference at Mesoamerican chronology, so I made an exception to my rule. I think this table is more appropriately placed at Mesoamerican chronology. Would be happy to discuss. Madman 20:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I saw today that that table is also used in Mesoamerican architecture, which is a very nice (if incomplete) article. Maybe we should make it into a template, CJLL?? Madman 02:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, the table in Mesoamerican architecture is not quite the same since it includes some architecture-related links on the right.  : ) Madman 03:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey thanks Madders ol' buddy— good call, and looks fine. Ultimately, it would be great to have separate articles on each of the chrono periods, tied together from an overview article. I still think it would be beneficial to also have parallel series of separate "History of..." and "Chronology of..." themed articles. The former would document Mesoam. period(s)/culture(s) in the standard narrative and analytical format, while the latter would be formatted more as a 'true' ordered chronology, a reference-list of events, inscriptions etc by chrono sequence. One day....maybe a New Year's resolution... ;-)
And yes, an infobox template summarising Mesoamerican chrono periods would be a capital idea, as a sort of 'cheat-sheet' that could be pinned to relevant articles that use the terminology, handy for folks not well-versed in the usage. What do you think, an unobtrusive box somewhere to the side, or one that runs along the bottom? Maybe, and eventually, both could be developed- say a collapsable one positioned at the bottom, with links to various history– and chronological–type articles (once they exist), and one at the side just listing the period names and their corresponding date ranges..? Saludos, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, these period names and durations were very puzzling to me when I first began working within Mesoamerica -- in fact, I still need a reference at times.
So, I would be interested in a horizontal infobox, particularly a collapsible one. A vertical one would work too. Could I ask if you could set that up, CJLL?? I don't presently have the skills (although I could learn if you're tied up). Madman 02:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure, will see if I can't knock something together in the next coupla days.--cjllw ʘ TALK 05:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New glyph (archaeology) article & Featured Picture nomination

Folks:

In an attempt to make some of our jargon more understandable to the average reader, I finally created: glyph (archaeology). The regular glyph article focuses on typography, which may indeed be the more typical usage but wasn't shedding any light on what a Maya/Olmec/Zapotec/etc glyph might be or "mean". An alternative would be to link "glyph" in our articles to hieroglyph. Thoughts anyone?? Any insight, particularly by our more linguistic editors (e.g. Maunus, Ling Nut, etc) would be appreciated.

Also, the scars from my last go-round having healed sufficiently, I decided to again nominate a map of mine for Featured Picture. Comments can be made at the nomination page.

Thanks, Madman 18:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Madman, I've always liked that map, good luck with the FPC nomination!
Re mesoamerican glyphs, yes it could well be useful to have an article devoted to this scope, although naturally enough 'glyph' is not restricted to the mesoamerican context. I dunno what the best way to go about this would be; a redirect to hieroglyph (or petroglyph for that matter) seems unsatisfactory. Would need to think a little more on what distinctions would be useful.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks like that map has passed its Featured Picture nomination- kudos, and well done!--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AZTLAN mailing list mention

G'day all,

as some will no doubt have seen, wikipedia and the WP:MESO project specifically have been mentioned on a recent discussion thread on the AZTLAN mailing list (post archives should be up on the FAMSI site). Mostly positive comments. This may (hopefully!) generate some further Mesoamerican edits, so pls be mindful and on the lookout for opportunities to assist and make welcome any newcomers and/or ip's making edits, particularly if there's someone 'feeling their way' with the formatting and other conventions (such as WP:V). Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Renaming the Moctezumas

I would like to reopen the discussion on the orthography of the two Moctezumas. Fact is that from a nahuatl viewpoint both Montezuma and Moctezuma are corrupted spellings that does not reflect the actual nahuatl name very faithfully. Neither of the spelling variant are used in specialist publications about Nahua/Aztec topics. The prefferred spelling in scholarly articles is Motecuhzoma if using Richard J. Andrews Lockhart/Karttunens orthography which is becoming the most accepted in aztec studies. Another transliteration that is accpetable is Moteuczoma or Moteczoma but these is not as commonly used. This is because unlike the two other forms moctezuma and montezuma it reflects his actual name in Nahuatl. It is composed of the three parts "mo" the reflexvive pronoun , "tecuh/teuc" "lord" and "zōma" "frown" - the other forms introduce spurious letters like "n" or turn "tecu" into "cte" for no good reason. The notion that Moctezuma is a good compromise between the English popular version Montezuma and the more correct Motecuhzoma is flawed - how can one mistaken spelling be a compromise between a correct and another mistaken one?·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In the Andrews orthography it would be Motēuczōma, actually. Andrews hates the cuh spelling (in his view, a "misspelling"), saying that "Its continued use is a measure of ignorance" (Introduction to Classical Nahuatl, Revised Edition, p. 599) and "The acceptance of cuh in a modern text is a clear indication that its writer does not know Nahuatl phonology and morphology" (p. 656). On the other hand, James Lockhart says that "The cuh variant is the most logical" (Nahuatl as Written, p. 106). So whatever. (In the orthography usually used in Lockhart's publications it would be Moteucçoma, with a cedilla.)
In any case, we should go with what's correct in English, not what's correct in Nahuatl, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). I'm in favor of keeping them at the Moctezuma spelling. --Ptcamn (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked at the naming conventions too - but according to those it should be Montezuma. I'm pretty sure that the reason moctezuma has nmore google hits than montezuma is because we use it here. I personally prefer the Launey spelling which to my surprise is the same as Andrews - I apparently have confused Karttunen/Lockharts cuh spelling with Andrews. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd greatly prefer Moctezuma over Montezuma. It's my impression (without doing a survey) that modern history works avoid 'Montezuma', and so if that's the case then I think we should follow suit. I would be happy to entertain a third alternative with a greater fidelity to nahuatl, if one could be found that is also seen in works of a historical orientation, and not purely linguistic. Question is, which of those alternatives mentioned above have a currency in general history scholarship, and to what extent? Perhaps we could do a poll among a cross-section of modern historical treatments and see what is making headway...? --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey:

*Gillespie (1989) Motecuhzoma
*M.E. Smith (1996) Motecuhzoma
*Hassig (1988) Moteuczomah
*Restall (2003) Moctezuma

Feel free to add ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Because the spelling of Tenochtitlan's chief speaker was left to the phonic interpretation of the listener. The different chroniclers had different spellings. (see below)
>> Montezuma - as spelled by Bernal Diaz
>> Moteczoma - as spelled by Diego Duran
>> Moteuczoma - as spelled by Motolinia
>> Motecuhzoma - as spelled by Leon-Portilla, Ángel María Garibay K
>> Moctezuma - as spelled by Muriel Porter Weaver; ISBN 0012639990
Grae Bear (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New article bot

I finally got around to subscribing WP:MESO to the service provided by User:AlexNewArtBot. This is an automated bot with a (usually) daily run, that trawls through all the newly created articles on the lookout for those which, based on a criteria ruleset supplied by a WikiProject, may be about (or at least contain content about) some topic within that project's scope. The bot spits out a daily log of all those found which met at least one of the specified criteria (for WP Mesoamerica, that daily log may be reached via the shortcut WP:MESO/NEWLOG), calculating a 'score' for each reflecting the keywords matched according to the weighting given each entry in the ruleset. Any found which pass the predefined threshhold -that is, are most likely to be in-scope new articles- are also accumulated on a separate SearchResult page (for WP Meso that result page is at WP:MESO/NEWHITS).

So, by monitoring these pages we should be able to spot with relative ease any new articles concerning or involving Mesoamerican topics, that someone may happen to create, whether they're a project participant or not. We can then check to see if the scope's appropriate, tag those suitable with the project banner, sanity-check for accuracy or redundancy, etc etc. We should also start seeing those which may not be centrally concerned with a Mesoamerican subject, but include some sort of related info, which can also be double-checked to see they are not misrepresenting the material too badly. There'll also be a few 'false positives' ie have nothing really to do with a Mesoamerican topic, which by tweaking the ruleset we can keep to a minimum.

The procedure's not perfect, depends on the ruleset and its scoring rationale to a large degree, also I'm not sure it quite picks up every new article created since it last ran. Also I don't think it will pick up if a redirect is turned into a self-sufficient article, for example.

It's been running for WP:MESO a couple of days now, and has picked up a couple of good matches. The ruleset for Mesoamerica is at WP:MESO/NEWRULE, I listed and ranked a few of the most common keywords which you might expect to find on a Mesoamerican article, if anyone can think of other keywords that could be used then pls go ahead and add them. The rules use regex syntax for matching, and the points scale I've selected generally reflects the principle that the more unique and central a keyword is to Mesoamerican subjects, the easier it is to make the threshhold, while those that could be in a Mesoamerican article but also in a number of other subject areas (eg country names like 'Mexico') are worth fewer points and would need a few more other terms to be present in order to cross the threshhold. Happy to explain it, also the bot's user page provides some helpful instructions on constructing matching rules. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mesoamerican Calendars

I've begun the expansion of the previous stub article Mesoamerican calendars which is top importance and was in a dreadful state. I've basically laid out a structure for what should be included in the article and filled out some of the sections piecemeal with sections from other articles. It does still need a lot of work if its state is to reflect the top importance of the topic. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Enthusiast,
There is an External link off the Aztec calendar main page leading to an animated Aztec calendar that removes all confusion about how it worked. It depicts clearly the exact mechanics of the Native time-keeping system. I think this finally resolves the riddle of how two calendars worked as one. Also, the "Year Bearer" progression-mechanics is fully accounted for. This looks like a breakthrough.Grae Bear (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi. I haven't had time to look at your animated 'aztec calendar' in detail, but if it involves your own synthesis of how these were supposed to work together then by WP:NOR and WP:RS we wouldn't be using it, and it should prob not be linked to in the article. BTW, the repetitious posting of this message could be seen as WP:SPAM or at least WP:COI, need to be careful. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


I agree with your concern. This is merely a way to visually depict known realities.
What we know about Native Time-management:
1) a 260 (13 x 20) day count cycle progressed unabated for 5,125 years
2) a year count was (20 x 18) + 5 = 365 days (but what made the nemontemi "nameless")
3) the two calendars worked together to distinguish days and years
4) the year designators were spaced 5 days apart (i.e.: reed, knife, house, rabbit)
5) a bundle of years was (52 x 365) + 13 = 18993 days
The rules were clear and after some tinkering, the final results met existing criteria.
The Aztec calendar animation is a visual tool that illustrates the dynamics of what we attempt to describe in words. Some folks may disagree, but I personally feel a picture is still worth a thousand words.Grae Bear (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Grae Bear, I received your email, however rather than reply to it thought it better to continue the discussion on-wiki, so that other interested parties may contribute.
WRT the 5 points you list above,
1) This seems to improperly conflate the Mesoamerican 260-day calendar (tonalpohualli to the Aztec), with the Long Count (LC) calendar, in which 13 cycles of 144,000-day periods (ie 13 x b'ak'tun periods to use the Maya terminology) does come out to be approx equal to 5125 (and a quarter) tropical years, or 1,872,000 total days. The LC does not derive from the 260-day calendar and vice versa, and there's also no evidence that the Aztec kept track or knew of the Long Count. Also, neither the LC nor the 260-day nor any other Mesoamerican calendar "continued unabated" for 5125 years- they were not actually in use way back then, but as far as we know were developed considerably later.
Reply: First off, in Wiki it states: "Tzolkin is part of Maya Long Count Calendar." Its base 20, that is what matters. The greatest value of the 260 count was to act as a stable reference scale to keep the civil rhythm in sync with precession slippage. Keep in mind, at the time that the "Aztec" but more specifically the Mexica (aka: Mechica) dominated most of the land from ocean to ocean, the "Maya" had experienced a recent hurricane (aka: huakan) that flattened the place. The first arriving Spaniards who observed the Yucatan peninsula, noted that the tops of the trees were so flat, it look as if it had been mown. The word "maya" or "mayan" has a Nahautl meaning. It means hungry and is the root of the Nahua word for slave: mayeque. Tenochtitlan got a Toltec tlatlani in the inaugaration of Acampichitl in 1375. He brought with him the Toltec Calendar.
2) fine for a description of the vague year; as for why they are called "nameless", in partial explanation we have from the Florentine Codex (vol II) "estos cinco dias, a ningun dios, estan dedicados: y por esso los llaman 'nemontemi'". Nēmontēmi is supposed to derive from nēn "in vain, useless" coupled with the verb tēmi "to become full, replenish".
Reply: "...verb tēmi "to become full, replenish". << ..after being empty. Babies couldn't be named on these days. On these days, all hearth fires were extinguished. It was a time for prayer, reflection and renewal, leading to the New Fire.
3) 260- & 365-day calendars did combine into the "Calendar Round", but not sure what's meant here by "distinguish days and years".
Reply: To give a day a distinct name (i.e.: day & year; over a 52 year period). The Duran illustration of the Native "Calendar Round" (aka: xiuhmolpolli) depicts the conceptual geometry of the 52 year naming scheme. Each year could be distinguished from the next within the "Round." The Calendar had just started its 16th cycle when Cortez appeared.
4) The Aztec yearbearers were named after the named day in the tonalpohualli which coincided with the 360th day in the xiuhpohualli, and yes it works out that only four out of the twenty (or 1 in 5, if you prefer) named signs in the tonalpohualli could be yearbearers. The particular set of 4 yearbearers was not the same in each culture or in each period, however.
Reply: The reason it is 1 in 5 is because of the xiuhpohualli count is interrupted by the 5 day nēmontēmi. (20/5 = 4)
5) The "year bundle" (xiuhmolpilli) marking the completion of a Calendar Round as the same combination begins to repeat is just the lowest common multiple of 260 and 365, ie 18980 days, or 52 x 365. What's the justification for adding on another 13 days?
Reply: Considering the reason that the buildings were built or placed a certain way was to pin down a constant reference point of a recurring event. The exact day of an equinox or solstice works, also planets, stars, constellations, etc. (the temple of Chichen-Itza is a good example). Once you peg the event, you start counting. Its kind of hard to miss the fact that some years are 366 days long. The Mexica of Tenochtitlan coincided the start of their new year with the vernal equinox, as did most other towns. The Mexica new year is still being celebrated today by some Native die hards.
In your email to me you mentioned a couple of other claims (which I see are reproduced on one of your(?) webpages associated with your book), such as the calendar being known as "Two that Is One",
Reply: >> This was a term Dr. Jimenez used when he first described the concept behind Native duality. "It is two calendars that act as one."
that the calendar is associated with precession,
Reply: >> they could pinpoint an equinox and they could count
that they were "aware that our Sun was a star and the stars were other suns".
Reply: >> the Mexica depicted stars (ixtelot) as an eye with lid. The snout of the Fire Serpent is adorned with seven stars of the Plieades. Tonatiuh has been represented as an ixtelot in the art.
I don't think that any of these is supported by mainstream Mesoamericanist scholarship, which as an encyclopaedia we are bound to follow when describing what is known about these calendar systems. See also WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE.
Reply: >> If you are using Wiki as your example of that, it seems a bit vague. Look at Calendar Round for example: "One Calendar Round cycle thus includes 18980 distinct dates and lasts approximately 52 years." Well, that sure nails it down alright.
I have some other concerns about the animated Aztec calendar you've linked to, and now that I've looked at it a bit more I think it will be problematic to use it as a basis for info here on wiki. I will document these concerns over at the relevant Talk:Aztec calendar page, where others can look at it and see whether or not they agree with the assessment. You'd be welcome of course to argue the case for inclusion over at the talkpage. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Reply: >> Consider that when a person looks at the Diego Duran illustration of the xiuhmolpolli in the Book of Gods and Rites, what one sees is a logical concept that has been converted into a two dimensional drawing. The counting scheme was so obscure, that even the studied friar needed someone to draw him a picture to be able fully understand the logical progression. That is all that I have tried to do. With proper editing, I am sure the animated material can be brought within Wiki guidelines and be useful in helping people fully understand the logical progression taken to the next level. Grae Bear (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Rather than carry on this discussion into two places, I suggest that we discuss any further points continuing at Talk:Aztec calendar. It shld be more visible there. I have responded to your (Grae Bear's) latest comments there. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2012 vandalism

  • NASA predicts that the Sun will reverse its own magnetic poles during 2012 as result of reaching the end of the current 11-year sunspot cycle, this is partly to do with Strappy being gay.[1]


Someone should remove the comment after the 11-year sunspot cycle 150.192.250.109 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, that was just some infantile vandalism which is now reverted. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aztec terminology revisited: a proposal

In order to improve the quality of coverage of Aztec related topics a major issue to resolve is the ethnic nomenclature. I hereby intend to start a discussion in order to achieve consensus about the usage of aztec related ethnonyms - this I will do by puttingforth a proposal, which can serve as a starting point for discussion. The major questions to be resolved are: choose the defininition of "Aztec" that we want to use. Construct guidelines for the usage of "Aztec", "Nahua", "Mexica" and other specific ethnonyms. My proposal is as follows:

Aztec - to be used when referring to common expressions of precolumbian Nahua culture - i.e. when referring to precolumbian nahua culture as a whole. This would mean that only things that were common for all nahua speaking groups before the spanish conquest could be called "Aztec", it would also mean that both Mexica, Tlaxcaltecs, Tlatelolca, Acolhua can be called Aztecs but only when stressing their unity with other Nahuatl speaking ethnic groups. The precedents for this usage comes from James Lockhart who uses Aztec about the precolumbian Nahua, the usage has also been adopted by Aztec specialists such as M.E. Smith.
Nahua - to be prototypically used about the colonial and modern Nahua, but also about the precolumbian culture when referring to them in capacity of speakers of the Nahuatl language.
Mexica - to refer to the inhabitants of Mexico: the island. That is the combined group of Tenochca and Tlatelolca. Also to refer to the specific group of migrating chichimeca that eventually settled in Mexico.
Tenochca - to be used when referring only to the inhabitants of Tenochtitlan, but excluding those of Tlatelolco.
Tlatelolca, Tlaxcaltec, Texcoca, Chalca, Xochimilca, Huexotzinca, Chololtec etc. To be used whenever stating something about a specific ethnic group.
(Aztec) Triple Alliance to be used instead of the "Aztec empire" when referring to the expansionist political hegemony centered in the valley of Mexico.

This usage would mean that we could say that the organisation of Altepetl into Calpultin, and the venerance of Tezcatlipoca where typical of the Aztecs. That the situation became difficult for the Nahua with the decree of the royal cedula of 1770. That the Mexica were the dominant group in the triple alliance. That the Tenochca were dependent on the market of the Tlatelolca. And that the Tlaxcaltecs were at war with the triple alliance, and that the Chololtecs paid tribute to it.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus this is a helpful start going some way towards coming to some clear understanding and an aide to consistent writing.
So by the above for example, precolumbian Pipil & Nicarao wld be happily termed "Nahuas" by dint of linguistic affiliation? And you propose jettisoning "Empire" altogether - could 'Aztec state' be used interchangeably for the alliance? --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Two good points. Actually thinking about it probably Aztec empire is more prcise than Aztec state, since if we call all precolumbian Nahua "Aztecs" there has been many Aztec states - but only one empire. Maybe we could keep the empire terminology - since most research do indicate that the Triple Alliance did indeed constitute an imperial political entity. As for precolumbian Nahua(-t/-l/-tl) speakers outside of central Mexico it is a question whether to call them aztecs or Nahuas. I would prefer Nahua although that maybe blurs the lines a bit. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think usage of 'empire' is well-enough entrenched that we can retain it. Also, referring only to the "triple alliance" as a definitive political entity may have some issues, considering there are those like Gillespie and Gibson who have argued that the notion of a triple alliance may have more to do with postconquest rationalisation and re-invention, than something that had a clear reality on the ground at the time.
For the precolumbian Pipiles etc I think that "nahuas" would be the best fit, I can't recall seeing any sources that put them under the umbrella of an Aztec label. Probably 'Aztec' is inseparable from the political institutions emanating from the Basin of Mexico.
So- would the focus of the main Aztec article be the ethnohistory of (all) the precolumbian nahua speakers in the Basin of Mexico and immediate surrounds? Trying to envisage how one would write in the same sentence about groups eg tlaxcaltecs when they were dissident/independent, and the central hegemony. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the "Aztec" article which shouldn't necessarily be the main article on aztec culture should be a "verbose disambiguation page" like we have previously decided. I think it should mostly define the terminology, explain the reader why some of their preconceptions are flawed, and direct them to the pages that have the information they want. In doing so it should also give a brief overview of aztec ethnohistory and culture - mostly by having sections directing towards the main articles. I think we should make separate pages about "The Aztec empire", "Aztec society", "Aztec culture/civilization", "Nahua peoples", "Aztec religion/mythology" etc. All of which (except the "Empire" one) should take care to take a pan-aztec perspective: that is describe things that were common to all aztecs/nahuas as such, and things that were particular to specific altepetl groups as such.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Maunus for the delay in responding with further comments, had been meaning to get around to this sooner. I generally agree.

So, under Aztec we could have something like:

"Aztec is a term [..insert some words to describe how/why it was coined, and about how the term has been employed by various sources to mean different things in diverse contexts]. As such, it may refer to:

  • Aztec civilization/Aztec culture(?) – a collective term for various peoples and political entities in general that occupied the Basin of Mexico and the surrounding areas in the Postclassic period of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, who shared commonalities of linguistic (ie, nahuatl) affiliation, belief systems and societal traditions (cf. Aztec society, Aztec mythology, Aztec religion, etc)
  • Aztec Empire – the political hegemony which arose in central Mexico during the Late Postclassic, centred on the Valley of Mexico but extending (with various degrees of influence) across much of the central-northern portion of Mesoamerica
  • Aztec Triple Alliance – the particular political arrangement beginning in the mid-15thC (as retrospectively portrayed by later histories) between the city-states of Texcoco, Tlacopan and Tenochtitlan, with the latter becoming the dominant partner
  • Mexica/Culhua-Mexica – the specific nahuatl-speaking group who migrated into the Valley of Mexico and founded the city-state of Tenochtitlan, from whence they became a dominant force in the Postclassic central Mexican arena
  • Tenochca – the inhabitants of Tenochtitlan itself
  • Nahua peoples – collective designation for all groups speaking nahuan languages, including in pre-Columbian times but more specifically and usually referring to such groups in the colonial and modern periods
  • Classical Nahuatl – the variants of Nahuatl language spoken in the Valley of Mexico and used more widely as a lingua franca sometime around the early 16thC, that may (in a non-standard usage) occasionally be called "Aztec (language)"

Aztec may also mean:

{{disambig}} "

The descriptions prob. need a little fine-tuning, if not correcting.

An additional option may be, to also create a page Aztec terminology (or Aztec (terminology)), which could be used to go into greater detail about the niceties (and debates) of the term's usage (since stylistically and practically a concise diambig pg is easier to maintain and use to resolve the scads of incoming links to 'Aztec' that are already out there; by keeping it short'n'sweet on the dab pg itself we may hopefully avoid too many adjustments being made to the pg, and be able to reference the usages on the terminology pg.) The 'terminology' pg could also list various other terms associated with aztec/nahua concepts — eg, altepetl, pochteca, — and give a brief desc. of them to aid an unfamiliar reader. This would function like a set index page of sorts, allowing greater freedom than the standard dab-pg format. Something similar was done with the term "Native Americans", see Native American name controversy.

What do y'all think, any suggestions re the choices of options?--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I really like the idea of a separate article that would go into greater detail. I cringe when I see the large section at the start of the Aztec article discussing all this terminology. A separate article would allow us greater latitude and more space to discuss the matter without unduely burdening articles. Thanks, Madman (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Re the mechanics of turning Aztec into a dab page, once we settle on the breakout of alternative meanings as outlined above and have refined the words, next step will be earmarking which passages in the current article go to what subarticle. I suppose that the political and history sections will largely end up in Aztec Empire, cultural etc topics in the Aztec civilization one, and a smattering of passages spread across the others. May have to proceed transferring piece by piece before switching to the dab format, as the passages will need some massaging to fit into their new contexts.
Any refinements or changes in direction to be suggested at this stage, before setting off down that road? (NB, not planning any immediate total overhaul, what with RL commitments &c. I suspect it will take some time to work through...) --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it all sounds fine. I had planned an immediate total overhaul but real life intervened and I probably won't get around to do anything else about it the next two months since I will be at some distance from a reliable internet provider.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stub types

Hi all - as a member of the stub-sorting WikiProject I have just proposed a split of the archaeology stubsm using the standard method of splitting such stubs, i.e., by continent. This would lead to the possible creation of (among others) a {{NorthAm-archaeology-stub}} and a {{CentralAm-archaeology-stub}}, for use on stub articles relating to the archaeology of North and Central America respectively. Understandably, there would be considerable overlap with some stub types currently in use by - among others - editors involved in your WikiProject, and it is possible that some re-scoping of these templates might be needed as a result - in particular, there would be significant similarity in scope between Mesoamerica-stub and a CentralAm-archaeology-stub. It would be appreciated if there was some input from your project on this matter at WP:WSS/P. Grutness...wha? 14:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am confused why you would want to do this? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
I am also puzzled by the contention that Central America is a separate continent from North America. I will respond WP:WSS/P. Madman (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the stubsorting is only looking to rationalise the main archaeology-stub cat. Personally I don't see there'd be much of an overlap btw mesoamerican and central american ones, since IMO "central american archaeology" is usually understood to be that of the so-called Intermediate Area, ie lower-central america south of mesoamerica down to Panama & Colombia. I've suggested as such to WP:WSS (ie that if called for, meso and cent.Am archaeology stubs/cats can happily coexist without any great overlap or angst). Prob all a bit of a moot point, since AFAIK this is the only wikiproject active organised across precolumbian archaeology/history lines. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nahuatl scheduled for Main Page appearance this month

Hi all- looks like Nahuatl has been scheduled to appear on the Main Page on May 13 - see here. Other than keeping watch on the day itself, of course, maybe just a run through beforehand to check all's ok with it and the major articles which link from it- particularly those that will be linked in the Main Page para. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Western Mexico shaft tomb tradition now Good Article nomination

Folks, I decided to send this article thru the Good Article nomination process, to see how easy/difficult it is. Comments encouraged. Thanks, Madman (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Great work Madman, and clear exposition as always. Will look out for it. One quick suggestion- a locational map would be helpful, but perhaps you already have the matter in hand. Otherwise will try to go thru it in more detail soon and see if there's anything else. I think it has every chance of clearing the GA hurdle, but a lot depends on who picks it up at GAC. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for kind comments, CJLL. Regarding the map, I have long considered a map and finally decided to put one together. My maps, however, have never shown modern-day locales, only the ancient sites and "cultural areas". However, any map for this article would have to show modern Mexico states at least. But you're right - it needs a map.
By the way, I was going to put Mesoamerican ballgame thru the GA process, but I found a number of unattributed quotes in that article. Sad to say, I fear it's easier to write up a new article than to clean up an old one. Madman (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed- putting in copious cites and refs from the get-go makes for much less work and redundancy of effort later on. As for the map, just the modern state names & boundaries wld help placing in general geog context; & maybe just pinpoint a couple of the specific sites mentioned. Dunno if you have sources which wld allow some sort of bounded region to be drawn, within which the tombs are typically found. Major topographical features -rivers, ranges- wld be cool, but a "flat" basic map would suffice. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I put together a map, including the modern state names & boundaries, a few of the specific sites mentioned and well as several dozen unnamed sites which, taken together, show a general distribution. I also included rivers. Thanks for the suggestion, Madman (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
¡muy excelente! Hats off to you once again, sir! --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)