Talk:Mesoamerica/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Stone age / Bronze Age

The Stone age article claims that the Mesoamericans left the stone age circa 2500 BC. So were there bronze age civilizations in the Americas? The Bronze Age article lists the time periods that various parts of the world entered the Bronze Age, but makes no mention of mesoamerican civilization. The article on Aztecs makes no mention of technology. I'm trying to figure out if the Aztecs, or any other Native American civilizations, had entered the Bronze Age. thanks. -Lethe | Talk 00:12, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think mesoamerica can really be said to have entered the Bronze Age. While some cultures did develop basic metalworking it never became wide spread or a civilisationally significant trait in any of them. Basically the cultures that did use metalworking only manufactured jewelry and religious artefacts, tools and weapons were always made from stone. (I haven't seen any finer stonecraft than the Mayan carvings in Obsidian and flint)

Magnuspharao 13:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)]]

rm of copyvio entries

I've excised the oddly-phrased additions by User:Jungenbergs, which would seem to have been lifted verbatim from this site.--cjllw | TALK 09:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Aztec?

You have nothing this is crap where do they live what climate and environment i have a project on this and this has nothing it dosent talk about them??!!

er...why not try the Aztec article itself?--cjllw | TALK 00:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

History: The term, Aztec, is a startlingly imprecise term to describe the culture that dominated the Valley of Mexico in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Properly speaking, all the Nahua-speaking peoples in the Valley of Mexico were Aztecs, while the culture that dominated the area was a tribe of the Mexica (pronounced "me-shee-ka") called the Tenochca ("te-noch-ka"). At the time of the European conquest, they called themselves either "Tenochca" or "Toltec," which was the name assumed by the bearers of the Classic Mesoamerican culture. The earliest we know about the Mexica is that they migrated from the north into the Valley of Mexico as early as the twelfth century AD, well after the close of the Classic Period in Mesoamerica. They were a subject and abject people, forced to live on the worst lands in the valley. They adopted the cultural patterns (called Mixteca-Pueblo) that originated in the culture of Teotihuacán, so the urban culture they built in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries is essentially a continuation of Teotihuacán culture.

  As stated in the section on the Toltecs, the peoples of Mesoamerica distinguished between two types of people: the Toltec (which means "craftsman"), who continued Classic urban culture, and the Chichimec, or wild people, who settled Mesoamerica from the north. The Mexica were, then, originally Chichimec when they migrated into Mexico, but eventually became Toltecs proper. 

  The history of the Tenochca is among the best preserved of the Mesoamericans. They date the beginning of their history to 1168 and their origins to an island in the middle of a lake north of the Valley of Mexico. Their god, Huitzilopochtli, commanded them on a journey to the south and they arrived in the Valley of Mexico in 1248. According to their history, the Tenochca were originally peaceful, but their Chichimec ways, especially their practice of human sacrifice, revolted other peoples who banded together and crushed their tribe. In 1300, the Tenochcas became vassals of the town of Culhuacan; some escaped to settle on an island in the middle of the lake. The town they founded was Tenochtitlan, or "place of the Tenochcas."  

Tenochtitlan Ruins, Mexico City

   Relations between the Tenochcas and Culhuacan became bitter after the Tenochcas sacrificed a daughter of the king of Culhuacan; so enraged were the Culhuacans that they drove all the Tenochcas from the mainland to the island. There, the Tenochcas who had lived in Culhuacan taught urban culture and architecture to the peoples on the island and the Tenochcas began to build a city. The city of Tenochtitlan is founded, then, sometime between 1300 and 1375. 

  The Tenochcas slowly became more powerful and militarily more skilled, so much so that they became allies of choice in the constant conflicts between the various peoples of the area. The Tenochcas finally won their freedom under Itzacoatl (1428-1440), and they began to build their city, Tenochtitlan, with great fervor. Under Itzacoatl, they built temples, roads, a causeway linking the city to the mainland, and they established their government and religious hierarchy. Itzacoatl and the chief who followed him Mocteuzma I (1440-1469) undertook wars of conquest throughout the Valley of Mexico and the southern regions of Vera Cruz, Guerrero, and Puebla. As a result, Tenochtitlan grew dramatically: not only did the city increase in size, precipitating the need for an aqueduct system to bring water from the mainland, it grew culturally as well as the Tenochcas assimilated the gods of the region into their religion.  

   A succession of kings followed Mocteuzma I until the accession of Mocteuzma II in 1502; despite a half century of successful growth and conquest, Tenochca culture and society began to suffer disasters under Mocteuzma II. First, tribute peoples began to revolt all over the conquered territories and it is highly likely that Tenochca influence would eventually have declined by the middle of the sixteenth century. Most importantly, the reign of Mocteuzma II was interrupted by the invasion of the Spaniards under Cortez in 1519-1522. The Spaniards kidnapped Mocteuzma and eventually killed him in 1524. When the city of Tenochtitlan fell, the remainder of Mexico fell very rapidly. The Spaniards managed this conquest for several reasons. First, Aztec conquest was not concerned with political or territorial influence; the conqests only had to do with the payment of tribute. There was, then, a large group of subject peoples with no loyalty to Tenochtitlan and alot of hostility. Cortez conquered Tenochtitlan largely by using these enmities. Second, the Aztecs had nothing like formal military strategy; wars were largely fought as large-scale individual combats. Finally, Cortez and his men were desperate; they had entered Mexico against orders and knew that, unless they conquered Mexico, that they would be severely punished when they returned.  

Economy and Society The economy of Tenochtitlan was built off of one overwhelming fact: the urban population on the island required high levels of economic support from surrounding areas. In its earliest history, Tenochtitlan was self-supporting; the village was small and agriculture was managed through the chinampa method of architecture, practiced widely throughout Mesoamerica. In the chinampa , flat reeds were placed in the shallow areas of the lake, covered with soil, and then cultivated. In this way, the Aztecs reclaimed much of the lake for agriculture. A large part of the city's population were farmers; at its height (100,000-300,000), at least half the population would leave the city in the morning to go farm and return in the evening.

  The city itself consisted of a large number of priests and craftspeople; the bulk of the economy rested on extensive trade of both necessary and luxury items. Tenochtitlan was a true urban center. It had a permanent population, it had a large and bustling market (the Spanish estimated that at least 60,000 people crowded the market), and it had the beginnings of economic class. For the kinship groups of the city were divided up into calpulli , many of which practiced a specific craft or trade, such as rope-making or pot-making. While there is a great deal of controversy over the precise nature of the capulli , it seems to be a transition point between kinship organization (the calpulli were kinship groups) and economic class (the calpulli specialized in particular crafts). In addition, the calpulli seemed to be arranged in ranks: there was the highest calpulli , another five calpulli that had schools for nobility, and then all the rest. 

  The Aztecs did have two clearly differentiated social classes. At the bottom were the macehualles, or "commoners," and at the top the pilli, or nobility. These were not clearly differentiated by birth, for one could rise into the pilli by virtue of great skill and bravery in war. 

  All male children went to school. At the age of 15, each male child went to telpuchcalli ("house of youth"), where he learned the history and religion of the Aztecs, the art of war and fighting, the trade or craft specific to his calpulli , and the religious and civic duties of everyday citizenship. The children of nobility also attended another school, a school of nobility or calmecac , if he was a member of one of the top six calpulli . There the child learned the religious duties of priests and its secret knowledge; for the distinction between government and religious duties was practically non-existent. This public education was only limited to boys. 

  In Aztec society, women were regarded as the subordinate of men. Above everything else, they were required to behave with chastity and high moral standards. For the most part, all government and religious functions were closed off to women. In fact, one of the most important religious offices, the Snake Woman, was always filled by men. There were some temples and gods that had priestesses, who had their own schools, but their exact position in the hierarchy is unknown. 

  Aztec laws were simple and harsh. Almost every crime, from adultery to stealing, was punished by death and other offenses usually involved severe corporal punishment or mutilation (the penalty for slander, for instance, was the loss of one's lips). This was not a totalitarian state, however; there was a strong sense of community among the Aztecs and these laws, harsh as they seem, were supported by the community rather than an autocratic judiciary. 

  Slavery was common among the Aztecs; it was not, however, racial or permanent. One became a slave by being captured in war, by committing certain crimes, such as theft, by voluntarily entering into slavery, or by being sold by one's parents. If one was captured in war, slavery was a pleasant option, for the purpose of Aztec warfare was primarily the capture of live human sacrifices. If, however, one had a useful trade, the Tenochca would forego the sacrifice and employ the captive in that trade. 

  There was little distinction between the religious and the secular hierarchy, although historians and anthropologists argue that the Aztecs developed farther than any other Mesoamerican group a secular aspect of society. At the very top of the hierarchy was the tlacatecuhtli , or "chief of men." He dominated all the religious ceremonies and served as a military leader. Below the tlacatecuhtli were a series of religious offices and some secular functions, such as military generals.  

Religion The religion of the Aztecs was incredibly complicated, partly due to the fact that they inherited much of it from conquered peoples. Their religion was dominated by three gods: Huitzilopochtli ("hummingbird wizard," the native and chief god of the Tenochca, Huitzilopochtli was the war and sun god), Tezcatlipoca ("Smoking Mirror," chief god of the Aztecs in general), and Quetzalcoatl ("Sovereign Plumed Serpent," widely worshipped throughout Mesoamerica and the god of civilization, the priesthood, and learning). Below these three gods were four creating gods who were remote and aloof from the human world. Below these were an infinity of other gods, of which the most important were Tlaloc, the Rain God, Chalchihuitlicue, the god of growth, and Xipe, the "Flayed One," a god associated with spring.

The Wall of Skulls, Tenochtitlan

   The overwhelming aspect of Aztec religious life in the imaginations of non-Aztecs was the predominance of human sacrifice. This had been practiced all throughout the Mesoamerican world, but the Tenochca practiced it at a scale never seen before or since. We don't know a great deal about the details, but we have a fairly good idea of its general character and justification. Throughout Mesoamerica, the theology involved the concept that the gods gave things to human beings only if they were nourished by human beings. Among the Maya, for instance, the priests would nourish the gods by drawing their own blood by piercing their tongues, ears, extremities, or genitals. Other sacrifices involved prayer, offerings of food, sports, and even dramas. The Aztecs practiced all of these sacrifices, including blood-letting. But the Aztec theologians also developed the notion that the gods are best nourished by the living hearts of sacrificed captives; the braver the captive, the more nourishing the sacrifice. This theology led to widespread wars of conquest in search of sacrificial victims both captured in war and paid as tribute by a conquered people.  

Great Temple Stairs, Mexico City

   We can successfully reconstruct Aztec human sacrifice with a high level of accuracy. Some sacrifices were very minimal, involving the sacrifice of a slave to a minor god, and some were very spectacular, involving hundreds or thousands of captives. Aztec history claims that Ahuitzotl (1468-1502), who preceded Mocteuzma II as king, sacrificed 20,000 people after a campaign in Oaxaca ("O-a-sha-ka"). No matter what the size of the sacrifice, it was always performed the same way. The victim was held down by four priests on an altar at the top of a pyramid or raised temple while the officiant made an incision below the rib cage and pulled out the living heart. The heart was then burned and the corpse was pushed down the steep steps; a very brave or noble victim was carried down the steps. The most brutal of human sacrifices were those dedicated to the god Huehueteotl. Sacrificial victims were drugged and then thrown into a fire at the top of the ceremonial platform. Before they were killed by the fire, they were dragged out with hooks and their living hearts were pulled out and thrown back into the fire. 

  While human sacrifice was the most dramatic element of Aztec sacrifice, the most common form of sacrifice was voluntary blood-letting which occurred at every religious function. Such blood-letting was tied to rank: the higher one was in social or priestly rank, the more blood one had to sacrifice. 

  There was an urgency to all this sacrifice. The Aztec believed that the world was controlled by divine forces that were in constant conflict and opposition to one another. The universe was poised between conflicting forces of creation and destruction; human beings could, in part, influence this balance through the practice of sacrifice.  

   In addition to sacrifice, the Aztec religion, like the Mayan religion, was dominated by calculations of time. The Aztecs had several calendars; each day was controlled by two gods, each of which had a benificient and a malevolent aspect. In a complex series of astronomical calculations, one could precisely determine how to behave and what to do in order to achieve the best results. 

  It is not unfair to say that Aztec culture was overwhelmingly eschatological in a way that can only be rivalled by early Christianity. The Aztecs, like the Mayans, believed that the universe had been created five times and destroyed four times; each of these five eras was called a Sun. The first age was called Four Ocelot (for it began on the date called Four Ocelot). Tezcatlipoca (Smoking Mirror) dominated the universe and eventually became the sun disk. The world was destroyed by jaguars. The second age was Four Wind, dominated by Quetzalcoatl (Sovereign Plumed Serpent); men were turned to monkeys and the world was destroyed by hurricanes and tempests. The third age was Four Rain, dominated by Tlaloc (the rain god); the world was destroyed by a rain of fire. The fourth era was Four Water and was dominated by Chalchihuitlicue (Woman with the Turquoise Skirt); the world was destroyed by a flood. The fifth era, the one we live in now, is Four Earthquake, and is dominated by Tonatiuh, the Sun-God. This age will end in earthquakes. 

  The Aztecs had two calendars: the ritual year and the solar year. The ritual year lasted for 260 days and the solar year lasted for 365 days. Every fifty-two years these two calendars would resynchronize; the Aztecs, then, lived in 52-year cycles. In Aztec religion, the destruction of every era always occurred on the last day of each 52 year cycle (although each era lasted for several of these cycles). Every 52 years, then, the Aztecs believed that the world was about to end and the close of the 52 year cycle was the most important religious event in Aztec life for this period was the most dangerous period in human life. This was the time when the gods could decide to destroy humanity. Every cycle ended with the New Fire Ceremony. For five days before the end of the cycle, all religious altar fires were extinguished and people all over the Aztec world destroyed furniture and possessions and went into mourning for the world. On the last day, the priests went to the Hill of the Star, a crater in the Valley of Mexico, and waited for the constellation of the Pleiades to appear. If it appeared, that meant that the world would continue for fifty-two more years. The priests would light a fire in an animal carcass, and all the fires of the Valley of Mexico would be lit from this single fire. The day after saw sacrifices, blood-letting, feasting, and renovation of possessions and houses.  

Writing We can barely read Mayan writing, but we do know how to read Aztec writing. Like the Mayans, the Aztecs developed a true system of writing. Aztec writing isn't phonetic but rather a loose system of rebus writing. Still, if the testimony of the Spanish is reliable, this writing system was seen as an aid to oral traditions rather than as a replacement. Aztec writing was used for many purposes: calculation, calendrical counts, chronicles, diaries, and even history. This is why we know far more about Aztec history before 1500—and in far greater chronological detail—than any other American peoples. Many theories have been presented for the development of a widespread literate tradition among the Aztecs, while the same didn't occur for the Mayas. Perhaps the most convincing is the fact that Aztec society was far more complex than any other preceding culture. The persistent need for accurate record-keeping which is introduced with social complexity led to the development of the most literate society on the American continents. Richard Hooker

Chacmool, Tenochtitlan

Category rename proposal

This category rename proposal (dated 2006-04-24) was resolved, and Category:Pre-Hispanic Mesoamerica was renamed to Category:Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica.--cjllw | TALK 08:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup & expansion

The recent addition of an expansion-request tag is quite justified, since the present coverage barely scratches the surface of this topic. It is also timely, for a WikiProject (WP:MESO) is in the process of being defined with an intended scope precisely for Mesoamerican-related topics. This article will be the first on a list for attention, and so this expansion request will be responded to shortly. Anyone else interested is of course more than welcome to pitch in...--cjllw | TALK 14:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking just change 15th and 16th century to 16th and 17th. Am I wrong? Columbus was 1492. His brother was a year or so latter, I thought. That's got to put Spain into the 16th century(1501 to 1600). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.62.231 (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Begin translation of spanish version as requested...

This is more or less the beginning of the translation of the spanish, though the writing doesn't seem to be very academic...I've tried to make it a bit more clear. What is the policy regarding direct translation and editing for style? Also, I've included in bold words/phrases that I don't understand, some I've checked even in a dictionary but the meaning might be more academic, feel free to edit ;-) --gary

I'm not sure about the usual practice for exercises of this type, but I would say that we do not need to produce a word-for-word translation of the es.wiki equivalent article- it's only necessary to capture the salient facts and references, and the actual english text can be phrased in whichever manner seems most suitable. The article on es.wiki is very good in terms of coverage and deservedly featured there, but still there are some aspects to content, writing style and structure for which it may be better to take an alternate approach.

Since the text is very long, rather than take up so much room on this talk page, I would suggest that the work-in-progress translation below be moved to a temporary subpage, such as Mesoamerica/Translation, and any discussion revolving around the translation to work it into something which can be transported into the english article can be discussed on the corresponding talk page talk:Mesoamerica/Translation. I think there is a template around somewhere which can be slapped onto either the article or this talk page which is used to alert editors that a translation/editing exercise is in progress, and can point to the subpages where the efforts are taking place so that anyone interested in helping out can do so. I'll see if I can find it.

I for one will be helping out, my spanish is not too bad and I'm quite familiar with the subject matter in any case. Thanks for making this good start, gary. BTW, I'm curious- your account seems to be quite new- have you had a different one before, and how did you come by this request?--cjllw | TALK 08:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved the translation to Mesoamerica/Translation and will continue from there. Once I get through the whole thing, maybe a run through to smooth out the English would be helpful, then it can be put on the main page. I saw the page as a nomination for spanish translation of the week, and went for it. The account is new; I am new ;-) Gershonw 16:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. A very nice start to your wiki editing career, if I may say so. The article is not yet actually selected as SPARTRA of the week, so you may have jumped the gun a little, but I don't think it really matters. It looks very much like it will be the next selected anyway, and so shortly the cavalry will be on its way.--cjllw | TALK 23:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion of the translation can be found at Talk:Mesoamerica/Translation. I'm currently in the process of merging the articles. - Jmabel | Talk 22:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Era names

The normal names of the major divisions of Mesoamerican history, in English, are "Preclassic", "Classic" and "Postclassic". I've replaced "Classical" &c. throughout. (See e.g. this timeline, or compare the number of Google hits the different forms get at www.mesoweb.com and www.famsi.org).

Capitalization and hyphenation of "Preclassic" and "Postclassic" are a bit less consistant, but those forms seem to be the most common. ("Post-Classic" in particular is common, and Coe's The Maya, which is what I have to hand (7th edition, ISBN 0-500-28505-5), uses it consistantly, but I've gone with "Postclassic" since it gets more hits at FAMSI and for symmetry with "Preclassic". Change it if you think there's a good reason. -Butsuri 00:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed, I believe the "-al" endings were a bit of a legacy from the recent translation of much of this from the spanish. "Formative" is another alternative for Preclassic, used at least as often these days I suspect. As for hyphenation or mixed capitalisation, there's no recognised convention other than to be consistent within the same text - IMO the one-word expressions chosen are the more appealing, so fine with these.--cjllw | TALK 13:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I know this dicussion is pretty old, but i thought i would throw my two cents in. Re: hyphenation - I've never seen Pre-classic and Post-classic within Mesoamerican literature, and until i started hanging around here, never saw it in reference to meso chronology. It was the first thing i wanted to change when i started editing, but i wasn't bold enough (!). I will now.

Also, in regards to the formative - my experience with the term has generally been in research concerning non-maya areas. Specifically, I've most often seen its use in Oaxaca and the Olmec area. Generally, the two (Formative and Preclassic) are interchangeable... Oaxaca dan 07:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul Kirchoff, Mesoamerica and this article

I think that there is a basic misunderstanding implicit in the structure of the article. Nameliy the is the idea that mesoamerica is principally a geographical area and that Paul Kirchhoff just named it. What Paul Kirchoff actually did was that he proposed that a number of shared cultural traits in a that particular region could be used to define a cultural area that he called mesoamerica. So when the cultural similarities part says that "at the same time when he defined the geographical limits of mesoamerica he proposed a set of cultural characteristics ..." its got it all backwards. He first observed some shared cultural traits and then he defined the geographical area as the area where those traits can be found! This means in my opinion that the cultural traits shopuld be given a more prominent place in the article than the mere geographical description of the region and it also means that the article should be rewritten to reflect this fact. In short the boundaries of Mesoamerica are not geographically but culturally defined. --Maunus 18:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to tone down the geographical description of the article and tone up the cultural part of the article I would like to move most of the ecology and cultural areas information to another page for example called Ecological zones of Mesoamerica or Cultural areas of Mesoamerica or something to that effect, leaving only a short description of one or two paragraphs with links to main pages. This would also cut a bit of KB's off of a fairly long main page.--Maunus 14:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with expanding emphasis on cultural/historical matters for Mesoamerica. However we need to retain a reasonable amount of information here on other aspects such as physical geography to give the complete picture and background setting- but yes, these can be pared down and broken out into specific articles as needed.

Given the broad scope for this article, it will be appropriate to have separate main articles for more detailed coverage of each of the sections, once those sections are determined and reordered.

For those topics you mention, I'd suggest the following subarticle headings:

• Geography of Mesoamerica
• Natural history of Mesoamerica
• Cultural areas of Mesoamerica

in accordance with naming conventions. There will of course be other subarticles needed as well.

As to whether it's best to begin creating these subarticles by copying relevant sections of text from this one, I'm in two minds- sometimes rewriting text pasted from a larger article so that it can stand on its own is at least as much work as starting from scratch- particularly where that text is poorly-referenced and prone to inaccuracy and over-generalisation.--cjllw | TALK 04:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

problems with the common culture part

The common culture part has a few shortcomings that I shall describe here in the hope that someone helps me better them.

• Overstatement of Unity. The section gives the impression that all mesoamericsn cultures are identical. It does not differentiatie been different cultural concepts, customs etc. of different mesoamerican cultures. Mesoamerica as a cultural area is defined by some likenesses, not by its cultures being identical.
• Nahuatl linguistics bias. All religious, mythical and philososphical concepts seem to refer only to the aztecs. They are written in classical nahuatl without mentioning that this is the case nor give a reason for this choice. Tláloc, Quetzalcóatl, Huehuetéotl, nahualli, Cincalco, Mictlan, Chicnahuapan, are examples of nahuatl mythological terms used without qualification.
• Nahuatl cultural Bias. The mythological, religious and cultural descriptions is also biased towards the aztecs. Not all mesoamerican cultures had the same concept of the soul, of nagualism, of the the afterlife etc. This article shows us what the aztecs thought, but states it as being true for all of Mesoamerica.
• Esoterism: The parts on mesoamerican myth, religion and thought suffers from esoterism. It is bad enough that it implies that all mesoamericans think alike, but it also juggles esoteric concepts like duality, shamanism, comovision and symbolism in a less than scientifically agile manner. In fact it just states some ideas as being general for "mesoamerican thought" without corroborating with examples, references or even linking them to the cultures in which the concepts are actually found (aztec).

Approaches that could remedy these flaws:

• Make clear which mesoamerican cultures are being referred to by all specific references to concepts or words.
• State the actual degree of variation between the mesoamerican cultures by using examples of how different cultures of the americas share the same concepts and differe in others. (for example: quetzalcohuatl was called kukulk'an among the classic maya, or the quiché also claimed their ancestry from Tollan, or the aztec daysigns versus the mayan, or mixtec creational myths compared to aztec ones, or the maya developed writing but the aztecs didn't, etc. )
• Dont use specific terms such as names of deities or religious concepts if it can't be avoided. If used be sure to specify to which mesoamerican culture the term applies and any parallels in other mesoamerican cultures.
• Describe religious and mythical concepts in concrete rather than abstract terms. -Not "mesoamericans thought in terms of dualism" but: "Duverger has claimed that mesoamerican beliefsystsems can be characterized by dualism, for example .... -
• incorporate references.

I think that it basically needs a very thorough reworking focusing on substantiating and qualifying the claims that are made. I will start doing it little by little but will appreaciate all the help I can get.--Maunus 21:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You raise some salient points Maunus, both here and above. They definitely need addressing in this article, as well as across many if not most of the related articles in project scope as well. This article has not really been updated since its recent translation from the es.wiki equivalent, and have been putting off reviewing and amending it, so it is probably high-time it was made the number 1 priority on the list. Shall be happy to concentrate on it more fully after finishing with another article I've been updating. It is going to be a long haul however to redress the apparent errors and omissions and bring the article up to 'flagship' standard.

As well as the deficiencies you outline, it needs a general overhaul of the structure, tone and content inherited from the spanish article translation. Many of the links need updating to reflect the targets and structure of sub-articles found in en.wiki, for example.

It will also be necessary to refresh the references with addition of english-language ones, and (from the outset of the revision) implement an appropriate citation style. Personally I'd prefer a Harvard-style system, which I think works well for broad articles such as this which are likely to accumulate a good number of references which can be listed bibliography-style at the end. Inline citations would be given (surname year:pg) where simple enough, with also a "Notes" section generated by <ref></ref> tags for longer cites and digressions.

Before going too far down the track we should also think about the overall structure - the topical divisions and their ordering - which seems at present to be not quite that logical. As a starting-point I'd suggest for high-level divisions within the article we arrange it along the lines of the proposed Mesoamerica category scheme, modified as necessary. This would make it easier to break out sections into sub-articles which can cover that particular topical area in more detail than can be practically covered in the main article itself. The article already weighs in at around 83k, so need to be mindful of the overall length.--cjllw | TALK 03:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Explaining my extensive edits

The reasoning behind the extensive edits of the cultural section that I am undertaking is partly explained above. But here I can give a bit more information on what it is I am changing. Firstly the entire section seems to be based almost entirely on Duverger who is not an uncontroversial nor unproblematic writer, mostly because he specialises in complex structural speculations on mesoamerican thought, religion and philosophy and not nearly as much on providing facts or qualifying his claims. I am trying to tone down the Duverger influence on the page heavily and instead switch to information and reasoning that can be found in more mainstream scientific textbooks on Mesoamerican myth and culture such as those written by Muriel Porter Weaver, Michael Coe, David Carrasco, Robert Carmack, Robert Sharer and Michael Smith. I also try to switch the focus to providing information instead of complex interpretations and esoteric explanations.

• Michael E Smith The Aztecs 2nd edition. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK (2003).
• Michael D Coe The Maya London: Thames and Hudson, 4. udgave, 1987
• Sharer, Robert J.; The Ancient Maya, Fifth Edition; University of Stanford Press, 1994.
• Weaver, Muriel Porter. 1993. The Aztecs, Maya, and their Predecessors

Maunus 16:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Deconstructing in order to reconstruct - help needed

I may have gone overboard this time but I think something drastic had to be done. Now I got it started and I am sure you all have some ideas (probably many) on how to better the current somewhat amputated state of the article. I will only ask you not to revert the article entirely but rather expand and better the current structure and its part as much as you can. I think this structure is closer to what the article should be like with some informative but basic parts here and links to main pages. The main pages Geography of Mesoamerica and Mesoamerican chronology also need urgent attention. I will continue working on this one but I really hope that others of you will also take part in this restructuring. Maunus 10:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Human Sacrifice

The last paragraph needs to be cleaned up, it sounds almost pro-sacrificial.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.89.210.155 (talk • contribs) 24 September 2006.

Difficult

The article is a little difficult.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.132.106.13 (talk • contribs) 3 October 2006.

Thoughts on making it more comprehensible to newcomers to the subject while retaining depth of coverage? -- Infrogmation 23:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Map

The map Image:Mesoamerica english.PNG is pretty good, but could be better. For one thing, there are other Mesoamericna cultures in central Honduras just to the east of the Maya; the "Centroamerica" section should be expanded north to include that. What else? -- Infrogmation 23:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The overall map should probably extend down to Nicaragua and Costa Rica, as there are sites there which display mesoamerican traits and accordingly may be considered part of the periphery (even if only for certain periods). The zonal boundaries also need some revisions. Will look to see if it can be redrawn, may take a little while. There's a "blank" regional map somewhere in commons, though my recollection is that some of the peripheral zones need to be "stiched on" somehow. Once we've a stable "blank" version, it should make it easier to form derivative maps for a variety of data purposes (I think it'd be better to have a consistent set of blank maps for this).--cjllw | TALK 03:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see an overlay of modern national borders as well, for orientation's sake. 68.161.23.108 (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Mesoamerica cultures

I think that this page should undergo profound changes, I noted this is mainly an ancient mexico article, and the author (s) don;t account for several well developed cultures, the time line is wrong, as well as almost all sections, by not account for the different areas of MesoamericaAuthenticmaya 03:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)AuthenticmayaAuthenticmaya 03:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You are completely correct. I have mentioned it already on this talk page. The page hasn't been edited substantially since then. It is completely Aztec biased. Please do anyhthing you can to improve it.Maunus 06:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll do what I can to help out - though, you guys are right... some of the sections in this article (i.e., cultures an chronology) need drastic revision. Oaxaca dan 07:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Cacao

While the cacao section certainly is interesting it is much too long. This is an overview article of Mesoamerica as a cultural area - a comprehensive history of Cacao is outside the scope. If there isn't a separate article on the History of cacao already then it should be created and the larger part of the section moved to there. If there is then the material should be incorporated into that article.Maunus 21:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved the text to the Cacao article already in existence. Doing so cut 5kb off the article size. The other article probably needs some editing to get it to flow correctly. Peace, Oaxaca dan 21:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Major Reorganization

If its cool with everyone, I was going to attempt to reorganize this page to follow a more cohesive and intuitive format - Along the lines of the organization one would use for a "first-year in grad school" term paper. Intro, followed by contextural information (space and time), and a subsequent elaboration of detail. I was thinking something along these lines:

Major Headings: 1. Intro, 2. Geography, 3. Chronology, 4. Cultures, 5. Political Organizations 7. Economies, 8. Common Characteristics (plus the many sub-headings), 9 Biblio., 10. Refs., 11. External link.

I'll start doing minor things, but I, as I'm relatively new to this, heard that a discussion is usually preferred before making drastic changes to an articles organization - I know most of the frequent editors on this page realize an overhaul is necessary (as its been discussed above), but I just wanted to make sure it was cool with people. obviously, comments, critiques desired. (later edit: Forgot to sign my entry Oaxaca dan 23:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

I say go ahead. I'll help you once I see where its goingMaunus 10:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

By all means, dan, please proceed. Your outlined structure proposed above is sound, and can be tweaked as needed as things progress. Since the page is already at or above the recommended size for a single article, the finer detail can be hived off into separate subsidiary articles under those topic headings and others, with this overall top-level article summarising the main points. Some of those subsidiary articles already exist, others can be created.--cjllw | TALK 01:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick question cjll, what is the recommended size for an article? I only briefly looked for it, but had no luck. Oaxaca dan 02:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SIZE is I guess the main guideline. Given the broad reach of this main topic article, IMO we could get away with going slightly beyond the norm of recommended max size here, but not much- say up to around 45-55KB of text.--cjllw | TALK 04:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations Needed for Early Periods

Does anyone know of or have any citations/field reports/etc. for the Paleo-Indian and Archaic material? As I confidently know very little of these periods, I basically just reformatted the text that was there and tried to link what I could to other wikipages. I'm not sure what source material is out there for these early periods, and am wary of saying something is the "first example of X" when I haven't seen the data. Thanks in advance! Oaxaca dan 16:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The citation about the arcaic period will be Historia General de Guatemala,ISBN 84-88522-07-4. FAMSI, and Dumbarton Oaks, [1] I really apreciate your editings, although in The photo that I upload as sierra Madre in Guatemala, you put Sierra Madre de Chiapas, OK they are the same but the countries are different, please try not to revert to the old style of Just Mexican Ancient History. Cheers Authenticmaya 01:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I was going off of the Sierra Madre page that says the specific chain of the Sierra Madress that runs through Highland Chiapas and Guatemala is called the Sierra Madre de Chiapas - even the part in Guatemala- i.e., the portion south of the Isthmus. I know that the name refers to a Mexican place, and wasn't trying to overly emphasize Mexican history to the exlusion of other countries. I'm not that way, as i've worked in most of those countries. I just thought that was the "official" name of that particular sub-chain of the Sierra Madres, as that page says "In Guatemala: Sierra Madre de Chiapas: moutain range in the southern part of the country." But I'm no geologist, so its cool.

Anyway, thanks for the ref! Oaxaca dan 05:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I Corrected the error in The Sierra Madre, in fact, the Sierra covers all Central American Countries. Why dont we exchange emails so we can known each other better. Yhank You Oaxaca Dan. Authenticmaya

Late/Terminal Classic equivalents in other areas

I was hoping someone could contribute information concering the post-teotihuacan period in central mexico (i.e., Xochicalco, etc.) during the epi-classic (do they still call it that?). and the equivalent of the maya Late/terminal classic among the central america countries. I know very little about these areas during this time period (AD 700 - 1000ish). For now, I will concentrate on the Maya late classic and the Terminal classic and hope for someone to write about the other areas. Oaxaca dan 19:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I can help in the Central America area, another favor, please show me how to cite a source (book), and I will cite it in the article.mayasautenticos 00:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Authenticmayamayasautenticos 00:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re citations, for the general case and an overview see WP:CITE and its related pages, in particular WP:CITET which gives examples on how to use the various citation templates. To see citations in action you can look at the References section of say Mayan languages, and also the citation/sources page for WikiProject Mesoamerica, WP:MESO/CITE, which has a number of pre-filled citation templates. Or, you could just give what details you can in the references section of the article, and we can help tidy them up.--cjllw | TALK 03:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

No reference template

The entire Mythology and World view section is unreferenced. In some sub-sections this is a very acute problem, eg human sacrifice, since at the moment it looks like speculative OR. This needs to be fixed as a matter of priority, and I have placed the appropriate template accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncoz (talk • contribs) 03:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Alexcovarrubias and Middle America

Alexcovarrubias changes the link to Middle America (Americas) again. This is a reprition of the tedious editing dispute about whether Mexico is part of north America or not. We have an article about Middle America which states that it includes most of Mexico and an article about North America that states that Central America (including Middle and Mesoamerica)is part of North America. This makes it completely and utterly irrelevant whether one or the other term is used- but Middle Americas happens to give more information and sound less stupid than talking about "the piece of land connecting north and south america". This has nothing to do with Bias but about good writing and giving readers precise and well worded information. Please stop making this wording into a bizarre political crusade.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)I've corrected this by 3 spelling errors, and adding "s" to America as "Americas" better means North South land masses linking sector.I also suggest today 13th June 2011 main page feature article claims The Norte Chico civilization was a complex Pre-Columbian society that included as many as 30 major population centers in what is now the Norte Chico region of north-central coastal Peru. It is the oldest known civilization in the Americas and one of the six sites where civilization separately originated in the ancient world. It flourished between the 30th century BC and the 18th century BC. Complex society in Norte Chico arose a millennium after Sumer in Mesopotamia, was contemporaneous with the Egyptian pyramids, and predated the Mesoamerican Olmec by nearly two millennia, needs adding by those experts editing this project, or some disclaimer.--Robbygay (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant the selection of the term. Why to use an obscure term such as "Middle America" (which, by the way, is broadly used to mean a particular region of the US) instead of North America? Selecting this obscure and rarely used term is a bias and a violation of Wikipedia policy Undue weight. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 12:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to show that "North America" is more commonly used to describe the location of Mesoamerica than "Middle America"? Middle America is neither an obscure or rarely used term - for example it is common enough to have given name to the Standard Anthropologiocal Encyclopedia "Handbook of Middle American Indians" which covers all of the Indian cultures of MExico and Central America. Indians north of Mexico are coincidentally coverd in "Handbook of North American Indians". It is also used in book titles such as: [2], [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. Most of these explcitly distinguishy Middle America from North America and include Mesoamerica within Middle AMerica. If any of these wordings is non-standard it is to include Mesoamerica in North America. Show sources to support your claims or I will expect you to revert to the previous version.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I confirm that, in all sources I read, Mesoamerica is always distinguished from pre-Columbian North America and associated to Central America : in english, in spanish and in french.

And it seems that the term Middle America is frequently used in publications about Mesoamerica.

El Comandante (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

yes, most of those sources describe Mesoamerica as a region within Middle America.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The lack of response for over two weeks has now given me no choice but to revert to the previous version.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Spanish colonial rule that 'subjected' the native population was a fusion of cultures that primarily consisted of Westernized biracial people referred to as 'mestizos' since they always outnumbered the predominant European population. This was not a process that happened overnight but gradually over decades and centuries with one of the main reasons being that a large portion of the indigenous population was wiped out by foreign diseases, something that was less likely to occur to mixed race people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.184.11 (talk • contribs)

Too much emphasis on the Maya

Of the six photos of archaeological sites in the introduction, five depict Maya sites, and three depict classic period Maya sites. Would anyone object if I replaced the photos of Copan and Palenque with a Zapotec and Olmec site respectively? It might be good to present the diversity of the field. Snickeringshadow (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It makes more sense to remove the phootos of Nakbé and Tazumal, imo.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

The vast majority of English language speakers in North America use American English. American English should be used for all Wikipedia articles related to North America, including Central America and the Caribbean, except as follows:

• North American English
  • American English
  • Bermudian English in Bermuda.
  • Canadian English in Canada.
• Caribbean English in Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
  • Bahamian English in the Bahamas and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
  • Trinidadian English in Trinidad and Tobago

Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

And the point is?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Guatemalahighlands.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Guatemalahighlands.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Galleries

There were too many images here and it was overwhelming the (rather weak and verbose) text. I have commented out the galleries. It may be possible to incorporate some of the images properly into the text they illustrate, but 3 image galleries on an article is either 2 or 3 too many. --John (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted. Commenting them out does not solve the problem at all and simply makes it less likely that it will be solved since noone sees it. A tag would be better if you don't actually want to fix it yourself. Furthermore I am not actually sure it is excessive, the article text needs expansion to be sure, but it is an article that does need copious illustrations. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to fix it myself but that would involve removing the galleries and I thought there might be individual images some people would like to keep. Let's leave the tag in place for a week or two and see if this is the case. Three image galleries are definitely too many. --John (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is three too many exactly? The article that is given by WP:GALLERY as a good use of galleries has 3 galleries and is much shorter and smaller in scope than this article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The tag says that the article should be changed to comply with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Images, but that section doesnt actually say anything that can be taken to be advice regarding the number of galleries or the number images relative to text. Neither does Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Three are too many because Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. --John (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That is not an actual argument, except in the sense of IDONTLIKEIT, since the article is clearly not being used as an image repository, nor are the images indiscriminate, since the images are illustrating key aspects of the topic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm with John on this one - I'm not convinced that the current galleries are in line with WP:GALLERY's guidance. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you are both reacting to the galleries just because they are galleries without having actually evaluated what it is the images are supposed to illustrate and how well they do it. I would be happy to accept an actual argument about how to better illustrate the article, and which images might be cut for specific reason, but simply removing galleries because they are galleries is not improving but just slavish conformism to the unwritten rule that suggests galleries sould be limited. And rule is unwritten because WP:GALLERY very clearly does not consider it to be a problem to have galeries as long as the images are well selected and contribute to the informational content of the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

How interesting. So you think every image is "well selected and contribute[s] to the informational content of the article"? Every image on all five of the galleries? Ok, let's try. What does File:Huexotla defensive wall.JPG add to the "informational content of the article"? If you like these images the onus is on you to justify each one you want to keep. Can you? --John (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, I have no problems with galleries as a concept. But take the "Preclassic/Formative" section, which has a few short paragraphs of text. What is the subsequent gallery trying to do? The aim, remember, is to have "carefully selected" images which "illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images". But in this section we have a colossal head (not mentioned at all in the text); a baby figure (similarly, not mentioned); and then four images of apparently randomly chosen locations (why these four? What are these images supposed to be telling us?). All of this, in addition to another image embedded in the text. The same pattern is repeated four times below. The "Late Classic" section and gallery, for example, has more images than it has sentences, again mostly divorced from the content of the section. Who is K'inich Janaab Pakal I of Palenque? Why is his stone head important to the reader? What's the relevance of a Jaina Island type figure? Why include a picture of the Temple of the Feathered Serpent if it isn't important enough to mention it in the text itself? At the moment, this doesn't appear to be compliant with WP:GALLERY. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Do as you wish. I do hope you alls newfound interest in improving our coverage of ancient Mesoamerica extends beyond simply removing offending galleries.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

In general the article needs a bit of a clean up...including images (4 in the lead?)....can we get this talk off the ground again?-- Moxy (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no problem whatsoever with having four images in the lead. Why would that be a problem? Could we get some arguments on the table here please? What is the problem caused by these images? What are the guidelines they violate?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:28, 22 August 2015 (UTc)

I would suggest you try looking at this article on a mobile phone. accessibility is a bit of a problemMoxy (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The MoS guidance on galleries, as with image layout and placement, contains a lot of gray area and sometimes irreconcilable goals. A similar discussion there on how many images is too many was also inconclusive. Here, the multiple galleries are a bit awkward, but the subject matter benefits from images. I've worked with image layouts a lot, and we can at least make the layout look better organized.

• Adding sub-headings to the galleries looks a bit busy, but it at least makes them appear intentional, rather than having them just dangling unannounced at the end of paragraphs.
• Reordering a couple of sub-sections allows spreading the images better.

Of course more text will be the only way to fully integrate the images, but this layout looks more organized until that happens. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)