This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

ARCHIVE INDEX (EDIT)
2005	2006	2007	2008
I (May–Dec)	II (Jan–Feb) III (Mar–Apr) IV (May) V (Jun) VI (Jul) VII (Aug–Sep) VIII (Oct–Nov) IX (Dec)	X (Jan) XI (Feb) XII (Mar) XIII (Apr) XIV (May–Jun) XV (Jul–Aug) XVI (Sep) XVII (Oct) XVIII (Nov–Dec)	XIX (Jan) XX (Feb–Mar) XXI (Apr) XXII (May) XXIII (Jun-Jul) XXIV (Aug-Sep) XXV (Oct-Nov) XXVI (Dec)
2009	2010–11	2012
XXVII (Jan-Feb) XXVIII (Mar-May) XXVIX (Jun) XXX (Jul-Aug) XXXI (Sep-Oct) XXXII (Nov-Dec)	XXXIII (2010 Jan-Dec) XXXIV (2011 Jan-Dec)

May 2008

Kan Maax

Kan Maax is another Egyptos stub with some copyvio from at least [1] -- redirect to Cancuen where you've been editing and put something in there about him, or? Thanks.Doug Weller (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll rewrite it, tomorrow hopefully. I accumulated some sources on Cancuen earlier, the status of Kan Maax is unclear but the find of a mass burial is genuine enough. There's a bunch of newspaper stories mentioning 'Kan Maax' is the name associated with one of the interrments, supposedly read from an amulet glyph. I'd like to find an original arch. report that confirms this, and understand what's the evidence that shows he's the son of the predecessor. At any rate it can be tidied up with the more reliable of those news reports that directly quote Demarest & others from the Vanderbilt project. Meanwhile, I've redirected Battle of Tikal per my comments on its talk page and rewritten and renamed Ruler X (Rio Azul). I think there's one or two more Maya personage articles to go thru, like Fish Face (king). --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Tikal and Fire is Born

From Friedel's review of the latest edition of Coe: Updating a perennial debate over the relationship between the great Classic period highland Mexican city of Teotihuacan and the Maya, Coe describes how David Stuart recently showed that the warlord Siyaj K'ahk' ('Fire is Born') likely travelled from the west to conquer the major Maya city of Tikal in January of AD 378. Stuart identified a monument inscription on Stela 15 at the site of El Peru, ancient Waka', some 75 km due west of Tikal, that placed Siyaj K'ahk' there eight days before he arrived at Tikal. My current archaeological research project at El Peru-Waka', co-directed with Hector Escobedo, is confirming the significance of Siyaj K'ahk's arrival there in early January AD 378. Project epigrapher Stanley Guenter's reading of Stela 15 links the arrival of the warlord with the accession of the local king as a vassal. He and I also identified a second Waka' stela that not only discusses Siyaj K'ahk' but also portrays him posthumously as a Teotihuacano warrior some seventy years after the celebrated arrival. Clearly the kings of El Peru-Waka' regarded their vassal status to Siyaj K'ahk' with great pride and as pivotal to their history. We continue to explore for further archaeological evidence relevant to this episode.Doug Weller (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, v useful. Will come in handy when I get to work on the Teo influences article, and maybe can in the meantime work it into the Tikal & Teo articles as well. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you look at New Thought?

CJLL, as an admin could you give us your thoughts on the New Thought article?? Thanks, Madman (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Madman. Yes, frustrating, I know. Article itself looks in need of an overhaul. It looks like thrashing out the disputed section(s) and identifying the corroborating cites on the talk page first is going to be the way to go. Dunno much about the topic, but shouldn't be that hard to track down some sources- there are prob a few in the public domain. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Locations for Maya sites

I added coor coordinate settings for a number of the Maya sites. I tried to be as precise as I could, but in some cases, they are just in the general ballpark. In general all of the satellite photos suck for the Maya region (couldn't one of them get a better resolution for Tikal?). In some cases, the resolution goes down just outside the Maya site in question to give just a gray blur where the site is (e.g. Palenque).

I adjusted a few of the coordinates that were already present in sites that do have good satellite photos to center on the largest pyramid at the site, which is what I'd want to see if I was looking at the site. E.g. Chichen Itza, Teotihuacan, Dzibilchaltun. I also adjusted the zoom level of a couple of them.

If anyone has more precise coordinates, they should refine them. Would it be considered original research if I took a GPS to Palenque, Yaxchilan, and Piedras Negras in July and got accurate locations for them, including altitude? grr (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the good work, grr. Tried out a couple, they are looking good, and agree that centering on the conspicuous structures is a good idea. I suppose that for the purpose of refining the map targets, if you were able to get your own data on a visit there, that cld help.

I believe that Walter Witschey and Clifford Brown have some downloadable .kmz files for quite a few Maya sites at their Electronic Atlas of Ancient Maya sites, here. I think those are pretty accurate and cld be used as a source to obtain coords. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the kmz file for the major sites in their work. Most of them are pretty good, especially when the satellite photos are good. Some of them, though, are not exactly right. Aguateca is off by a bit. I've been there twice, so I know it's at the south end of lake Petexbatun, and on the hill just west of there. They've got it to the southwest by a bit. Caracol is off by a bit, too. I haven't been there--the roads were too muddy the one time we tried, but it should be at the end of the road. El Mirador, I think is a little to the NE of where they sited it. I centered the coordinates on what I'm pretty sure is La Danta from a number of landmarks I found from when I was there. I'm not sure how accurate Dos Pilas is. The roads (if you can call them that; I'd probably use the term mud strips) getting there are hard to find on the photos and the resolution sucks. The resolution sucks for Tikal, Palenque, and Copan, too, but they are close. (The resolution is good on the museum at Copan, but not the site.) Not sure if they got Nakbe right--it may be to the west of where they sited it--I think I may have found it in the photos. But Becan, Comalcalco, Izamal, and Kaminaljuyu are spot on, as you can tell from the photos. I'll update the coordinates in the articles for places that I can identify. Thanks for the link, btw, it will help with something I'm working on now. grr (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No probs. Thanks for the work on this, grr. I don't suppose that Witschey & Brown got all their data themselves, they probably had to rely to some extent on site reports and the like some of which may have been compiled pre-GPS. Their methodology may be in one of their online docs, wld hv to look it up. In any case, as long as the coords resolve to an appropriately-scaled map or satellite img near enough to the target, it's a useful effort. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sylvanus Morley

Hi, I am mywood from zh wiki and have a question of article Sylvanus Morley. I find that chapter "Carnegie Institution and Chichen Itza proposa" changed a lot in last november, see [2], and in the beginning of next chapter, "Morley was to devote the next 18 years working in the Maya region", I get a little bit confused about the next 18 years. Is it from old version 1918 or from new version 1913? Could you please help me to check with it? Thanks a lot.--Mywood2004 (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mywood. The original version had Morley becoming an associate at Carnegie in 1918 after the war, and then working on the details for funding for his Chichen Itza proposal, which would take another 3-4 years to organise and put a team in the field (tho' this delay wasn't spelled out in the article). The newer version clarified (from another source) that Morley had orginally submitted a Chichen Itza proposal pre-war in 1913, which was given the green light by Carnegie but the war (and then funding and also local political instability) intervened, and the Chichen digs were not actually started until around 1922-23.

Since Morley left the region (for the last time) in 1940 when the Carnegie Chichen programme was wound up, the "next 18 years" refers to the 18 or so years before 1940, ie starting around 1922-23 when the first Chichen digs began. It's been a little while since I read the sources, so may have to check up on exactly when the first field work (as opposed to the planning, preparation and financing) actually commenced. Will let you know if it turns out any different. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Going back to some sources, most agree that the physical excavation work at Chichen only commenced in the 1923-24 season, though I think Morley was there a year or two beforehand making preparations. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your quick response.--Mywood2004 (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, Mywood - best of luck with the translation into zh.wiki. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So much for "water under the bridge"

Low Sea has decided to take up the demonising on another forum: see WP:VPP#Question on editorial over-focusing. I will attempt to remain WP:COOL on this, but am find it increasingly difficult to see the benefit in extending the courtesy of suspending imposition of WP:V to editors who offer me only gross discourtesy in return. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I did say that I hoped we could all now just get on with things.. it looks like that VPP thread commenced before our more recent understanding at that talk pg, so maybe not all the folks weighing in at VPP are up to speed on the proposal. If you're able to continue to hold onto that thought of suspending imposition for just a wee bit longer, I'll try to chime in at VPP and encourage a 'truce'. Have been on and offline moving about recently, will endeavour to do this when the next time I can get a connection. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but note, Hrafn, that you were the last one to post at WP:VPP#Question on editorial over-focusing as well as at User Talk:Low Sea. Madman (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess there's an inherent momentum to defensive exchanges that may take a few posts before grinding to a halt. In any case, I've put forward a suggestion at the WP:VPP thread, with a view to settling the matter. Cheers all, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Piktuns and beyond

Please review my explanation for why I removed the lines about Thompson's explanation for 1.13.0.x.x.x.x.x as the unexpressed higher order units for the Long Count (links to my post in the discussion section).

I have been trying to track down the reason that Thompson thought 1.13.0 were the higher order units, and I think it is a house of cards, and thus has no place in the article. Just because a noted scholar writes something, doesn't mean that it is right--if so we'd still be quoting Thompson's notion that the Maya only used rebus writing and didn't write about history. Citing Thompson is always so tricky because he can be incontrovertibly right in one paragraph, and completely wrong in the next.

I provided a foundation for why I believe that content is wrong, citing my sources and removed the controversial content from the article. I want to make sure that I'm on solid ground here. Your thoughts? grr (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi grr. Sorry, have run out of time to review it in detail this evening, hope to be able to check it out tomorrow or thereabouts. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Cyrstal Skull

I've managed to get another Admin to semi-protect it (maybe I should have asked you but for some reason I didn't think of you, stupid of me) to stop drive-bys as it is getting a lot of attention and will certainly be getting more. I've had some email from the owner of www.crystalskulls.com who tried to add his site twice. I explained to him in detail Wikipedia policy which he accepts, but interestingly enough is unhappy with www.crystalskulls.us/ saying it is basically a commercial site.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. Semi-protection was a good idea, without it no doubt we'd be bombarded by continual "Kilroy was here" -type witticisms. I'd already pretty much given up on trying to retain the original spelling of 'artefact' used in the article, it seems there's an unending stream of USonians out there in a state of bewilderment and disbelief that there could be millions of english speakers beyond their narrow experience who prefer and are used to spelling words a little differently.

Hey, that's not fair! You Brits read. We Yanks just watch the telly, and write however our spellcheckers tell us to.

(Nice to see s.o. use the term 'Usonian', though!) kwami (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

heh ;-) In my book, whoever it was at Microsoft who decided to embed American english as the default spellcheck dict is Public Enemy #1 of the Queen's Orthography, as she should naturally be ~~organised~~ organized... oh bugger. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As for those ext links, as far as I can tell the site by AAA-member Tim McGuinness doesn't sell or promote anything, and is certainly non-commercial in nature. He does have some amazon links to various books on crystal skulls, but none of them are his and there's at least a range of pics and other info presented. By contrast, the other site seems to exist only or primarily to cash in on the recent high-profile of these items due to the film. The (dis)information on this site buys into the woo phenomena in a major way, and the site's visitors are likewise encouraged to buy into it (from site owner) in cash terms; such as this incredible (in the most literal sense of the word) special offer: "You can aquire[sic] a new crystal skull that has already been activated by an old or ancient crystal skull. At CrystalSkulls.com, you have the opportunity to purchase crystal skulls that have been charged by Amar, the Tibetan Crystal Skull, available in sets of 7 crystal skulls or 12 crystal skulls to amplify the power of crystal skulls. As a special limited time offer, you can get a individual Indie Crystal Skull that is also activated by Amar".

I find it hard to tell this silliness apart from a calculated scam, and by just about every policy and precept we have the inclusion of links such as these should be resisted — stoutly. Will keep an eye out for attempts at reinsertion. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

ps. While on the subject of suitable links/refs for that article, I don't think the Morton & Thomas book is a particularly reliable one, from accounts I've read. Since it's not used as a cite anyway, I reckon it cld be safely removed. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed it. Doug Weller (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sylvanus Morley

Hi again, I have some small suggestions of this article.

From chapter "Early life and first expeditions" to chapter "Project completion and final years" are all talked about the life of Sylvanus Morley, and chapter "Influences on other scholars" appears in between is a little bit strange. From my point of view, it is better to move it after chapter "Theories and retrospective assessment", so the achievement and infuelence are linked together.
In the end of chapter "Fieldwork in Mexico and Central America", the date is 1930s. Then in the chapter "Excavations at Chichen Itza", the date move back to 1924, and the next chapter is "Project completion and final years" which is talked about 1940s activities. I know "Excavations at Chichen Itza" is the most important project of Morley. But the jump of time may cause readers a little bit confused or lost. Can this chapter be part of achievement? So the chapters are arranged as life-achievement-infuelence-other which looks more fluent. --Mywood2004 (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mywood, I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I suppose that the current sequence to some extent reflects the order in which it was researched and written, so there is some scope to consider a reorganisation. My thinking in including the paras on Thompson and Proskouriakoff 'in the middle of' his pure biographical sequence was that these gave some context to his contemporaneous works. However, perhaps this could work equally well if the section were moved to the 'Theories and retrospective assessment' portion. I wil give it some serious thought.

The 'Fieldwork' section really begins in the early 1920s, but quickly steps through the next two decades as a sort of overiew. The Chichen Itza subsections serve as a kind of breakout discussion to hone in with more detail on his most significant fieldwork. I'm less inclined to move the Chichen sections into the 'achievements & assessment' area, as I think the Chichen details are more a descriptive narrative of what he did, rather than a retrospective assessment of what he'd accomplished. However, will consider that point too.

Once again, may thanks for your insightful and helpful review comments. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Rongorongo, again

Hi CJ,

Rongorongo is up for FAC again. I'd appreciate your input, if you have the time. The only problem I can think of is copyright issues, since some people take the 2D rule-of-thumb to mean photos of 3D objects (such as a wall!) are automatically copyrightable. But to be safe I've removed the thumbs from the table of texts. kwami (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, kwami. Must say I was suprised when it didn't get up last time around - when I compared it to others which were successful at around the same time, it was hard to see how those passed muster when rongorongo didn't. So ist das Leben eben. Shows how much I can tell. Anyway, will be glad to re-review, and add comment to the FAC discussion, FWIW. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Archaeology of Spits

Thanks for tidying up the page (Spit (archaeology)) it looks much better now. The reason I put the acknowledgements is because I did a mash up of several posts on the ausarch discussion group and I wanted to acknowledge the contributors. I am glad you had the time to find the links to other pages. Now I hope somebody finds it useful! --Iain Stuart (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Iain, no problems. I at least found it useful, so thanks to you & the others for contributing it. Kind Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

END OF TALK ARCHIVE PAGE