Talk:Chichen Itza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale.
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.
Resources and guidelines for editing Mesoamerica-related articles:
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
This article has been marked as needing attention.
WikiProject Mesoamerica priority open tasks: (click "show" to expand)
plan of the stonehenge site
Archaeology Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a group related to the the study of World Heritage Sites. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

I've added a number of pics to this article..both small and large images of each pic. If some one with photo-editing-talent likes the pics but thinks they need some editing, please help yourself. I took these pics on my honeymoon....can't show the others...haha just kidding. B 05:08 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I did away with the tables and just alligned the images after the relevent paragraphs? -- Infrogmation 23:21 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

In some instances, articles don't need tables for images, but I wouldn't delete them all. How else would you word wrap? B
I did the first pic using float with a border, and the rest with simple old style center tag. I just checked it with two browsers; Looks okay to me. -- Infrogmation
The first pic format looks good. B

Contents

[edit] "Chichén Itzá" or "Chichen Itza"?

I generally appreciate the work people have been doing about changing and moving Spanish language terms and articles to their properly accented forms. However I'm much less enthusiastic about the changing of Mesoamerican names to such forms, especially in the case of Maya language names. The accenting of sylables has generally consistant rules in Maya, they are just differnt from those in Spanish. I think I had it right in my earlier version of the article when I named the site "Chichen Itza (Chichén Itzá in the Spanish language)". The site needs no special accent markes in Maya, and is more often than not without them in English language print. I note that the Corpus of Maya Inscriptions, in both English and Spanish text, as official policy does not use the Spanish style accent marks for Maya names. I suggest we adopt a similar policy. I am therefore tempted to move this article back to Chichen Itza... but wish for others interested to discuss this matter before making a decision. -- Infrogmation 15:59, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For the reasons above, I will move the article back to Chichen Itza in a few days if there are no objections. -- Infrogmation 16:31, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I am no expert, but your scheme makes sense to me, so in absence of more authoritative reply, I would say go ahead. Perhaps you could add the above explaination to a help page like Wikipedia:Naming conventions for future reference. -- Viajero
I mentioned it on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. -- Infrogmation 21:55, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think you're right, too. The next step would be to tackle Cuauhtémoc, Cuitláhuac, et al., which don't really need accents in English, either. Following that through to its logical conclusion, you'd have the monument to Cuauhtemoc in Cuauhtémoc, Chihuahua, and the Teotihuacan pyramids in Teotihuacán municipality. It's a fair amount of work, but logically coherent. – Hajor 19:56, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Some of those I think may well be more problematic. I'd like to just argue for Maya ruins with Maya names at present. I'm not familiar enough with other Mesoamerican native languages to suggest any policy on non-Maya names. -- Infrogmation 21:55, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No, I don't agree. You don't get an English name by removing the accents. And the Mayas themselves obviously had an entirely different script, which we can hardly use here. The original transcription is in Spanish, and that's what we have to use. There is no separate English version. I don't see any reason for a different treatment of Cuauhtémoc and Cuauhtémoc, Chihuahua. --Wik 20:33, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
I am not arguing for Cuauhtémoc etc, which may well be a different case. More narrowly, I would like to forgo accent marks for Maya ruins with Maya names however. Maya is still a living language in everyday use and has been written in Latin characters since the 16th century. As to English, I see "Chichen Itza", "Chichen-Itza" and "Chichen" in the earliest published descriptions. "Chichen Itza" has been more common in English language publications, including scholarly ones, since (although I certainly conceed that there is a notable minority that use the Spanish style "Chichén Itzá"). The Corpus of Maya Inscriptions is the standard modern scholarly work refered to by students of the Pre-Columbian Maya; I think their policy of adhering to Spanish language accenting rules for Spanish language names and Maya language rules for Maya language names makes sense. Also, I note in a google search (no language preferences), "Chichen Itza" gets 102,000 hits, while "Chichén Itzá" gets 19,500 hits. Do you object to my proposed move in this specific case of Chichén/Chichen? Cheers, -- Infrogmation 21:31, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It goes for just about any accented place name that a Google search will find more hits without accents, since most people writing in English simply ignore all diacritics, but that is not what we do here. However, if it's written without accents in modern Maya language, it might be acceptable. --Wik 22:24, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry for having confused the issue with Nahuatl personal names when we were talking about Maya place names. I'll have to agree to disagree with Wik about Cuauhtémoc – the diacritical on that word is a Spanish one, to help the pronunciation in Spanish; it's not a Nahuatl one (which, after all, doesn't use diacrits when written in Latin characters), and it certainly doesn't help in any way in English. Just because the name entered other European languages by means of a Spanish adaptation ("Cuauhtémoc" from "Cuauhtemotzin", wasn't it?) doesn't mean that en, fr, de and the rest should observe the rules of Spanish orthography. But I'm digressing, and I know from past experience that I'm in a minority on this point... Infrogmation, I agree with the page move. –Hajor 03:09, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that the move is a good one. One needs to consider the purpose of accents in Spanish. They let the reader know that the stressed syllable is not where we would expect it. Without the accent the tendency for both English and Spanish speakers would be to pronounce "Chichen" with a stress on the first syllable. The accent is an aid to pronunciation. ☮ Eclecticology 10:22, 2004 Jan 21 (UTC)

I'm moving it back to "Chichen Itza". I mention "Chichén Itzá" in the first sentence of the text. -- Infrogmation 23:44, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I guess I thought I was putting in the Spanish name with proper accents, and patting myself on the back to boot! But it looks like you're looking at the ruins in terms of its Mayan origins. Is that why you don't care for the Spanish accents? (In any case, I bow to your superior expertise; I'm just asking ... :-) --Uncle Ed 14:31, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You were correct Ed; but it's hard to confront the forces of ignorant anglocentrism. They seem to have made a stand on this item but if you look at the links in Yucatán (sic!) they are terribly inconsistent. Eclecticology 17:21, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)
"Ignorant anglocentrism"? I thought it was an anti-imperial indigenist stance we were taking. –Hajor 18:20, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Heh, I wasn't trying to promote any particular lingistic-centric adgenda. I thought the standard of the scholarly reference work Corpus of Maya Heiroglyphic Inscriptions that Spanish language names of Maya sites should be rendered as in Spanish and Maya language names of Maya sites should be rendered as in Maya made sense. -- Infrogmation 18:39, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I wish I knew who you were trying to insult, so we could fight about this! Who are you calling sic anyway, you Chichen?! ;-) (Get it? "It's a chicken" = "Chichen Itza", Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!). --Uncle Ed 18:57, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
A (obvious?) question: where does the stress fall in Maya? (on this name in particular and/or in the language in general.) A related point: I've regularly heard people in central Mexico make a (self-conscious? affected?) effort to pronounce "TeotihuAcan", "TenonchtItlan", etc. -- presumably to get away from the imposed foreign forms. –Hajor
The stress is usually on the last syllable of words in Maya. I don't know about Nahautl. -- Infrogmation 02:07, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
So "Chichén" is a faithful representation of the indigenous pronunciation, then. OK. Re Nahuatl (which I do seem to insist on dragging in to these discussions on things Maya) -- I looked it up this afternoon: stress there is generally penultimate in most dialects. Fwiw. –Hajor 02:37, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sorry about the lame humor. It's Friday, and it's been a rough week... --Uncle Ed 19:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps I should never have enterred this debate! Going more deeply into it only makes it more confusing! In the notes to the introduction to the Corpus cited above Graham states his position: "In choosing between alternative names and spellings, preference has usually been given to the more commonly accepted form, rather than versions that might be pedantically correct. ... Accents have been omitted from all Maya place names." (p. 1:11) Or later in the Spanish version: "Al escoger enter nombres alternativos o la mejor ortografía, usualmente se ha dado preferencia a la forma màs comúnmente aceptada, en lugar de las versiones que pudieren ser pedantemente correctas. ... Los acentos han sido omitidos en todos los nombres de lugares mayas." (p. 1:19) Graham omits the accents from "Chichen Itza" in both language versions. He does, however, retain the accent in the Spanish for "Petén", but does not retain it in English.
To say that we retain the accents because it is the "Spanish" version is misleading. The accents are an aid to pronunciation to both the English and the Spanish speaker; they do not somehow make the accented version into the Spanish one. The Oxford Style Manual in its "Dictionary for Editors" section does use the accented version of "Chichén Itzá"; the "Chicago Manual of Style" avoids the issue entirely. There is perhaps a need to develop some consistency around this issue, rather than just dealing with it one title at a time.
So, I'm not going to insist that we return to the accented version for the title, but I will continue to object that the accents somehow make it a Spanish language version. Eclecticology 20:22, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)
Thanks for your input and your edits. I appreciate your work to make it clearer and more susinct, but the last one looked to me like it was giving the mistaken impression that Maya uses the accented version, hence my most recent edit. -- Infrogmation 02:07, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It would be inappropriate to conjecture about how the Mayans would write the name. To say that original Mayan was unaccented clouds the issue. The accentuation was there whether it was written or not. To say that the letters in question are written without diacritics in modern Mayan languages may be a little more accurate, but I don't feel comfortable making that assertion without knowing more about the orthography of these 30 or so languages in general. To say that the original Maya was written that way is ridiculous since latin letters were not used in these languages until after these people were occupied by their Spanish or English invaders. Yucatac is the Mayan language for the area in question, and it may very well write the name without diacritics, but one site [1] also suggests that the name is written Chitzen-Itza, but even I don't suggest that we go in that direction. In another site [2] I find "Though Yucatec, unlike Itzá, has been extensively studied and many dictionaries exist for it, none are complete enough to meet scholars' needs. Some don't include grammatical analyses; others omit usage examples or Spanish definitions; and still others don't adequately record vowel tone, which is crucial in Yucatec. Like Vietnamese, it is a tonal language: the same word may have two very different meanings depending on whether the vowel has a high or low tone."
So let's agree to the name without diacritics, but at the same time let's not go so far overboard in our justifications that we pretend to know how the Yucatec write something - and that without even reviewing the other Mayan languages. Eclecticology 05:26, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
"It would be inappropriate to conjecture about how the Mayans would write the name." I suspect you are making a false assumption here. The Maya language is very much alive in the Yucatán, both written and spoken. In some places signs are written in it. As I mentioned here earlier, it has been written in Latin characters since the 16th century. Accent marks generally point out exceptions-- when the accent falls some where other than would be expected by the normal rules of the language. In "Chichen Itza" it falls on the last sylable of each word, as would be expected in Maya, so no accent is needed. This was and is how the name has been written in Yucatec Maya. -- Infrogmation 18:55, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Eclecticology just deleted my text in the article saying "It is not accented in the original Maya language (still spoken in the area)." with the comment "(We can't presume about how it was written)". I don't understand this edit. Are you under the mistaken impression that Maya is not written? What do you mean? Puzzled, -- Infrogmation 04:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict when I went to post the above, but I think that what I said would answer your question. Eclecticology 05:30, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
I've just taken a stab at a new wording. Perhaps we needed to stress it is the methods for transliteratiing Maya into western ABCs that don't use accents? –Hajor 05:29, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Your edit presumes that there is a "standard" orthography. What is the source for that? Which of the 30 Maya languages are you referring to? The term transliteration does not apply either; it is only relevant when you are attempting to represent one alphabetically or syllabicly written language into another. Original written Maya was a hieroglyphic language. Eclecticology 05:46, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
Ok. (1) For "transliteration" read "transcription"; sorry to have confused the terms. (2) Which of the 30? I'd assumed Yucateco, which is the dominant form in the entire peninsula -- fortunately much more linguistically homogeneous than the patchwork you get in the highlands of Chiapas or Guatemala. (3) Standard transcribed orthography? The one I've most often seen, in govt-issue Maya-language schoolbooks and on signposts at archaeological sites in Mexico -- which does feature plenty of apostrophes and acute accents, but only on doubled vowels (and I have no idea if that's a stress mark or indicates something entirely different). I can't find any SEP or INAH materials on the web, but here's the UDHR in that same transcription scheme: [3]. I've always seen that as the standard method for transcribing peninsular Maya, but I readily admit that I have no idea what approach is used in other parts. –Hajor 17:53, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Good! I think we have an understanding on (1). For (2) I also accept that Yucateco is the modern Mayan language that applies to the area. Still, to say that it is the same as the original language requires quite a leap.
It's (3) that's the problem. The link that you give (for which I thank you) also has versions in Q'echi and K'iche' which are also Mayan languages. The apostrophes are glottal stops, but I see nothing to explain how the accents are used. A deeper study of the linguistics of the language would be required to determine whether a standard even exists, and that is clearly beyond what we can expect for Wikipedia. The second of the citations in my previous post points to the problem. How can we honestly say that anything is standard when no standard exists? Eclecticology 18:37, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
And Tzotzil, Tzeltal, Tojol, Cakchiquel, Mam, and two versions of Huasteco. But I think Infrogmation makes a good point with what he says below: there is a tendency to use "Maya" restrictively to refer to the Yucatec(o) variety. Perhaps we do need to be more precise with our terminology. When talking about "a standard for govt-issue Maya-language" texts, I meant Maya-Yucateco. –Hajor 19:22, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yucatec Maya is the dialect throughout the Yucatán peninsula. It is the largest of the Maya languages; it is called "Yucatec Maya" by linguists but is known to its speakers and Yucatecos in general simply as "Maya". -- Infrogmation 18:57, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hey all, I know this is a two-year-old debate, but I just got around to reading it. I studied and I speak Yucatec Maya (although I'm a gringo). I'm not going to come down on any side of any issue here, just clarify some points. The language in Yucatan is technically just "Maya". Every Yucatecan speaker of the language calls it "Maya". However, there are other "Mayan" languages (Quiche, Kanjobal, Kekchi, etc. - dozens of them). So, modern researchers often use the term "Yucatec Maya" to signify that they mean "Maya as spoken in Yucatan". As for the accents on syllables. Everyone is correct, but none are correct. The words would be spelled without accents in English, however the lack of accents often lead to poor pronounciation for English speakers (sounding like Chicken Pizza). The Maya would actually spell it Chi Ch'en (so the accent is really on the CH, which neither Spanish nor English orthographies use - it's a very hard CH created by a more forceful stop of the airflow on your upper pallate with your tongue). In Maya, the sounds CH and CH' are different consonants and can change the meaning of a word. So, like I said, everyone is right, yet no one is right. You just have to pick a standardization and stick with it. HOWEVER, please note that anyone who uses the "K" excessively (such as "Yukatan" or "Yukatek") is calling for a radical revision of the orthography that is not widely accepted. This arose largely out of a native language movement in Guatemala, and should not be applied to Yucatec Maya at this time, especially in a general-content format like Wikipedia. Chunchucmil 03:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

West side of El Castillo
West side of El Castillo

Having added a slightly better quality image of El Castillo, I'm moving the previous image here for safe keeping. -- Solipsist 18:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone could find a picture of the back side of the El Castillo, I was surprised to see that it doesn't look anything like the front. I was told by my tour guide that an explorer stole bricks from it to build a house. --TimothyRoger 17:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Timothy. I added to the main page a wiki commons image showing the detail of the East Side. Glory be to Chaac! -- Masongl 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I was never told about an explorer stealing bricks. The back doesn't look like the front because the front has been restored.

[edit] Climbing the steps of El Castillo

The article mentioned that the stairs of the temple were closed because of a fatal fall. What is the source?

I climbed the stairs back in 2002 and the tour guide said the stairs will be closed down indefinitely by the end of the year because of all the wear and tear from tourists. Azn Clayjar 20:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

i climbed a year ago

Really? Then the tour guide was mistaken. It would be cool to climb again. :) Azn Clayjar 05:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


I just returned from Chichen Itza. El Castillo is closed indefinitely, according to both the tour guide and the folks employed by the site. 17:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General History Revisions

I have added and ammended some of the chronological info in this article based upon recent archaeological data. However, the article (IMHO) requires a major revision of this content. References to the Toltecs and the ethnohistoric documents appear to guide readers in a way that is not an accurate reflection of current archaeological thought. Chichen was not likely Toltec. The histories mentioning its fall in the 13th century are not borne out by current data. Any references to such matters should carry added notes such as "according to..." so that readers can differentiate the folklore from the archaeological data. This is not an easy task, but I strongly suggest it needs to be done. However, to be perfectly honest, the final story of Chichen's history has yet to be written, as work still needs to be done both at the site and at related sites such as Mayapan and Tula to truly differentiate fact from historical fiction. As I said, the biggest step forward at this point for the Wiki article would be to have many more in-text citations so that readers can go directly to the source for more info. Chunchucmil 03:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I reworked the section regarding ownership of Chichen. The original text--"The land under site, however, is co-owned as communal property by the town of Piste and as private property by the Barbachanos family, one of the most powerful families in Yucatán since the early 19th century"--requires attribution. As I added to the footnote, Lisa Breglia in her book Monumental Ambivalence charts the history of the ownership of Chichen and other sites of patrimony. No property is "co-owned," although it is possible that some of the archaeological zone falls within the ejido of Piste. Also, describing the Barbachano family as one of the "most powerful" requires some qualification. The family is not members of the Castas Divinas, that is, those families descended from the holders of the original Spanish land grants. Nor are they, as the original link assumes, directly descended from Miguel Barbachano, the governor of the 19th century, as he had no children. They are successful in the tourism business, owning hotels and property, but does that make them powerful?User:coyoteman31CoyoteMan31 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to sign in, but made three changes: Added subsection on Akab Dzib, clarified statement about closing of El Castillo, and changed pronoun "one" to "Great Ball Court," the common name of the monument.CoyoteMan31 19:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ballcourt

The text under ballcourt was incorrect according to the guide I had. The captain of the "winning" team was decapitated. It was considered an honour to die in this manner. The frieze shows the captain of the losing team holding the head of the winner. [User:Hugh_Chatfield] 9:30, 16 February 2007

Don't believe everything your guide tells you. Those guys are notorious for exaggerating to make the tour more "impressive." -- Oaxaca dan 03:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Well - the guide was part of the archeology team working at the site and seemed very knowledgable about everything. I was especially taken with his demo of the sounds from the plumed serpent. At a specific location, a hand clap gave two distinct echoes - one sounding like a bird cry - the second like the rattle of a snake. Neat design - or accident?

I note the following site as well - http://www.internet-at-work.com/hos_mcgrane/chichen/chichen_index.html that cites the following

"Let's Learn about Chichén-Itzá , Chichén-Itzá: The City of the Wise Men of the Water. by Roman Chan and All About the Mayas. by C. Dorese. published by Producción Editorial Dante (Mérida, Mexico)" - the text based on these texts reads...

"One of the scenes, the beheading of a player in center field witnessed by the players of both teams, is one of the most dramatic examples of Maya art. The scene not only illustrates the horror faced by the players but also the sacred importance of the game. At one time it was believed that the losers were destined to die but new theories have been proposed by researchers. Some think that the captain of the winning team was sacrificed since his team's triumph made him a fitting offering to the gods."

Certainly one captain was beheaded - according to the frieze on site. That it was the captain of the winning team - ties in with the "platform of skulls" just outside the ball court. Of significance was the fact they could not find any skulls on the site. The current thinking based on the decoration of the place was that the decapitated skulls were displayed on a stake on this platform until all flesh was gone - then the skull was carefully decorated and used as a revered object. This is consistent with the notion of the captain of the winning team not the loser. --Hugh Chatfield 13:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been in contact with Dr. Aguilar at Cal State who provide me with the following information.

The guides at Chichen Itza tell that the captain of the winning team was sacrificed, based on a single source - a colonial manuscript. The discrepency in this manuscript could be due to a misinterpretation, imprecise telling of oral stories, or even different "local rules" for the ballgame.

The "authoratative source" for the beheading of the winning captain is most likely in one of the following (none of which I have access to).

- Cronica de Oxkutzcab
- Relaciones Geograficas de Yucatan
- Cronica de Mani
- Relacion de algunas costumbres de los Indios de Yucatan by Gaspar Antonio Chi (1582)
- Relaciones de Yucatan by Juan de Reigosa (1579)
- Historia de Yucatan by Lopez de Cogolludo (c.1670)
- Chilam Balam de Chumayel

Most researchers believe that the bulk of evidence points to the losing team being decapitated. Dr. Aguilar says:

I believe that the losers of the game, and not just the captain, were sacrificed and a testimony of that are the stories of the Popol Vuh, where Hunhunahpu, the maize god and his brother Vucub Hunahpu were decapitated after losing a ballgame against the Lords Of Xibalba (the Death Gods). We know also by Classic Maya data that prisoners of war were decapitated in ballgame related events, etc

.

It seems to me that barring some additional evidence that a different set of rules were in effect at Chichen Itza, it was indeed the losing captain that was decapitated. --Hugh Chatfield 13:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Hugh, your investigation results are most interesting, appreciate the efforts you have taken. Even if one or more of those sources mention it, since they are post-conquest they presumably won't be eyewitness accounts, but "tradition". Unless someone unearths an explicit text we'll probably never know, and leave out the tale of 'winning team sacrifice'.--cjllw | TALK 01:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fatal fall from the top?

Can anyone provide a hardline citation for this? My understanding is that INAH shut down all climbing to the tops of pyramids, especially the Castillo, due to excessive graffiti and vandalism. I think the "fatal fall from the top" is something that guides might say, even though people have been falling from pyramids in Mexico for a long time - I don't think INAH shut down the climbing due to one recent occurrence. Any thoughts? -- Oaxaca dan 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that unless someone can find some written directive to this effect, the sentence can safely be removed; even if true it's not really all that pertinent.
One fatal incident which perhaps could bear mentioning here is the unfortunate demise of the archaeologist Dennis Puleston, struck by lightning in 1978 atop the Castillo.--cjllw | TALK 05:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

On January 5, 2006, an 80-year-old woman from the San Diego area (Clairemont) fell while climbing El Castillo. Merida's Diario de Yucatan ("Fatal caída del Castillo de Chichén: Una turista de 80 años se resbala y cae desde 20 metros," 6 Jan. 2006) makes no mention of the closing of El Castillo. The earliest report by tourists of the closing of El Castillo to climbing that I was able to find was 18 Jan. On 3 March 2006, Diario de Yucatan reported that the closing was as a result the fatal fall ("Fin a una exención para los mexicanos: Pagarán el día del equinoccio en la zona arqueológica"). 19:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)User:coyoteman31


[edit] Cenote of sacrifice

"“Cenote of Sacrifice” is the more famous of the two, and it was sacred to worshipers of the Maya rain god Chaac. Various objects and materials, such as jade, pottery, and incense, were thrown into the cenote as offerings to Chaac. It is claimed by some (mainly tour guides) that occasionally, especially during times of intense drought, human sacrifices were offered into the well. There is, however, no confirmation of this, and archaeological dredging of the cenote does not support these assertions.

From the Wikipedia article "Human Sacrifice": "The most notable example of this is the "Sacred Cenote" at Chichen Itza where extensive excavations have recovered the remains of 42 individuals, half of them under twenty years old."

See also: "Sacrifice and Ritual Body Mutilation in Postclassical Maya Society: Taphonomy of the Human Remains from Chichén Itazá's Cenote Sagrado" in: "New Perspectives on Human Sacrifice and Ritual Body Treatments in Ancient Maya Society", New York, 2007.

See also: Cucina, Andrea, "Procedures in human heart extraction and ritual meaning: a taphonomic assessment of anthropogenic marks in classic Maya skeletons" in: Latin American Antiquity, Dec. 2006.

"Divergence of the sex and age distributions from expected mortality profiles has also been considered as evidence of unnatural death, as is shown by Chichen Itza's Cenote Sagrado collection, with its strong male dominance (over 70 percent of the sexed sample) and subadults concentrated in the 7 to 15 years age range"

[edit] Ascension

[edit] Footnoting

I rewrote two sections in this article, but included no footnotes. I'd like to go back and put the footnotes in. Can someone direct me to a Wikipedia style guide on footnotes? Some of the specific questions I have pertain to the level of detail in footnoting. Thanks. CoyoteMan31 20:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi CoyoteMan. See WP:CITE, and in particular WP:FN (FN=Footnotes), for relevant style and how-to guides. In general, a widely-used scheme and one that is most frequently used on Mesoamerica-related topics at any rate is to have the footnotes (which may be actual parenthetical footnotes, citations such as Bloggs (2006, p999) or a combination of both) appear in a section towards the end called ==Notes==, immediately followed by an alphasorted list of bibliographical references by author, in a section called ==References==. There are other ways of doing it, but I think this one provides the best consistency.
Those two guides I mentioned demonstrate how to put it in effect, you can also look around at some other articles eg Mayan languages for examples in practice.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow. That Mayan languages article is impressive. I'll take a shot at duplicating the footnote format. Thanks.CoyoteMan31 14:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Seven Wonders

There is ongoing discussion at all the sites listed as "New Seven Wonders". So far, the consensus appears to be that mention does not belong in the lead section of the article. It is already mentioned later in the article. IPSOS (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. -- Infrogmation 18:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
What, exactly, was named a world wonder? Even the Web site at the new7wonders.com is not clear. Sometimes it's "Chichen Itza" (http://www.new7wonders.com/index.php?id=633) and on other pages it's "El Castillo" (http://www.new7wonders.com/index.php?id=396).CoyoteMan31 21:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
...which just goes to show how hackneyed and phoney the whole episode is- the organisers evidently do not care about distinguishing, and show no signs of knowing anything about Chichen Itza other than its name. Personally I don't think that the 'results' of this overhyped 'poll' warrant any mention in the article at all, any perceived import is completely illusory. So what, if Chichen Itza along with many others has been caught up in a marketing and revenue-generating exercise indistinguishable from other online scams? (For insight into the likely true motives behind this, need go no further than the 'Business Opportunities' page at the website: "Unique business benefits are available with New7Wonders - together we can make marketing and commercial history!" ).
Maybe the episode would be useful material for sociological, marketing or internet phenomena studies; but really it's no more significant a listing than my next-door neighbours' seven favourite places to go on holidays. At the very most, it warrants no more than a bare footnote under a "Trivia" or "Pop-culture references" section. If that.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates: Fall of Chichen Itza

"Archaeological data now indicates that Chichen Itza fell by around AD 1000."

It is clear that the fall of Chichen Itza is not clear (no pun intended), but if that is so, how come that El Castillo was built around XI-XIII centuries. Is that in question too, according to those "archeological data"? I would like to see a citation for that previous sentence.Nazroon 21:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That passage concerning a proposed recent reassessment of date correlation was added by a contributor here who in real life is an archaeologist working in the field[4], and one whose contribs have been highly reliable so I've no reason to doubt. But you are right, it would be much better to have specific citations- he hasn't been very active around here of late, I'll contact him separately & see if we can get a couple of refs, and/or track down some papers.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
My concern was not about the credentials of the new investigations (although it is better to have a source, of course), but about the actual building of El Castillo, which, according to this new information was built after the fall of Chichén Itzá. So, if we say that Chichén Itzá fell long before it is commonly held, it should be addressed the question of when buildings like El Castillo were constructed. Nazroon 15:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
One of the tenets of writing for Wikipedia is "no original research." That the dates of the fall of Chichen Itza are being challenged is not surprising, but is it appropriate to put that information in this entry? Has this challenge gone through peer review or been published? There is a lot of new information coming out about Chichen Itza, but it seems to me premature to put it here. For example, Eduardo Perez de Heredia, the INAH director at Chichen, has conducted some fascinating research with pottery shards that indicates that the "Toltec" arrival on the scene was sudden, suggesting conquest instead of assimilation. However, this is a new (actually old) interpretation and has yet to be fully reviewed, and therefore not appropriate (as I understand it) for this article. Or am I missing something?CoyoteMan31 22:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC) (UTC)
Just to clarify, I didn't mean to imply that I thought the original contributor (User:Chunchucmil) based the info about a possible reassessment of Chichen's dates on their own research. Rather, my presumption is that it's based on some other published material/sources. I haven't yet contacted them to validate this assumption; will try to do so soon & we'll see.--cjllw ʘ TALK 23:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Very good. CoyoteMan31 21:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I finally followed through and contacted Chunchucmil, and he kindly pointed me in the direction of several publications in the past couple of years that reconsider the dating of Chichen's decline. I've added in one of the refs, have only the abstract at the moment but will look to obtain the full article(s) somehow for further use. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Check your e-mail. I just sent the article to you.CoyoteMan31 (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Got it, superb! cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style question: Monument names

We seem to have a mixed bag of names for monuments: El Castillo (Spanish), Temple of the Warriors (English), Ballcourt (generic term), High Priest's Temple (English), Las Monjas (Spanish), El Caracol (Spanish), Akab Dzib (Maya), Old Chichén (English). Shouldn’t these be consistent, if possible? For example, couldn’t there be English name with Spanish name in parenthesis, so the list would be: Temple of Kukulcan (El Castillo), Temple of the Warriors (Templo de los Guerreros), The Great Ball Court (El Juego de Pelota), High Priest’s Grave (Ossario), The Nunnery (Las Monjas), The Observatory (El Caracol), Akab Dzib, Old Chichén (Chichén Viejo). Thoughts?CoyoteMan31 19:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In the general case, the guideline would be to use the "most common name" for the structure as appears in english-language literature (which is not necessarily an english-language name). However, there may not in all cases be a clear winner in the "most common name" stakes, and for some of these eg el Caracol the spanish name is probably at least as or even more common than the english trans. The "nunnery"/Las Monjas & el Castillo/Temple of Kulkukan are probably equally recognisable alternatives. For the others, the english lang. name will probably do (except Akab Dzib). As long as we give the main alternatives when first mentioning each structure I think that will be the best we can do, though happy to entertain any other suggestions.--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Circular References: An Observation

CJLL Wright recently pointed to an article that appeared in the Independent in the UK regarding the ongoing controversy over the ownership of the land under the monuments at Chichen Itza. But what is ironic is that many of the facts of the article were, in fact, taken from this article in Wikipedia. I know this because there is one fact in the case that has only been published here, and every other source I've seen contradicts it (this fact came from my own research). Wikipedia gets no credit in the article, I notice. Let me throw this out there for discussion: If a journalist draws facts from Wikipedia, does that make the entire article suspect? Or can we say that Wikipedia has made the big time, more trusted than all other sources?CoyoteMan31 13:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, most interesting - I suppose that should be taken as a compliment..! I guess that an awful lot of journalistic pieces are pretty cagey or neglectful in identifying their sources, whether it's been cribbed from wikipedia or elsewhere, so any of these reports ought to be treated with some caution. Looking across multiple sources may help, but then again we all know a lot of 'facts' get parroted uncritically from one source to the other.
Which was the bit of info that you are referring to? From the article in the Indie, it certainly seemed to imply much was drawn from interviews with the Barbachano family, to whom it was largely sympathetic. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Send me an e-mail, ejalbright AT americanegypt DOT com, and I'll fill you in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoyoteMan31 (talk • contribs) 17 November 2007
OK thanks, will do. --cjllw ʘ TALK 22:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual Tour

I deleted the following: "The Yucatan Tourism Board and the Government of the Yucatan are currently constructing the worlds first full screen virtual tour of the entire Citadel. The virtual tour is scheduled for release in Early August 2008." However, I'm willing to rewrite it and put it in its proper place if the author would put some information and a contact name or email address or a link to a news article about it. The author isn't registered, unfortunately, so it's impossible to directly contact them and explain why this isn't appropriate here. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)