User:Kjs273/sandbox

I've added my content, I need to go back and properly cite everything and possibly add photos. Kjs273 (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Response Both of the peer reviews done on my parts of the article were quite helpful. They got me to realize that perhaps my information would be better organized together in one subgroup and some of it should be embedded in Ceramics in Society instead. It’s quite hard to distinguish between form and function vs. decorations, at least with the information available. My book source finally came in and it will help me fill in the gaps that are missing. Researching general characteristics of ceramics and what makes pottery different is definitely something that will aid in how I decide to organize the rest of my research. Kjs273 (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

My plan would be to (hopefully) add some information concerning form and function, how the natural geology affected ceramic production, and how different details of the ceramics reflected the evolution of the Mayan culture. Kjs273 (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Response to Ceramics in Society

The first Peer Reviewer (Tannabon), really liked the addition of the ceramics in society, but suggested I add more in about how the lower class ceramics were like. I completely agree, not a lot of my sources talked about that, so I found some new sources and added them to the sandbox and added a sentence in addressing the lower class pottery.

The second Peer Reviewer (Derekay2) really wanted to address the difference between the words pottery and ceramic. I had never thought about how they have different meanings and he helped clear up some confusion. He also offered the same suggestion about the lower class and adding more sources which I agree with and have fixed. On the other hand, the reviewer wanted me to clarify how the different types of pottery and what they are used for relate to society. I think I have shown how they relate to society by showing how Mayan have traded them and how these different types ceramics played into their social classes with their array of designs and uses. I did delete out the chemical dating part becacuse he was right it was irrelevant to my Ceramics in Society paragraph. Smp5gd (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Painting the Maya Universe Notes

Painting was the primary art form for the Maya, but pottery was the best preserved example of this because pottery was buried with people and fundamentally is made of material that does not decompose quickly.

Polychrome pottery was not only used as decoration, but also as a sort of social currency “in the realm of ritual regal gifts”

“Therefore, at least in terms of the elite painted pottery, these vessels are the material manifestations of well-developed intellectual and artistic specialization”

Most artists chose the cylindrical vase to paint their images on because it requires that the viewer hold the vase and rotate it all the way around to see the entire scene, turning the vase into a personal object instead of a piece of decoration.

There was more of an evolution of pictorial representations instead of shape. As complexity of painting increased, vessel shape remained fairly simple.

Instead of form being completely reliant on its functional purpose, it also reflected an artist’s desire to have the largest surface area to paint on.

“imagery supersedes form”

Kjs273 (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Form and Function DRAFT

Used for a plethora of daily activities, such as the storage of food and beverages, ceramics were also a canvas of commemoration.

Archaeological evidence has been found that suggests ceramics were used for industrial purposes. The discovery of highly uniform ceramic cylinders along with tools used in the production of salt indicate that the ceramics were used to mass produce salt from brine.[1]

Oringal Form and Function Edits

There were three main types of ceramics used in daily life: bowls, plates, and cylinders. They were often monochrome, meaning that only one type of mineral slip was used. Kjs273 (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Sacred Giants: Depiction of Bombacoideae on Maya Ceramics in Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize Polychrome pottery was more complex in nature and therefore more commonly used by the elite. Not only was polychrome pottery used as decoration, it was also used as a form of social currency-- a physical display of status and others' approval.

As time progressed, various features were added to ceramics to go beyond the fundamental needs of vessels, for example pellets were put in larger bowls to not only serve as something to hold food, but would also become instruments used in the same feasts.

Doyle, James. “Ancient Maya Painted Ceramics.” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/mayac/hd_mayac.htm (April 2017) Kjs273 (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Form and Function Notes

The current form and function section only has one source and is kind of disjointed and vague. I would like to expand on this and fill in the gaps regarding what actually makes Maya ceramics different. Kjs273 (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

***try to find painting the Maya universe*** Kjs273 (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Decoration DRAFT

The utilitarian ware of the common people usually possessed modest decoration that reflected its use. For example, cylindrical bowls used for cacao drinks often had the plant species Q. guatemalteca depicted on them because that flower was used to enhance the flavor of the cacao drink.[2] The funerary ware of the elite was often more elaborate. Strategic Mesoamerican ballgames, rituals, and death were key subjects painted or inscribed on the vessels.

Original Decoration Edits

The utilitarian ware of the common people usually possessed modest decoration that reflected its use. For example, cylindrical bowls used for cacao drinks often had the plant species Q. guatemalteca depicted on them because that flower was used to enhance the flavor of the cacao drink.[2] The funerary ware of the elite was often more elaborate. Visuals often included rituals ranging from more supernatural based-imagery to common day practices. Rulers were often depicted next to deities and shown to be equal, or nearly equal, in power in status as them. Other pots functioned more as story telling devices, with glyphs that likely were guides for songs or other ritualistic texts. Kjs273 (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

For many potters, decoration and imagery was more important than the structure of each vessel. Cylindrical vases and plates were popular because they maximized the surface area for storytelling through imagery on each piece. There was more of an evolution of pictorial representations instead of shape. As complexity of painting increased, vessel shape remained fairly simple.

Doyle, James. “Ancient Maya Painted Ceramics.” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/mayac/hd_mayac.htm (April 2017)

Ceramics in Society

I would like to add this the the wikipedia page and think it should include how the ceramics where used in society. Smp5gd (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

During the Classic/post classic period different types of ceramics show up. They were made from different types of materials, one being volcanic ash and the other being more calcite based. Most of the land around the mayans was limestone, which is where calcite comes from. These were mainly made as gifts and given to make local alliances, and these vessels are found in a more localized area. On the other hand the ceramics that were made out of a volcanic ash based clay are found widespread, and are thought to have been traded by the upper class to show wealth and encourage greater alliances. Smp5gd (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Smp5gd (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Ceramics play a big role in society during the classic period, such as how the maya elite used ceramics not only to give gifts when foreign dignitaries were in town, buts its the ceramics they used during the feasts during the classic period. Another reason specialized pottery was made would be to add to graves of nobles. Not anyone could make this pottery, it was very important they knew about the maya history, mythology and more. On these ceramics, intricate scenes where depicted which showed a peek into the palace life of the elite. On each ceramic piece near the rim, its contents would be listed out, a type of beverage for a vase or food for a plate, then who is belonged to was written next. Since these ceramics were traded and gifted, many end up in differing environments. Specialists mainly pay attention to the writing, drawings, and heiroglyphs, since they were different for the different people and cultures they were made from. As for the everyday use more simple ware was made, generally of only one color, and would be produced in large quantities for the general public use. Smp5gd (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Using some new sources I am going to make my first paragraph more brief and more related to society structure.

The maya ceramics are made from two main types of materials that relate to ther social structure, limestone and volcanic ash. Most of the land around the mayans was limestone, which is where calcite comes from. These were mainly made as gifts and given to make local alliances, and these vessels are found in a more localized area. Whereas the ones made from volcanic ash are more widespread because they were thought to be given as gifts from the upper class to make very large alliances, through the maya trade. Smp5gd (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review by Tannbonn

I thought these drafts of the article gave great insight of additional information to sections of the original article that needed more work done to them. There was a lack of information in the original article, and I think you two authors will help contribute to the completion of some of those sections when your drafts are published on the original article. Adding in the section on ceramics in society and adding information about the material used to make the ceramics (given their environment) was a great idea in my opinion. It gives much more insight to what was important and valuable to the Maya and how they interacted with their surroundings.

I would suggest adding more information to the form and function section. There was a note in the form and function section stating that you would like to add more information about how Maya Ceramics were different and distinguishable from other civilizations around the area in that time period. That might be valuable to add. The decoration section's draft additions touch on the distinguishable aspect from a decoration point of view, but does the shape and form differ? Does the function of the ceramics differ in the Maya culture than other cultures (ex: were vessels used to store certain things in the Maya Culture, but not other cultures)? Another suggestion: would it be too much to talk more about whether commoners (lower class) had different types of ceramics than the elite and different functions? How did the decoration on the lower class ceramics differ from the elite group's ceramics?

It seems like you have a few notes about what you still want to add to the article. My main suggestion would be to add in those additions. The draft is coming along, but I personally think more information would be beneficial (and is needed), especially to the Form and Function section. Overall, great job on the draft. The topic is very interesting to me, and the information you all have added helped me understand Maya Culture a bit more (ex: the decoration section talking about how rulers were depicted in the paintings on the ceramics was interesting and made me realize how much power the rulers had). Tannbonn (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC) (I had to do my peer review outside of class because I will be missing from class today. Don't be alarmed that this was done early.)

Peer Review by Derekay2

I am a ceramics major, and so a few things might annoy me that do not matter to anyone else. One thing that bugs me is that, in this article and your draft, the word ceramic seems to be used synonymously with pottery. While the dictionary says it is a synonym, I want to make sure that you realize, and maybe even clarify in the article, that pottery is a clay based type of ceramic. In other words, if you are talking about pottery specifically, please do not say ceramic. There are so many other traditional ceramics that they may or may not have used. Ex. cement for building, glass obsidian or even limestone glass containers. This would be the similar to an article about canines only talking about dogs and never mentioning wolves or foxes.

Overall, the additions are all related to Maya ceramics and are highly relevant.

Ceramics in Society

The "ceramics in society" contains relevant information that will be a good inclusion for the article. However, a new topic may not be needed. It looks like two ideas are being presented, and jump back and forth. 1st, ceramics appeared in the classic period and were traded as gifts by elites. 2nd, elite pottery was special because.... The 1st idea seems to have a lot in common with "development and chronology" and the 2nd idea seems to have a lot in common with "Design". If there is not a substantial amount of information that could be added on top of your contribution, it might be better to add to those subjects. If there is enough info, these ideas could still be organized a little better in this section.

The draft is decently written, but a couple sentences are difficult to understand. Please reread. Ex. "Ceramics play a big role in society during the classic period, such as how the maya elite used ceramics not only to give gifts when foreign dignitaries were in town, buts its the ceramics they used during the feasts during the classic period".

"They were made from different types of materials, ... is where calcite comes from"-This is great information about how ceramics are made, but has not been related to "ceramics in society". Maybe consider moving it, and other information like chemical dating, or show more clearly how it is related to society. Remember, you don't have to argue that the information is correct, you have sources that you got your info from.

You talk about pottery as a gift, mostly used by the upper class, and how not just anyone could make it. However, elsewhere in the article it talks about common people's designs and industrial production. This seems like an contradiction between the value of pottery . Is the pottery that you are talking about important for some reason? If so, can you include some info about the common peoples' pottery?

Good sources. Somewhat short. Unless you have access to the full article The production and exchange of moulded-carved ceramics and the ‘Maya Collapse, I would search for 1 or 2 more, especially a more in depth article or second hand source.

Well done on neutral tone.

Decoration

The addition is good, relevant information and is well organized. As I suggested for "Ceramics in Society", this has a lot of overlapping information and is a short subject. You also organized it as if you were talking about classes of people. If there is not a substantial amount information that could be added to "Decorations" it might be better to add what you have to "ceramics in Society".

You described the designs well, but some pictures or links as visual aide could further show what you are describing.

Form and Function

I like where your going here, but you should reread the article and go deeper, and find another source. When https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/mayac/hd_mayac.htm talks about monochrome pottery (which is the only source that I can see that includes information about monochrome ceramics), it is talking about color. It think it is wrong to say that monochrome means only one type of mineral slip was used. They may have only used one kind of mineral that changed the color of the pottery produced from the slip, and they had multiple different colors of monochromatic pottery. Slip is an aqueous suspension of clays and minerals and is not necessarily the color of the resulting pottery. Also, information about the color of pottery might be better organized with design info.

I only see two sources, so finding a couple more will help a lot.

I would like to see any different kinds of ceramics they had here, or at least be clear that there were no other types of ceramics if there were none. I understand that the overall article is focused on pottery, but this is where you can get some extra information that I would personally see as incredibly important and relevant.

Links for Sources to Browse

http://mst.summon.serialssolutions.com/#!/search?bookMark=ePnHCXMw42JgAfZbU5khZ9uYWYKmGg1BVR6HuTnoLC7Q9arswErZAli3c0AjHnQmnLGlqSUng7gPsMtVrJCfpgBs_iiAtlEVgU8O5WaQcXMNcfbQzS0uiYcObMQnGYJSoIUJaBoTrzQA5BUl2g

Sacred Giants: Depiction of Bombacoideae on Maya Ceramics in Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize

http://mst.summon.serialssolutions.com/#!/search?bookMark=ePnHCXMw42JgAfZbU5khpymZAVMQsAUBWrzG6xsc4uLiCCwyLS1MzTmgcQ6scUwtDE2MOBlcgOGikFoGDXCF_DSF5NQi0J3sCgWQs0_BokgbFBUy8xQSFXwTKxMVkiGbKUqA7SpZN9cQZw_d3OKSeOgASHySISjdgtbzGBOSBwCD7TeZ

http://mst.summon.serialssolutions.com/#!/search?bookMark=ePnHCXMwfV07C8IwEC4oou5uIgcK4iDUVvqYRXERFyeXo7ZV6hsbCvrrvcul1kXHJB8hacO9H22rTnorJwLb9BQCjqzxa1LoRsYOy6ttdrvbLulHdsPqrGerCcuUhn66TCOdZmkpMeOWtZWMVZCUWCBNG0hIgrQwPwlue4jTB_dxh7vUS-VZxiVchdY0kIKM5mAVPSOIJQlDkTzWXcw3s-X4kis0hhPcBfz6XZ97qo9kOcpPRHuILqkci7P2Z-ZY3S3UDuyBYEvSjhpmYi2RWEbohbzl8AMrLS74Y8OeIHW8JArkiLFSU-9axC8C9AVAzI5un2QH3W_kLuUqMNRcvUJ9p1d9QNWx_n6INzOfkI8

http://mst.summon.serialssolutions.com/#!/search?bookMark=ePnHCXMw42JgAfZbU1kZOCxAl_gYg-49YbcEXQ1obsnJIAn0vIJvYmWiAqgNqZCfpgBs5iikAL3DzSDj5hri7KGbW1wSDx26iE8Ctt9NQAemGxGQBgDBOR9p

http://mst.summon.serialssolutions.com/#!/search?bookMark=ePnHCXMwPV2xTsQwDK3QDQf8hKVbKaQOLSnbCR2w3HLi5shNE9SlVFeQYODfeUnKbRkiS3Fi5zmxn6-KFeJWXywkPorv3r3cMoCFuojUpTFaAUpeJXCnS9x3en0myW1VfVn8HlJOku8JBgr50J9EzmLqfUpkmilWXhDwER2xW-KG8VPoFNMYbmjvv6HBR9pSrHMc-2GCYXzNlJ_C6SOchVKCpzSMtJcfIedPsQH8fF0cn3dvT6_l0ougnODBVVk3iAtYsOCgm9D0D6zYdcwVfF3H3oSm7QAVajaVsDP33okE1YqR4Oug47_2Jsv99_h2OSyzrYwBjtC4KGKH5jwrAWU7ZcYJm7mF2UKVNqnSvuy2aaD_ADX9bW0

Article Evaluation

Aztec Calendar

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Everything seems relevant and nothing was distracting except the lack of information. It is a very general overview.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

It is a neutral article indeed. It is hard to be biased about a calendar system I suppose.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I wouldn't say that there are viewpoints that are overrepresented, but I would say that there's a lot of emphasis on the actual organization of each calendar and not a lot about how they came to be or exactly how they were utilized.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

Most of the citations links no longer work.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? 

Judging by the titles of some of the books and a few abstracts from the online sources, I would conclude that these sources are reliable and aiming to illustrate the side of the natives instead of the European perspective.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

The information seems to be as up to date as you can get with so few sources talking about this specific subject.

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? 

There is a lot of controversy about the year 1 Reed and when that actually is because of conflicting information from different sources.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

This article is a c-class article and is currently a part of the WikiProjects for Mexico, MesoAmerica, and Time.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

The Wikipedia Article is more of a definition. People contributing to the article are looking for specific dates and symbols, whereas in class we discussed the origin of the calendar and what it was used for.