Talk:Entheogenics and the Maya/Archives/2014

Untitled

The opening sentences of your entry should provide a succinct introduction to the subject. There is already an entry on entheogen and the information in it does not need to be repeated. Please note that, according to that entry, your etymology of the term "entheogen" is incorrect. You wrote, "'Entheogen' is derived from ancient Greek ἔνθεος (entheos), and translates literally as 'full of the god, inspired, possessed,' followed by the root of the English word ‘enthusiasm’ γενέσθαι (genesthai), 'to come into being.'" In fact, genesthai (γενέσθαι) has nothing to do with enthusiasm. It is the Greek root of genesis, "to create." Also, please not that "entheogenic" is an adjective, not a noun. The title of this entry should be "Entheogens and the Maya" or (better), "Maya Use of Entheogens." Hoopes (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

One of the principal problems with this entry is an overreliance on Web-based sources that do not have the weight of scholarly authority. The best sources to use are peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters or books from authoritative university presses. The quality of Wikipedia is diminished when the sources are other web pages from which information has been taken as needed. The bibliographic sources that you provide, such as McKenna's Food of the Gods, need more complete bibliographic citations. (The citations for the articles by Chris King, José Luís Díaz, and others are also not in the correct form.) Hoopes (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It is essential to approach claims of ancient entheogen use with caution. Although McKenna's "stoned ape" hypothesis is popular in certain circles, it is not accepted by anthropologists who specialized in human evolution or by archaeologists familiar with the prehistoric archaeological record. The paintings at Tassili are by no means the earliest that have been claimed. David Lewis-Williams, a South African anthropologist, has suggested that some cave art in ancient France and Spain dating to perhaps 35,000 years ago.was inspired by psychedelic visions. However, these suggestions are regarded with skepticism by scholars familiar with the data (or lack thereof). Hoopes (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Although the term "ethnopharmacology" was relatively new in the 1960s and 1970s, it is one that is now widely taken for granted, as should be evident from the Wikipedia article on ethnopharmacology. The long quotation from Díaz's 1977 article is therefore unnecessary. Hoopes (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion of "history of use" is wordy and indefinite. The inclusion of long quotations, such as that from McDonald and Stross, is inappropriate. These should be paraphrased. Hoopes (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

In the discussion of Nicotiana, there should be mention of the recent and positive identification of tobacco in a Late Classic flask bearing a Maya hieroglyphic inscription that refers to the contents. Also, given the abundance of artistic representations of Maya tobacco use, the inclusion of a visual image would be helpful.

In the discussion of Psilocybin, there is a reference to how this substance "can leave the user in a trance-like state and also exhibiting visual hallucinations." Note that "trance-like state" remains poorly defined (even in scholarly literature) and that the hallucinations are experienced, not exhibited. In fact, the experiences in Psilocybin use are complex and merit more detailed discussion, especially with citation of the recent research by Roland Griffiths and his team at the Johns Hopkins Medical School. Hoopes (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The section on mushroom use needs much better sources than the 1977 review article by Díaz. For example, it should cite the original articles by Stephan de Borhegyi, more recent publications by Carl de Borhegyi, and critiques of the interpretations of "mushroom stones" as mushrooms, much less entheogenic mushrooms. There should be a reference to the identification of teonanacatl (a Nahuatl term meaning "flesh of the gods") as a reference to mushrooms. There should also be some discussion, with citations, to arguments that the entheogenic variety of Psilocybe was introduced to the Americas in the guts of European cattle and may not even have been known in pre-Hispanic times. Hoopes (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion of Nymphaea ampla does not cite the work of the late anthropologist Marlene Dobkin de Ríos, who was one of the first to suggest its use by ancient Mayas. Her 1974 article in Current Anthropology (together with its critiques) is an essential source, as are later publications that follow up on her original ideas. Hoopes (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion of Salvia divinorum assumes that it was used by Mayas even though the cited source refers to Mexico and the Aztecs, not specifically the Mayas. Hoopes (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

At present, the article provides a good overall introduction. However, it does not make it clear how problematic the interpretation of entheogen use by ancient Mayas actually is nor does it provide balance by citing critical scholarly literature. It is extremely important to note that the information on Aztec use is different from that for Maya civilization and that these cultures occupied significantly different ecological zones. (The difference between general Mesomerican use and specific Maya use is significant.) It would be important for article quality to include classic and significant references to works by anthropologist Peter Furst (especially his influential 1970 book Flesh of the Gods) and by Jonathan Ott. Hoopes (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)