Talk:La Venta

Mexico High‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mesoamerica (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MesoamericaWikipedia:WikiProject MesoamericaTemplate:WikiProject MesoamericaMesoamerica 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.

Expansion potential

This article is coming along very nicely. Per Madman's request, there are a couple of areas for expansion/mentioning that I can think of at the moment, which would be useful to cover when considering putting forward for review/promotion:

some detailing of the archaeological/ceramic phases and chronologies which have been defined for the site. Some more context on the site's antiquity in relation to other Mesoamerican areas and overall mesoamerican chronology.
some more exposition on the site's relationships with other Gulf Coast sites and complexes (both geographically and chronologically), and the relative timings of these sites' activities (eg where the peak development at La Venta fits in with earlier, contemporary and later Gulf Coast floresences, maybe also comparison of models of competitive settlements controlling certain resources vs state-like entities, etc).
in particular, some survey of the innovations found at La Venta (mid-Formative), not identified in previous complexes
some mention of La Venta's association with the early development of stela erection in Mesoamerica
some coverage of burials and goods, cached celt & jadeite finds
some mention of the aqueduct/drainage system, and and interpreted associations of water regards to rituals
The site map is great, but I think the location map can be substantively improved upon (too dark for my liking, a custom-made one would be best)

The references might need some expanding, too. The above just an outline of suggestions for any further expansions, probably some of which could be optional for the purposes of getting the article through, say, a GA nomination.--cjllw | TALK 08:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Decipherment of the Olmec Writing.

I don't know how to start a new section that can be edited from the section above, so if someone can handle that part for me I would appreciate it. I'm including research on Olmec writing and the links for the complete article as well as photographs of other Olmec heads. Complete research references can be found on the host sites as well. The article on Olmec writing is locatedd at www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/decip1.html Part of it reads: The Olmec people introduced writing to the New World. Many Meso-American accept the possibility that the Olmecs were the first to 1) invent a complex system of chronology; 2) a method of calculating time; and 3) a hieroglphic script which was later adopted by the Izapan and Mayan civilizations (Soustelle, 1984). As a result, the Olmec people left numerous inscriptions on monuments, celts and portable artifacts that give us keen insight into the Olmec culture, religion and politics.

Over a decade ago Winters (1979, 1997) deciphered the Olmec writing and discovered that you could read the Olmec inscriptions using the sound value of the Vai signs. The Olmecs spoke and aspect of the Manding (Malinke-Bambara) language spoken in West Africa (Winters, 1979, 1980, 1981,1984). There is some controversy in the article which makes for interesting reading. For some startling pictures of the Olmec heads see www.dudeman.net/siriusly/ac/mex.shtml and scroll down. Tom 03/17/07

This theory is addressed in Olmec alternative origin speculations#Epigraphic evidence. You will find a start there and are welcome to add referenced information on the subject to that article, or clean up the prose - IMHO it could use some further copyediting. I will certainly be able to help you edit, but I think you'll catch on quick. Thanks, Madman 03:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Coordinates?

Madman, whoever you are, this is great stuff. If this is a B the Teotihuacan article needs to be downgraded. I am dipping my toes in the waters here, but may I suggest that the coordinates for La Venta be updated?

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=18.103299,-94.040192&z=16&hl=en&t=h

vs

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=17.6,-94.1&spn=0.3,0.3&q=17.6,-94.1+(La_Venta)

I'm not sure how to make the changes to coordinates.

Mhrobb 15:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Mhrobb. Many thanks, I've amended the coords in this article per your suggestion, as they do seem a much better fit. I believe the previous coords which seemed a little off-base were taken from Coe et al.'s Atlas of Ancient America, but the new ones do a better job in resolving the target.

For your future reference, geographical coords are generally entered using the {{Coord}} template (the template's page has instructions on how to use and tweak its parameters). A little counter-intuitively, this template is often coded at the end of an article, although it often is set to display at the top (here's my edit to change the values, I also changed from an older version of coordinates template).

Re the WP:MESO assessment ratings, I agree that this article is currently superior to our content and coverage over at Teotihuacan. However, in the assessment scheme, "B-class" can cover quite a broad quality range— it's almost a 'default' rating, ie not terrible or brief, but not in the top rank either. The assessment guidelines are here. To gain a rating above B-class an article needs either to pass a formal review as either a Featured Article or Good Article, or be very near to a state where it would pass such a review if nominated ('A-class'). So B-class in effect becomes a little logjammed. Given the importance and scope potential for Teotihuacan, I guess in its current state one could consider that it's really only 'start-class' material, in comparison with where we would want eventually to take the coverage and contents. Alas it can take quite a while to accumulate the attention needed to bring up to scratch articles on important sites with many aspects to them (like Teotihuacan). One day... anyways, thanks again for the helpful amendment suggestion, and cheers! --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated Info

As of now, this is no longer the oldest civilization in the Americas right? It is Norte Chico now, which has been dated to about a millennia before the Olmec. I'm not saying IT IS the oldest, just that it is the oldest we as of today. 70.171.222.21 (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. Depending a little on how one considers it, the Olmec may no longer be regarded as necessarily the earliest 'civilisation' even in Mesomerica, since the Mokaya culture of the Soconusco coast had developed most of the traits before the first Olmec sites really got off the ground. I've amended the claim accordingly. Thanks for the pick-up. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and the End of La Venta?

did I see the fact correct, that is nowhere something mentioned about the end? it was "abandoned" but I have read already, it was destroyed? -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 18:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threats to La Venta section

On July 30, 2012, an anon IP user copied and pasted directly some text from a rant here without attribution. I decided to find more sources and rewrite that little section, rather than just adding a citation to that pasted text. The sources I found seem to indicate that a Mexican sect attempting a "pre-Columbian ritual" was involved in the incident, rather than an American fundamentalist group intent on destruction, as the dubious text tries to imply. TresÁrboles (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on La Venta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822110516/http://www.doaks.org/olmec.html to http://www.doaks.org/olmec.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on La Venta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927000850/http://www.doaks.org/Social/social10.pdf to http://www.doaks.org/Social/social10.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]