Talk:Venado Beach

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Central AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Central AmericaCentral America articles

Archaeology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

First off, it is really cool that you picked this site for your article. Venado Beach is an incredibly important and interesting site, one that merits much more recognition than it has received. You should know that there are some artifacts from Venado Beach in the Pre-Columbian collection at Dumbarton Oaks and that these have been undergoing a re-analysis by archaeologist Richard Cooke (an amazing scientist who merits a Wikipedia biography himself). Well chosen! Hoopes (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some basic edits to the text. Please note that some of your hypertext links are unnecessary, including ones to non-notable topics such as "Venado River Valley", "Lt. Col. Montgomery" (whose full name should be given). The opening paragraph of the article should give a brief summary of the site's significance, in particular justifying its inclusion in Wikipedia. For example, there should be mention of both the gold finds and the special topics of unusual deaths as represented by the skeletal evidence. Simply mentioning the dates of the site (which should be rounded to the nearest centuries) does not make it clear why this is a significant place or what characteristics make it distinct. For example, Lothrop's identification of evidence for human sacrifice, mutilation, and even suicide are worth mentioning. Hoopes (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the History section, some additional hyperlinks to related articles on Colonial history may be helpful. Note that the recent history of the site is as important as its Colonial history. It would be appropriate to include some discussion of its relationship to the Panama Canal Zone in addition to the mention of Fort Kobbe. The discussions by Oviedo would probably be best in a section on ethnohistory rather than in the History section. Note how some additional hyperlinks can be used to direct readers to relevant articles from here. (In discussions of beliefs, be mindful of indicating what are emic and etic perspectives. Hoopes (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Excavation can be expanded to include more information about the scientific activity there. You should distinguish among the different excavators (Harte, Montgomery, Lothrop, etc.) who worked there. Hoopes (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the section on Burials, the phrase "extended across the Mangopobre Valley" is unclear. (Also, this valley is probably not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article.) Note that all measurements should be given in the metric system (converted from what Lothrop provides, if necessary). The term "bathtub burial" is not standard and does not merit a separate article. Proportions such as "a third" and "an eighth" should be expressed as percentages and/or actual numbers. Note the word changes I recommend and also the additional hyperlinks to related articles. Hoopes (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the section on Sacrifice, there could be more discussion of the specific evidence for this. In the section on Mutilation (and elsewhere) use scientific anatomical terms and provide hyperlinks to appropriate articles. It would be good to have some additional discussion of theories for why these mutilations had been undertaken. Hoopes (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Gold artwork would benefit from some discussion of the objects found in association with these burials, especially because they often represented exceptional examples of ancient goldwork. Hoopes (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide, Sacrifice, And Mutilations In Precolumbian Cemetery Questioned By Archaeologists

see https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2018/09/24/suicide-sacrifice-and-mutilations-in-precolumbian-cemetery-questioned-by-archaeologists/#660c96f42bc4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwaiwaka (talk • contribs) 19:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article should be partly rewritten considering a recent paper: Smith-Guzmán, Nicole E., and Richard G. Cooke. "INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE AT PLAYA VENADO, PANAMA (550–850 AD): A REEVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE." Latin American Antiquity (2018): 1-18. For intertextual references, see <a href="https://www.sciencealert.com/pre-columbian-panama-playa-venado-suicide-sacrifice-mutilation-no-evidence">science alert</a> backreferencing to Wikipedia. At these times, when people first read WP and only after that start reading literature, fixing this kind bias is very important. I'm not an expert here though, so I'll leave it to someone else.--82.203.173.216 (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]