Talk:Cholula

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, its civilizations, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.



Various sites state that the name of the pyramid is "Tepanapa", or a spelling variant of that. Is there a reason this is not mentioned in the article? — Hippietrail 15:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) YO VIVO EN CHOLULA EN EL PUEBLO DE SAN AGUSTIN CALVARIO

[edit] Questionable "facts"

Fellow editors: This article has a couple of questionable "facts": that Cholula was part of the Aztec empire and that it had a population of 100,000. First, I had not heard tht Cholula was conquered by the Aztecs. Second, 100,000 seems awfully high. M E Smith's study of populations on the eve of the Spanish conquest puts Tenochtitlan at 212,000 with every other town at 30,000 or less. While Cholula's population was not estimated, Texcoco's was, and was pegged at 24,000 and Tzintzuntzan at 30,000. It is hard to believe that Cholula was that much larger.

Any help out there?? Madman 00:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right friend Madman, and there's a need for further clarification of sources here. It's probably best to present a range of pop. estimates from such notable sources as one can find (Smith a good example), since not too much on this is known with any great certainty.
Also- as with other Mesoamerican locations where there is a modern settlement atop or adjoining a pre-columbian one, I think it would be useful to split out into separate articles, one for the old, one for the new (which of course can cross-reference each other).
Not saying that I'm about to get around to either of these activities any time soon, just really a placeholder / mention in case anyone else has the desire or time...--cjllw | TALK 08:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)