Talk:Tulum

---

Also the name of a Turkish musical instrument

"Tulum (bagpipe) is a Turkish folk instrument of the wind type. It consists of three parts with Deri Kısmı (leather section), Nav and Ağızlık (mouth piece). The air is stored in the leather section and is let into the nav section by pressing the bag under the arm. Nav is the part where the melody is played. It also has two parts called Analık and Dillik. Ağızlık is the section which sends the air to the leather bag of the pipe.

Tulum is used in Turkey at Trabzon, Rize, Erzurum, Kars, Northern and Eastern Anatolian regions and at the Thrace region. Tulum, which is generally made from lamb or kid skin, is called Gayda in Thrace" . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.42.178 (talk • contribs) 18 January 2006. (Note: It is also a quote taken directly from this website).

Thanks for noting an alternate use for the name "Tulum", anon contributor. I shall create a new article Tulum (instrument) for it (in original phrasing, of course), and note the disambiguation here.--cjllw | TALK 11:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

ok, Tulum (bagpipe) and Tulum (disambiguation) are now set up.--cjllw | TALK 06:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Town versus site?

Has there been thought in separating the entry for the town from the entry for the ruins. I've seen a number of internal links that are clearly meant to be for the municipality, that instead are directed here.

This might not have been a problem five years ago. I remember visiting in the late 90s and the town was miniscule. Went back in Dec 2006 and it's a good sized town and a destination of its own...

Perhaps "Tulum (Pueblo)" or "Tulum (town)" should be created, while this get's re-named "Tulum (ruins)" or "Tulum (historical site)"?

Would love to hear feedback on this. T L Miles 15:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is enough information for a seperate article about the town, spinning one off seems fine to me. I'd leave the ruins at "Tulum" as it is more famous, and the town developed and got its name from the ruins. -- Infrogmation 17:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

on closer inspection there's already a stub called Tulum (city). When I get some time I'll try to flesh it out using what you have here for the city, and change the variety of links in wikipedia that are clearly aimed at the municipality to that (or else the disambiguation, which I updated).

Solidaridad, Quintana_Roo and Quintana Roo would be examples that are really meant for the municipality. T L Miles 20:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Separation of Tulum (precolumbian site) and Tulum Pueblo

I've undone the recently performed merge of material on the pre-Columbian site (from this Tulum article) into the article (Tulum, Quintana Roo) on the modern township.

These two are physically and historically distinct entities, and there's no need (indeed would be undesirable) to combine them into a single article. The two can of course cross-reference each other, but this article Tulum should be left to describe the pre-Columbian site, with Tulum, Quintana Roo describing the modern settlement, also known as 'Tulum Pueblo'. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane warning system?

I added a blurb about the 'alter' next to the main temple, and how it is supposedly a hurricane warning system. I heard this on the tour. If it is true (which I really cannot prove), then I think this is important information. I do know that this has been reported in another Mayan site, as described in the link below: http://www.caribbeantravelweb.com/cozumel/activities.htm Look in the section under El Caracol Ruins, and it describes the light house and having a similar function. I don't think this source is reliable enough to reference, but it does lend some validity to the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neorunner (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, that travel website is not a sufficiently credible or reliable source, I would not rely upon it or any of the many similar generic tourism sites to validate any info about the pre-Columbian Maya. If a statement on such a website has any validity to it, then it must've appeared somewhere in the archaeological literature first; I can't find anything of this claim. At the very least we'd need some reference in the archaeological literature to bear any mentioning.

By the same token anything a tourguide may say, whether tall tale or no, cannot be used since by their nature these contravene WP:V policy. By rights we should not even record "according to some tour guide, ...".

The claim as described has low plausibility, a bit like the supposed hand claps at Chichen Itza sounding like quetzal bird-chirps as an intentional design feature of the architecture. This latter claim is likewise not generally supported by Mayanist scholars, tho' at least it has the merit of being proposed by an acoustics engineer.

The possibility remains that it's a real claim that's been published somewhere, but unless and until such a source is found, IMO there's no merit in mentioning it here on wiki. --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Miller

Are we sure this is the same Arthur Miller? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.150.219 (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it's clearly not meant to link to the famous dramatist. Instead should be Arthur G. Miller, distinguished faculty prof. of art history & archaeology at Univ. of Maryland. We don't have an article on him as yet, tho'; after clearing up the links I might set up a stub for the archaeologist. Thx for the catch. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Astrology and Architecture at Tulum

Is there any information available about a connection between astrology and architecture at Tulum? It seems like a possibility since the town is on a cliff and faces East/West.

98.222.198.11 (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Query in article

An IP user 203.134.34.199 posted the following in the article itself with regard to the "map of central Tulum" image. No idea if it's relevant/correct, but here it is anyway:

This image is not consistent with other plan drawings nor with visual inspections of the site-in particular the entrances depicted around the north and south watchtowers do not exist . The road around the west wall is not correct in that it goes around the north wall to an entrance in its middle. This plan should be replaced with a correct one .I have not yet worked out how to properly question images so forgive me for posting this here.I assume you will put it in its correct place.