Jump to content

Talk:Mesa Verde National Park/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Gustaf Nordenskiöld the villain?

User:WBardwin has been adding wording that would indicate or imply that Gustaf Nordenskiöld's conduct has been less than perfect. I find it very difficult to believe that a member of one of Scandinavia's most prominent families of scientist and explorers would be guilty of unethical conduct in his scientific work.

Every archelogist wants to study undisturbed and virgin sites. Also, newer methods may enable the extraction of more information from a dig than methods used in previous decades.

To criticise Nordenskiöld one would however have to show that:

  1. His methods did not meet the archeological standards of the time, or that they were in some substantive way inferior to todays standards.
  2. He did not record his finds or missrepresented the location of the recovered artifacts
  3. He showed a lack of respect for the site, its building or for the native culture.

I have not seen any proof for any of these claims. -- Petri Krohn 22:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm heavily criticising him as an individual-- the earlier versions of the article (produced both from scholarly books and the web) acknowledged that he was a controversial figure in his time and that some of that controversy continues today. Petri Krohn's edits pointed out some aspects of the social situation which were not presented in the books, and frankly made him sound like a "shining light." But, almost all modern archaeologists are mildly ashamed and somewhat critical of their very early peers. By today's standards they were all "pot hunters". They disrupted stratigraphy, damaged dwellings, burned roof beams to cook supper, dug undocumented holes, gathered, sold and destroyed artifacts and tossed away "minor" materials that today would be priceless. We lost much from their work, even though, as with Nordenskiöld, they produced work of scholarly value. Our archaeology articles here should not bless early "pot hunting" because the people were uninformed of modern archaeological methods. I think the present article presents him in quite a positive light, but I am unwilling to make him a hero (a POV!) or say his reputation has been "rehabilitated" (which implies he repented of his sins?). I also believe that a full discussion of his reputation and the social issues involved belong in his article, not the Park's article. I placed a newly published bio as a reference there. Perhaps when someone/we read the book, we'll have more objective material to work with. Best wishes. WBardwin 22:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. I am not anonymous User:69.39.6.253, who contributed the text on Gustaf Nordenskiöld.
  2. Your edits seem to imply that Gustaf Nordenskiöld was one of those "pot hunters" or otherwise guilty of some kind of unethical conduct. -- Petri Krohn 23:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
For his time, he was not guilty of "unethical" conduct. By modern standards, he was as guilty as all his peers in the Middle East, Egypt, and the Americas. Archaeologists and paleontologists during the early periods were "pot hunters" -- even as they did scholarly research. They gathered big flashy artifacts for their financial backers and institutions, made up private collections, discarded broken artifacts without documentation, and damaged sites. No one at the time was perfect -- no one. And Wikipedia articles should not ignore the faults of their time or unduly praise them. He was a fine scholar, for his time. He did better than average documentation and produced good records, for his time. He might even have been an honorable man, for his time, but I don't know how to document his moral standing. As I said above, he is presented positively here, his contribution is acknowledged, and I believe that a more involved discussion of his contributions and actions belongs on his bio/article. Sorry to misattribute the new information. And please, no more personal attacks. Best.........WBardwin 23:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, we seem to agree on one thing: your wording is intended to cast Nordenskiöld in a less than perfect light. However I do not agree with your arguments. It is true, that many early archeologists were pot hunters. This fact alone does not prove that Nordenskiöld was one of these pot hunters. Neither would I give much weigth to early amateur critics.
Besides, I do not believe the collection at the National Museum of Finland is a collection of "big flashy artifacts"; most likely it is a collection of broken pieces of pottery and other every-day artifacts. -- Petri Krohn 00:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
P. S. Look at this photograph taken by Gustaf Nordenskiöld and ask yourself the question: "did he tear down walls before of after taking the photograph?" Or were the claims of him taking part in the tearing down business untrue? -- Petri Krohn 01:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Have you personally seen the collection in Finland? Is a book/catalog available? Who knows when he took the photograph? All of these are assumptions and require sources! Sources! Sources! As for real primary sources, we have his book (which I have partially read in translation), we have opinions of his detractors in his lifetime, and we have the considered opinions of archaeologists over the years.
I respect the man, personally. And I have never -- never -- never -- intended to display him in a disparaging fashion. But he should be considered in the context of his time - he was a scholar who decided, on his own, without consultation or advice, what his procedures should be. Some of them are to his credit. And, as there were no established procedures for the field, all early archaeologists made mistakes by modern standards. Mesa Verda, Chaco Canyon and outlying ruins were casually damaged, and artifacts discarded and destroyed, not only by opportunists, but by "professional" explorers and educated visitors. Collectors were rampant. After his explorations, he shipped a fairly large shipment of artifacts home to Europe for display. And, in my opinion, Americans didn't resent him for "dispoiling the ruins" (despite public statements), they resented him for taking valuables out of the country before they could get at them. Profit was a strong motive of the time and fancy collections were a fad. So -- he, other emerging scholars and everyone else around him were "hunting pots" - everyone wanted dramatic materials that would make a nice display and a nice collection.
I'm not really sure what this argument is about except the word "rehabilitated" -- i.e. to restore to a former capacity, to restore to a good repute, to restore to a former state...." That's the only thing I've really objected to in your edits. I don't think his name has been, or ever will be, completely rehabilitated. Not because he wasn't a "nice" man, or came from a very "famous" family (class status, my, what criteria), or had a good education, or modern advocates and a fine press agent. But, because of the time he lived in and the state of arcaeology at the time, he needs to be presented as objectively and accurately as possible. He was not a hero. He was not a time-traveling archaeologist working with modern methods. He was a visitor to a place that had fascinating physical ruins and artifacts, and no one knew much about them. He explored, analyzed, collected and formed opinions. He made mistakes, just like all his peers. Just like all of us. Why don't you want to say that? WBardwin 01:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

David Reynolds (formerly anonymous user 69.39.6.253) replies

I'm David Reynolds, co-author of the recent book " Nordenskiöld of Mesa Verde: A Biography " and also your anonymous "User 69.39.6.253" who contributed a rewrite to the perfunctory "Brief History" of Mesa Verde National Park. I'm new to Wikipedia but informed, I think, on the issues discussed here.

First I'd like to commend Petri Krohn for the accurate biographical entry on Nordenskiöld. I also support Krohn's remarks in this discussion.

My rewrite was aimed at correcting a number of factual and interpretive errors, by no means limited to Nordenskiöld, in the previous entry. That entry reflected thinking abandoned decades ago, in which Mesa Verde was despoiled by looters and vandals led especially by the Wetherill brothers and by Nordenskiöld. No reputable author today asserts that, in fact the reverse. For the contemporary view see my book, Fred Blackburn's recently issued " The Wetherills: Friends of Mesa Verde, " or the revised edition of Duane Smith's " Mesa Verde: Shadow of the Centuries. " Mesa Verde National Park staff agree completely, as literature and displays at the Park confirm. In 1991 they sponsored an archaeological symposium honoring Nordenskiöld on the centennial of his visit. If that isn't rehabilitation, what is?

Nordenskiöld cannot be blamed for offenses against archaeological practices; archaeology was still being invented in the 1890s, and his careful, thorough methods contributed. Not a shred of evidence supports his guilt. Why then did the myth spread? Examples of prominent looters and vandals were needed to pressure Congress to give protected park status to Mesa Verde, and to outlaw private artifact collection. The Wetherills and Nordenskiöld were the best known collectors. After both legal objectives were reached in 1906, certain Mesa Verde National Park administrators found it useful to keep the myth alive, perhaps to justify their budgets. But that ended long ago.

Some related points:

  1. I agree with the depiction of 19th century archaeologists as being highly unprofessional by today's standards. Even at Mesa Verde, the first Ph.D. archaeologist to study it extensively, in the early 20th century, is often described as an ignorant blunderer.
  2. The 610 artifacts in Finlands Museum of Cultures are indeed cataloged and computer accessible. The collection does contain many potsherds and other unspectacular items, the majority retrieved from refuse heaps at Mesa Verde. The artifacts were evaluated by American archaeologist Charlie Steen as a "good, representative collection," though not one containing unique items. A Mesa Verde National Park official is on record as saying "we don't want it back," due to storage and maintenance shortcomings at Mesa Verde stemming from inadequate funding.
  3. All of Nordenskiöld's excellent photographs, taken in 1891, are indeed at the same museum. Former director Pirjo Varjola published an excellent pamphlet featuring them. Reproduction rights are available but were too expensive for my book.
  4. The reputations of the five Wetherill brothers suffered even more grievously. Two generations of Park visitors were told such fictions as that the Wetherills were mainly responsible for permanent loss of our ability to understand the culture of the Ancestral Puebloans who lived there. Given the facts covered in Blackburn's book, I object to the insertion in my text of a negative phrase about their activities. They were the first to agree, however, that Nordenskiöld improved their methods.
  5. I also object to the reinsertion of a misleading irrelevancy in my text. Richard Wetherill did rediscover Cliff Palace in 1888, but it had been seen by his brother Al in 1885, several area ranchers claimed to have seen it during the 1880s, and a prospector had published an account of a site sounding like Cliff Palace. Also, we need to remember that the Wetherills began their Mesa Verde explorations in 1882 and were guiding visitors through the cliff structures as early as 1886. Finally, Cliff Palace is only one of hundreds of sites the Wetherills charted, and not necessarily the most spectacular.

I don't know if I'll be a regular here, but when I have time I'll have another go at tweaking the "Brief History" text.

-- Dave Reynolds August 11, 2006 (don't yet know the correct entry format) Fritzfrump 02:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Images

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lbeefus/sets/72157603807008080/

That Flickr account has some CC-BY images that might be able to be used. I just wanted to bring that to the attention of this page in case they see any of interest. gren グレン 09:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Early History section not so early

The Early History section in the article appears to be mistitled -- the history it describes is certainly not as early as I initially expected just reading the intro and the table of contents. Perhaps someone could update this section to describe more of what archaeological study has found about 1200CE when the Mesa Verde area was first settled? Any discussion of the area's discovery by Western cultures seems to be not so "early" -- but maybe that's just me. Cheers -- Erik Anderson, 207.118.47.246 (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable Sites

Surprising, no mention of balcony house in this subsection. Anyone have any idea why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vulture19 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn, busted by sinebot....Vulture19 (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Now available full text, on-line, Nordenskiold's book The Cliff Dwellers, etc.

Comments wanted. I would like to give GNs book seme prominence. Maybe its own subhead under GN. The Hathi Trust Digital Library at the U of Michigan library has made it available: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.30000029476458 99.141.130.204 (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish term Mesa Verde translates into English as "green tableland"

The latter is not accurate. "Green Table" would be a better choice. "Green Mesa" would be the exact translation as I belive "Mesa" is English for a flat top mountain. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesa Amendezg (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

So, 'green plateau' would be better still? 'Green table' is not a useful translation. Wpjonathan (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does Nordenskiöld get his own section but not the Wetherills?

I'm not an archeologist or a subject matter expert, just visiting this page while gathering some general information on Mesa Verde. But if the Wetherills are as important as numerous sources say they are (finding/naming Cliff Palace, doing much of the initial excavations, collecting many important artifacts at numerous sites, etc), they deserve their own section, not just two bullet points under "1870s and 1880s American visitors." Whether you think they were archeologists or just pot hunters, they were important people in the history of Mesa Verde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.97.153 (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mesa Verde National Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 20:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 20:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

After first read-through, purely for typos etc, only one query: "specie" rather than "species" (twice). I'm perfectly prepared to be told I'm wrong, but it looks odd to me. Beginning close reading for substantive content now. More soonest, Tim riley talk 19:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If you click on the "Disambig links" link in the GA toolbox, on the right, you'll find it comes up with a couple of links that need attention. Tim riley talk 13:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Dabs are now fixed, and you were correct about specie, so that's fixed also. Thanks for taking this on, Tim! RO(talk) 19:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Very few further comments.

  • "artefacts" or "artifacts"? – we have both
  • for my taste you overuse the word "significant"; it is a pity to waste it as a mere synomyn of "important" or "major", and I think it is always worth asking oneself before using it, "what did it signify?"
  • there are a few phrases in quotation marks – such as in "bays, lagoons, and swamps" and is the "youngest rock layer present in the area.", which don't seem to me to benefit from being in quotes. I can't see that there would be the slightest suggestion of plagiarism if you took the quotes off these very everyday words and phrases. On the other hand, if you want them in quotes, I think you should attribute them in the text.
  • "Teddy Roosevelt" seems a touch familiar, I thought, but an American might see it differently.

I cannot offer any informed opinion on the comprehensiveness and balance of the article, but it looks fine to this layman's eye, particularly as you come trailing clouds of glory from the FAC for Chetro Ketl. None of these minor points could be regarded as barring the article from promotion, and so:

I agree with these points, and I've adopted your suggestions: ([1]). Thanks for reviewing my work, Tim! RO(talk) 16:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

A fine piece of work, and clearly worthy of promotion to GA. – Tim riley talk 14:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim! RO(talk) 16:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Pithouse → protokiva → kiva

Per this revert: ([2]), which I believe is edit-warring, you are introducing ambiguity. The passage you altered pertains to pre-kiva Pueblo I, so the addition is not accurate. This part explains the transition from primarily pithouse housing to pueblos. They haven't even started making proto-kivas yet. You got things confused, and you're adding details from 1300 to a section on 750 to 900. These structures are not even considered kivas until the Pueblo II period (900 to 1150).RO(talk) 16:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not edit-warring, and please assume good faith. If you think the section belongs somewhere else, you should move it. The point is that not all archaeologists agree that "kivas" were mostly communal or ceremonial, and there is a significant viewpoint that the idea that they were only used "by extended families in the winter months" is not true. I will propose a new addition; feel free to revert if you disagree. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Listen, the section you altered isn't talking about kivas. The section is talking about pithouses that were constructed before proto-kivas and later kivas. RO(talk) 16:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Same thing - the argument is that the pithouse spaces remained in primarily domestic use even long after they took the form that some archaeologists call "kivas" and that the transition of those spaces to primarily-communal/ceremonial space did not occur until much later on, perhaps post-1300. Given the NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring. You have some terms confused. RO(talk) 16:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You stop edit-warring. Please read the source supplied; as noted, archaeologists disagree as to what a "pithouse" or "kiva" was, where to draw the line or when the functions changed. There is a significant thread in archaeological debate that pithouse structures retained domestic functions for centuries after they took on the form that we call a "kiva" today, and did not acquire primarily-communal/ceremonial use until post-1300. The article should include this viewpoint. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Kivas at Mesa Verde did not develop until the mid-10th and early 11th centuries, you are adding this material to a section that details 750 to 900, when there were no kivas! RO(talk) 16:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Right, but the source refers to the broader issue of pithouses and kivas in general. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Right, it's not specific to 750 to 900, like the sourcing I'm using is. Why are you doing this at an article you had never edited before today? RO(talk) 17:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The source you cite is challenged by other sources, and those viewpoints should be included in this article. Why are you complaining about another user adding reliably-sourced material to an article? You do not own this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Kivas did not exist in 750, so your addition makes no sense whatsoever. RO(talk) 17:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Wrong. The section refers to pithouses and kivas *in general*. Please read it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Your source isn't tracing the development of pithouses chronologically. I'll say it again: Before there were pueblos, there were pithouses. Then, with the advent of above-ground pueblos, what used to be pithouses evolved into community ceremonial spaces that also housed people, these pithouses later evolved into protokivas (late 8th century), then kivas (mid-10th and early 11th centuries). But there were no kivas in Pueblo I, there were pithouses then protokivas, then kivas. RO(talk) 17:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You are suggesting one argument in archaeological theory. That neat evolution is not unchallenged. "Before there were pueblos, there were pithouses" is an argument, not a fact. Rather, other significant archaeologists argue that pithouses are part of pueblos. "Recall that early archaeologists had already decided that pit structures after 800 or so were actually early kivas. We know that this is not true. When we excavate around and behind pit houses, we find many hearths, work areas, plaza surfaces and post holes that represent the remains of ramadas..." etc. "Rather than a radical shift from a troglodyte existence in pit houses to above-ground living in pueblos," the record shows a gradual development of both pit-house and above-grade building." The argument here is that there was no neat and easy transition from "pithouses" to "pueblos" but rather that they were one and the same for centuries — that pithouses were part of pueblos. Whether you like this argument or not, it's pretty clearly a significant one in Southwest archaeology. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The material you are adding does not pertain to the time-frame you're adding it to. Yes. Kivas were used for lots of things, but they didn't even exist as an archeological concept during Pueblo I. RO(talk) 17:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

What exactly are you disputing?

Pueblo I people doubled their capacity for food storage from one year to two and built interconnected, year-round residences called pueblos. Many household activities that had previously been reserved for subterranean pithouses were moved to the new above-ground dwellings. This altered the function of pithouses from multi-purpose spaces to ones used primarily for community ceremonies, although they continued to house large extended families during winter months.[16]

What about this do you dispute, NorthBySouthBaranof? RO(talk) 17:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This altered the function of pithouses from multi-purpose spaces to ones used primarily for community ceremonies. That statement is disputed by significant archaeologists, and should not be presented as unchallenged fact. Significant arguments are made that that shift did not occur for several centuries after Pueblo I; perhaps not until 1300 or later. Therefore, I have suggested a well-sourced statement to that end, which you have repeatedly removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Significant arguments are made that that shift did not occur for several centuries after Pueblo I; perhaps not until 1300 or later. Huh? The last inhabitants of Mesa Verde left the area c. 1285. RO(talk) 17:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that would mean that "kivas" in the sense of a solely-ceremonial space weren't really a thing until the post-Chaco/Mesa/Aztec Puebloan era - when, as Lekson notes, the ratio of rooms to kivas was on the order of dozens or hundreds to one, as opposed to the "unit pueblo" of "five rooms and a pithouse/kiva/whatever." Whether you or I agree or disagree with that argument, it's a notable one within Southwestern archaeology. Properly juxtaposing notable arguments is what Wikipedia articles should do, therefore I have suggested proposed text which properly represents that argument. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Nah, Lekson always goes out of his way to be an outlier on this point, and very few, if any, other archeologists support it 100%. RO(talk) 18:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof is correct; one school of thought suggests that apparent kivas in Chacoan and McElmo great house complexes are in fact residential (or in some cases residential service structures, such as kitchens) and that the great houses themselves were not residential until the post-Chaco era. Great kivas, of course, are something else entirely. I expect Lekson would not object to being called an outlier, having spent so much time around outliers. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
the great houses themselves were not residential until the post-Chaco era. That's not accurate. Lekson believes that Chaco great houses were palaces/residential from the start to the finish. RO(talk) 18:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I think we're talking past each other: Lekson's argument is that the houses were not primarily residential in that the function of the vast majority of the rooms was not living quarters, but storage or even simply massing for architectural presence and spatial domination. They were not inhabited by anywhere near the number of people that "could have fit" into those buildings if they were apartment buildings, a-la modern pueblos. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
That's why I included that they still had multiple uses, including housing families. I feel like you're splitting hairs, and trying to upheave the timeline based on Lekson's outlier ideas. The section in question is accepted as pre-kiva, so this is really a time waster. Yes. Lekson disputes the timeline, but there isn't an aspect of the topic that he doesn't dispute. His whole career is built off going against academic consensus. If we listened to everything he said, we'd have to paint Chaco as a military-style society that dominated and controlled the region with force, but nobody else agree with that theory. RO(talk) 18:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof, if you think there's important stuff missing then lets discuss it and find a compromise we can agree on. I apologize for reverting, but in my view the addition was confounding the timeline. The question of what a kiva is and isn't is much better handled at kiva anyway, and it's better to be vague here, IMO. If we tagged everything that Lekson disagreed with we'd tag half of every article on this entire topic, but let's work together to improve this aspect of the article. RO(talk) 18:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Date handling

I am glad to see that various date problems are now being fixed. For approximate dates, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Uncertain, incomplete, or approximate dates indicates that c. or c. is ok, but not 'circa' which is currently in the article. For eras, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Era style, it it states do not use CE or AD unless required to avoid ambiguity. It also previously stated that BC or BCE must always be used for that era to avoid ambiguity/confusion. I find the unlabeled dates now in this article to be confusing. One must assume that readers of articles have no knowledge of the subject other that what they are reading so necessary information must be provided directly in the article text. A paragraph that contains 'starting c 7500 BCE', then 'by 1000' and then 'by 750 CE' makes one have guess that 1000 is BCE and not CE or what is it actually? A section has a first paragraph with 'c. 9500 BCE, and then a second paragraph with 'after 9600' and then 'c.7500'. Shall we let the reader guess that that 9600 is BCE and that 7500 is BCE? I say no, we state things explicitly so no questions linger in the mind. This is what is done in all similar articles I have seen that have a mixture of era dates. Thanks Hmains (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to revert you ([3]), but for one you removed the c. template without reason, and I learned at FAC that these are appropriate. The word "circa" does not appear in the article, just the wiki-markup. Also, you only need to specify era where ambiguity exists, not every time there's a new paragraph. For example, "After 9600 BCE" needs no era specified because the last era mentioned was BCE, and there is no date 9600 CE, especially when discussing Ancestral Puebloans. I did adopt your comma usage though, as I think you're right that years of 4 digits don't need them. RO(talk) 21:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I just fixed the one instance of 'circa' to 'c.'. I also fixed 600s to 7th century to conform with MOS century handling. As far as using BC or BCE: it is standard throughout WP articles to ALWAYS specify BC or BCE for that era (years/centuries/etc.) to always avoid confusion and to enhance reader understanding. Why resist? We are always supposed to write in a manner such that misunderstanding is reduced. Hmains (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Climate box removed

I did edited this page a couple of years ago, adding in a climate box that shows the mean monthly temperatures, precipitation and snowfall for this park. Although it is good that it is upgraded to a good article, I do not know why it was removed recently as it summarizes the average temperatures and precipitation by month that cannot be explained by prose. I think it should be added back again since featured articles such as Yosemite National Park and Yellowstone National Park contain a climate table showing mean monthly temperatures, precipitation and snowfall. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mesa Verde National Park. 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:

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) 09:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mesa Verde National Park. 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:

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) 07:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The Park also manages Yucca House National Monument

Does this article discuss that? 

   It is managed by Mesa Verde National Park. Yucca House Monument faces fight over access  

  A news item in March 2020 provided this explanation of the current access situation at Yucca House: Bill would expand Yucca House National Monument, The Journal, Cortez Mancos Dolores

Although it is open to the public for no fee, no signs direct tourists to the monument, and most visitors find out about it only while visiting Mesa Verde, which offers tours of the 800-year-old pueblo.

Peter K Burian (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

"culturally modified trees"

I dont understand this. Its a headline, but the text does not mention it at all 47.71.55.5 (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mesa_Verde_National_Park/Archive_1&oldid=1195838337"