Talk:Mesoamerica/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Splitting the page

I was thinking of taking everything under the "Common Characteristics..." heading and moving it to a new page, with a "Main Article: Common Chara..." tag placed on this one in addition to a very brief list of the characteristics. The problem is that this article is too long. I've cut stuff, moved stuff elsewhere, revised, and deleted redundent images, and its still at 65km. Moving the above mentioned text would put it at roughly half that, give or take. does this sond cool to everyone? -- Oaxaca dan 01:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I rather think that the main page on mesoamerica deserves being long, and I wouldn't worry much about the length of it but rather of the quality. In my opinion the common characteristics part is the most important part because it is what defines Mesoamerica. (I think that this is for example more important than the geographical description of Mesoamerica - in my understanding of Mesoamericanistics, the geographical borders of Mesoamerica are defined by the common cultural characteristics and not the other way round). The common characteristics part is at present the least developed part of the article, and something definitely needs to be done about it - part of it could certainly be shaving off a few KB's.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 05:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Length be damned! I'll worry about refining the text and what-not rather than moving it (its the least developed, at least in regards to the work i've done, mainly because i've been working my way down from the top) Hopefully we can make it a bit more concise. -- Oaxaca dan 06:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Maunus, I think it would be beneficial to have at least a para or two outlining the common/defining characteristics immediately after the lead (which can be expanded upon further down in the body of the article.

BTW- does anyone have access to Kirchhoff's 1940s paper? I'm led to believe he ennumerated there what he saw as being the defining characteristics - it would be good to include/reference these, and examine any subsequent modifications.--cjllw | TALK 01:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Offerings to the earth

I deleted this section because the inclusion of grave goods is common among nearly every socially, politically, or economically stratified society. I don't think it assists in the definition of what is "Mesoamerican" - the reasons behind including grave goods, I think, are already covered in the particular mythology/religon articles on each particule culture. The text is pasted below just in case someone has a problem with this, and would to re-include it.

Offerings to the Earth

The burying of rich offerings in the earth at the ceremonial centers is a tradition from the beginning of Mesoamerican society when the nomadic peoples began to settle. Ceremonial and secular spaces were distinguished, to establish a cosmic order in the world, created to justify the position of the rulers over the ruled and to pay tribute to the earth, which was deified by the Mesoamericans, to maintain this order.

An offering to the original gods, the old fire from the volcano and the Earth Mother, was typical. Offerings from all the individuals of a community would consist of a mound of earth, and, later, the construction of pyramids, and these structures would be used in the future for the giving of the offering and various other religious activities.

The offerings were an important part of the ceremonial center, giving it ideological and religious power. Looting the offerings would eradicate the religious power of the temple. The exact significance of the objects is not known with certainty, but they have always been thought to have magical powers, and this power was independent of the age of the objects in question.

-- Oaxaca dan 17:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Political and religious art section

I removed the following text from this section. This material is more appropriate for a general "Mesoamerican art" article, one that includes music, theator, and art (including the present day), not a brief section specifically designed to address sociopolitical and religious expressions of art.

The Maya were the only culture in America, to sign its work, and even made self-portraits. This was true mainly in the paintings in ceramic and caves, where literally they let their minds go. There is a large corpus of Graffiti in sites such as Tikal and Nakum.[1], There were cities well known for its artist, both Sculptures and Ceramics, that received commissions from other places, such as the elusive "Ik" site for the signature in its works, now known to be Motul de San José, on the lake Peten Itzá shores.

Art outside that of the Maya, remained anonymous, and to this day no signature has ever been found associated with any work. Furthermore, it is said that Mesoamerican art was abstract, though not in the figurative sense, but in the manner in which it is disconnected from any natural references.

There were very well known Musical instruments, such as Drums, clay Whistles or Ocarinas, bone and woodden Flutes and wooden Trumpets, among others, used both in public events and ceremonies such as the Mesoamerican Ball Game, as in the every day life, proven by the kid size whistles and flutes found in Maya children tombs.

The pre-Hispanic art is also considered extremely intellectual, capable of liberating itself from all realist obligation. Following this idea, two observations emerge: the first refers to the austere image that archaeology has presented: generally it prefers noble things and museum pieces, while disdaining perishable artifacts, even if it is certain that these were essential for Mesoamerican ceremonial centers.

The second observation refers to the problem of counterfeiting that still persists today. The inspiration of these forgeries plays an important role in that new designs have been invented in order to sell artifacts to collectors, obviously attracted by their novelty. This has been a consequence of the poor understanding of Mesoamerican art.

The only mesoamerican theatrical play named as a World Heritage Monument by the UNESCO, is The Rabinal Achí", of the Achi's in Alta Verapaz, in Guatemala.

I forgot to sign this (but i added it much earlier today) -- Oaxaca dan 02:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with that action, dan, while containing some interesting points it's too specific for the overall main article. For the moment it could be inserted (if it's not there already) in the Maya art article.--cjllw | TALK 03:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Mesoamerica geographical description

I just happened to see this while I was on RC patrol, but there's a major edit war going on in this page between AlexCovarrubias and Corticopia.

This edit war seems to be going nowhere and there are violations of WP:3RR starting to happen, so I created this section for the editors involved to talk it out on the discussion page instead of pointlessly starting a flame war with endless reverting.

I don't know what the issue is, so I won't be involved in the discussion, but I do know that edit wars end up badly for both sides, so please stop edit warring and discuss the issue here until you come to consensus. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's regrettable: I'm unsure what the problem is either. Essentially, AlexC has taken issue with the more precise description of Mesoamerica (which literally means "middle America" -- actually, the source listing Kirchoff indicates "center", but I'm not pressing that, am I?) being within the larger contemporary region of Middle America in the mid-latitudes of the Americas (numerous citations support that). The argument that Middle America also often contains the West Indies is rather moot, since southern North America also contains the Caribbean. I encourage others to weigh in, since this is rather tiresome. Corticopia 00:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that this is a long-standing debate, one concerning the geography of North and Central America and where various bits of countries fall within those definitions. What it comes down to with specific reference to this article is that its totally irrelevant - its should be carried over to a geography page, not in an article that explictly focuses on the archaeology of a culture area known as Msoamerica. Its sufficient to define Mesoamerica simply as covering an area including "south/southeast Mexico, guatemala, belize, and parts of honduras, el salvador, nicaragua, and costa rica." Whether or not it lies with in "Middle america, southern north america, etc. etc. etc. is completely irrelevant. If you guys want to contribute to this article, help out and revise the astronomy, arthimmetic, and medicine sections. -- Oaxaca dan 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If you look for definitions of Mesoamerica, they only mention that the term describes an ancient region extending from central Mexico to northern Central America. The problem here is that this user is editing every single article about Mexico (check Mexico, Central America, Geography of Mexico and North America to spread his bias against Mexico. Namely, to falsely claim that Mexico is a Central American country, even if geopolitically this is false and even if only some geographers consider that the region east of Istmo de Tehuantepec is within this region. When he was defeated, he started using instead the term "Middle America" again to "separate" or "isolate" Mexico from the US anc Canada.AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The prevailing meaning is not in dispute, but the term requires both clarification and precision. Even some recent reckonings of "Mesoamerica" are not in sync with ancient ones (e.g, OECD). And what are you talking about when I was 'defeated'? Whatever. You obviously deny and remove citations which disagree with your perspective and after lying about checking them and being called to account. Regardless, throughout, you demonstrate a serious absence of faith. Corticopia 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I added three references about Mesoamerica. You are deleting that info. So you are the one deleting perfectly sourced information, not me. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

if the term has other meanings, then it should go on a disambiguation page, not on this one. -- Oaxaca dan 00:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is about Mesoamerica, which requires clarification. If necessary and for amity, just indicate "mid-latitudes of the Americas" with a link to the overarching region either in the intro or in the geography section. Corticopia 00:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia is trying to confuse the historical term Mesoamerica with present day use for Middle America. These terms are not the same. Mesoamerica may literally mean "Middle America" in english, but still it is different from nowaday's "Middle America".AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

AC: how can I be trying to confuse the issue when I'm listing all the alternatives (and prevailing ones at that) with clear links to sourced articles? There is similarity between the terms that cannot be ignored nor glazed over, and we obviously detail the origins of the term appropriately. And through, your edits AC, you obviously are not reading Mesoamerica is part of a the larger larger region with a similar name. All the terms are related, and there's little wrong with that nor in trying to be more precise. Corticopia 00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I see from the page history you're back to edit warring already. As you're now both in blatant violation of the three-revert rule, I'm reporting both of you to the administrator noticeboards. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

CORTICOPIA'S INCONSISTENCIES

As all you can see, user Corticopia has edited the page Middle America in the past weeks [2]. So he knows for a fact that the term has different meanings. Now, look at the edit summaries of this article [3]. Now he's trying to deny the term has different meanings:

• Middle America as a region comprising Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean.
• Middle America, a region of the US.
• Middle America, as a translation of the term Mesoamerica, referring to the historical cultural region that this article is about.

He's trying, again, to mix up the different meaning of the terms. Let's remember that he said in this discussion that "Mesoamerica" is "within" the region of "Middle America", accepting that both terms are not the same. Now, he says the terms are synonims. See my point? He's just editing based on his personal bias, not to mention he's deleting perfectly sourced information. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 01:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this page has now been protected for a few days as a result of the revert war. Hopefully this should give you time to sort everything out. By the way, I'm renaming the title to encourage more productive discussion. We don't want other editors' first impression of this discussion to be a revert war, do we? If you feel like a different title would better represent the situation, go ahead and change it, too.

On another note, I'm glad the WP:3RR violations didn't lead to any blocks, as this seems to be an issue worth working out, and blocks would only lead to more trouble. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 03:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Page protection pending resolution of dispute

As Pyrospirit notes above, rather than impose any blocks for the edit warring I've instead temporarily protected the page, to see if a consensus can be reached.

FWIW here is my initial take on this terminology/geographical dispute:

• The subject of this article is purely concerned with the complex of archaeological and historical cultures which, by well-established conventions, share to some degree a set of common traits called Mesoamerica(n), and whose histories are intertwined.
• Although the territories in which these civilisations and cultures existed can "map to" a corresponding physical geography (and Mesoamerica is frequently used as a geographical term, by extension), this mapping can be imprecise, particularly at the 'peripheral' zones, and can even change depending on the pre-Columbian era and local history.
• This culture-area definition is the original sense of the term, and by far the prevailing and most-recognised one.
• Mesoamerica in this article has nothing to do with modern geopolitical divisions or national boundaries, and this article is not the place to go into or even really mention various contending ways to geopolitically subdivide the Americas.
• Instead, when describing to the reader the general region where Mesoamerican cultures were extant, it would be better to firstly use topographical rather than geopolitical references- particularly when such latter terms as "Middle America" are readily confused.
• As pointed out above, even though Mesoamerica literally translates to "middle America", Mesoamerica means something quite different again from the ways in which Middle America itself is used.
• Even if some organisations such as the OECD have chosen to co-opt the term Mesoamerica for their own purposes and restricted contexts, these alternative definitions have a very different scope and intent, and throwing these into the mix here can only confuse matters.
• If any of these alternative uses of Mesoamerica are notable enough for mention, then per Oaxaca dan's suggestion it would be better to put them on Mesoamerica (disambiguation). But it's muddying the waters to try to elaborate on these here.
• In the lead section where the article sets out to define the meaning and scope of the subject, IMO at least it would be better to rely primarily upon the leading sources from the field of Mesoamerica studies, and not generalist dictionaries and encyclopaedias, or tertiary sources like the website of a strategic consulting and private equity firm called "Mesoamerica".

What are the counter-proposal(s) to how the lead section here is currently written?--cjllw | TALK 08:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agre with CJLLW on this. Mesoamerica as a term was invented exactly to make it clear that it doesn't correspond to the set of geographical terms north America, South America and Central America. Mesoamerica is a cultural area not a geographical one and that is why it should under no circumstances be referred to in terms of the geographically defined Americas. The issue of whether Mexico is part of North or Central America is simply irrelevant to this article. The discussion should be had at Wikipedia:WikiProject Central America where Mexico does not currently fall under their definition of Central America.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks God! Finally! I agree with you guys 100%. Mesoamerica is a geographic cultural area and trying to confuse the term with any nowadays geopolitical entities (Middle America, North America or Central America) is irrelevant, given the fact that the term itself express a unique area that existed long time ago. It is to be noted that most of the sources about Mesoamerica clearly delimit the region using physiographical terms, such as the current introduction in the article. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 10:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The lead as it is now is not good. Particularly the last paragraph is wrong when it states that Mesoamerica comprises the states of Central America and the southern Mexican states. Some Central American states are not at all part of Mesoamerica (e.g. Panama) and others are only partly. Also the notion of "politico-religious capitals" needs to be replaced with something more along the lines of Urban Centers, Ceremonial Centers or Citystates.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was talking about the first paragraph, I did not make that clear I guess. The last paragraph is kind of useless (and wrongly used to enforce the false argument that Mesoamerica is also a term to describe those countries nowadays), now that the "Plan Puebla Panamá", originally supported by President Fox in 2001, is extinct and basicly it was never really enforced. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 11:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this article should not note Middle America somewhere -- even in the geography section -- since it harks of the etymology of the term (and anything containing 'America' is arguably just as vague or specific); this is also despite specific references to corroborate this provided by AlexCovarrubias (emphasis added):

• The region consisting of central and southern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, and the western parts of Honduras and Nicaragua that was the focus of complex, hierarchical states at the time of Spanish contact. The people of this area shared a basic set of cultural conventions. Also called Middle America.

I am not denying that Middle America has various meanings: so does America, so does North America, and -- yes -- so does Mesoamerica -- that's the point. While the primary focus of this article is unquestionable, nothing exists in isolation and recent additions re geography clarify and provide context. Even the Oxford English Dictionary notes that Meso-America is a 'region in America, especially in reference to pre-Columbian cultures'.... (note, not exclusively); however

The current introduction is insufficient, lacking details, and grammatically/typographically challenged. Given the above, I will then rely on other editors -- NOT AlexCovarrbuias -- to prune the content in the introduction and accomodate for the varied viewpoints and definitions -- those both general and specific in nature. If not, I will resort to other measures (e.g., Village Pump, etc.) Corticopia 13:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Your quoted link does not come from a reliable source, and as CJLLW states the definition of Mesoamerica here should be taken from a work in the Mesoamericanist tradition - I would suggest Kirchhoff who engendered the term. If we can find a work in this tradition using "middle america" as a term quivalent to Mesoamerica then I will support the inclusion of such a statement (however following the principle of due weight I would suggest that it go in a footnote). Stating that Mesoamerica is a region within the american continent(s) is a tautology. The way you state that if you cannot have it your way through consensus you will pursue your goal through different means is not a way to further a debate, nor does it do much to make other parties sympathetic to your viewpoint. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, it is logical that if we are talking about Mesoamerica, all the definitions about the term should come from the Mesoamericanist tradition. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 02:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the quoted link (McGraw) was provided by the originator of the dispute -- I make no claims about the veracity of it. He made his proverbial bed.

Otherwise, I generally agree with you -- it must be be noted somehow. Beyond deferring to original source matter, though, there does appear to be some content/detail about the etymology of the term per the Kirchhoff online reference (e.g., Mesos = center, Columbus); see the article. And, while not ideal, the manual of style effectively recommends tautologies (i.e., reiterations of content) for article leads: America (or the Americas) is more than just a continent, it may be two (as many English sources indicate), and a whole collection of regions. Corticopia 14:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts)Just to note a little further, this is not so much about taking sides in what seems to be a wider terminological debate that is intruding here, but to agree on a formula which is more accurate and does justice to the article's subject. I've run out of time at my end of the world here to respond any more sensibly to these comments right now, but will do so when I get a chance. My initial thoughts are (still) that the Mesoamerica/Middle America distinction is best treated as a disambiguation, since (the coincidence of their etymologies aside) these are different entities which are not really ontologically related. The only instances I can think of where Mesoamericanist literature can be seen to 'embed' Mesoamerica within something called Middle America would be in (some of) the articles in the Handbook of Middle American Indians volumes- but even in these what counts as being in "Middle America" varies between contributors, and by topic.--cjllw | TALK 14:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm: is it merely a coincidence, or does one term stem from the other? I mean, Kirchhoff coined the term Mesoamerica in the mid-20th century, while I'm unsure of the origin of Middle America. It may be that all of these terms are interrelated, just as they are for the Americas in general (e.g., Britannica). In any event, I think it important to address the general location of Mesoamerica within the Americas (viz., eponymous Middle America) in the introduction or in the geography section. Really, what is wrong with saying that? And, I'm sorry to say, the two terms may be synoymous in some sources ... e.g. Spanish (Mesoamérica)

Please note: my comment above about action is merely to garner (if needed) a wider consensus on the topic and content. And if I have inadvertently removed information, I apologise, but I guess that's collateral damage. I don't necessarily want sympathy but rationalism to prevail ... which edit-warring obviously doesn't fulfill.  :) Corticopia 17:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I will not repeat the same arguments of other users. I just want to say that I fully agree with cjllw. Mesoamerica is a historical and cultural region that does not coincide territorially with today's usage of the term "Middle America". These are two different concepts even if they are related in etymology. Oh, by the way in Spanish, Mesoamérica is never synonymous to Middle America, in fact, there is no such thing as "Middle America" in Spanish, just North and Central America, and Mesoamérica, in Spanish, is clearly defined as a hisotrical and cultural region. --theDúnadan 18:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Then what exactly does Mesoamérica translate to in English? Just Mesoamerica? This is ironic given the parallel examples elsewhere (e.g., Central America = Centroamérica, etc.). Again, noone has clearly indicated or demonstrated why there is a challenge in indicating Mesoamerica is in the 'wider region (or part) of Middle America' (either in the intro or below), particularly if it is described as extending into Central America. And if at least the American Heritage Dictionary is to be believed, Mesoamerica is defined as just a region first, which was also populated by pre-Columbian cultures. And the OED harks of this too. The fact that Middle America may include other entities in the mid-latitudes of the Americas is moot: so does (southern) North America -- it is more precise than prior text. As well, noone has yet demonstrated that the terms in English or otherwise are not ontologically related. Corticopia 23:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Relatedly, in the article The Cultural Anthropology of Middle Middle America: Mesoamerica is described as follows(among other things):

• Mesoamerica is a sub-area of Middle America that includes most of the people in Mexico, Guatemala, and parts of Honduras. The term came into use when Paul Kirchhoff put previous thoughts together in a "culture-area-with-time-depth" concept. It served archaeology and later cultural anthropology as a term for the culture area in which complex civilizations evolved. The culture area today includes only the stratified agrarian cultures that evolved from these Precolumbian civilizations. Unfortunately this left peripheral culture sub-areas, such as northeast Mexico, the Caribbean coast of Central America, and the Isthmus of Panama outside of the area. The term also pays scant attention to modern commercial, farming, industrial, and urban cultures of the region. Ethnographers generously include these other orphaned cultures in the larger culture called "Middle America" to distinguish it from the core Mesoamerican zone. Middle America includes all the cultures south of the United States to the borders of Columbia.

I believe I have proven my point. Corticopia 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Mesoamérica transaltes as Mesoamerica in English since meso is not a Spanish word either, but a Greek one. So there is no parallel with Central America=América Central, North America=América del Norte. A Spanish translation of Middle America is not Mesoamérica but América Media. Mesoamérica, on the other hand is extensively used to refer to a historical, cultural Pre-Columbian region, and very rarely [mis]used as a modern region first (like your source suggests). No need to propagate a [mis]conception.

Now, Antrhopology Prof. James W Dow, of Oakland University, happens to extrapolate this anthropological term into modern times. But even in his extrapolation he says that Mesoamérica is a cultural area where "complex civilizations evolved", and then defines it to be only the [current] stratified agrarian cultures that evolved from them. He himself is saying that this definitions left [out] other cultural sub-areas of old and pays scant attention to modern cultures. His quote sounds more to me like a complaint against the usage of the word Mesoamérica, in that he would like to have modern and peripheral cultures included, and that because of this, Ethnographers prefer "Middle America". In that sense, I believe your quote actually proved your opponents' point: Mesoamerica is a cultural and historical region. --theDúnadan 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you Dunadán. If you look for the definition of Middle America, most of the sources indicate nowadays usage (said to include Mexico, CA and the Caribbean). If you look the term Mesoamerica in english sources, it refers to the historical cultural region of the American continent. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 02:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no -- I am being polemic. You are returning to my point and the heart of the issue: I merely indicated originally that Mesoamerica is within the 'larger region of Middle America' (while also being included in NA and the Americas) and that this needs to be said -- that is precisely what Dow indicates. That doesn't deny that Mesoamerica is infrequently synonymous with Middle America (esp. in English) or may be more generic in meaning, but I'm not advocating that per se. The current intro is rather ... wanting. And, frankly, you cannot cast off such references merely as [mis]perception or 'extrapolation' so easily -- this guy is published and his paper(s) well sourced. If necessary, I will provide other reputable sources. Corticopia 01:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny that Mesoamérica is used rarely or infrequently as a quasi synonym (not fully equivalent) of Middle America. But finding a source for that infrequent usage when the term is extensively used in numerous sources in various languages merely as a historical concept and then claim that both definitions are equally valid is, I believe, stretching the definition. I don't cast away his reference, but he himself is saying that Mesoamérica refers to a cultural region that pays scant attention to the modern region. In that sense, I repeat, he is actually proving the point that Mesoamérica is a cultural and historical region, not a modern one. --theDúnadan 01:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Noted, but we are again digressing from my edits which precipitated this situation for whatever reason (and which has been lost/conflated amidst chat, rhetoric, edit warring etc.): I merely added that Mesoamerica is 'within (not the same as) the larger region of Middle America' or within the mid-latitudes of the Americas, in southern North America -- see Geography of Mesoamerica for similar contributions. That's it, but things somehow mushroomed from there (and I apologise if I contributed to that). Corticopia 01:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Middle America were a cultural region, then I believe the anthropological and historical Mesoamérica lies within it. But if Middle America is a geographical region (as it is claimed to be), then I don't think the inclusion including both definitions is at all relevant. I believe that mentioning Mesoamérica in Americas suffices.

Now, since you yourself have said that Mesoamérica is not the same as Middle America, then we need to change that inaccurate definition from Middle America (disambiguation). --theDúnadan 01:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, Middle America is just a geographical region, not a geopolitical (since no government of the countries said to be part of it have united in such a region) or cultural term. Using Middle America in this article is not just inaccurate but will confuse the terms, as I think is Corticopia's goal. It is very obvious that most of the authoritative sources about Mesoamerica define the region using physiographical terms and avoiding nowadays geopolitical entities, since the term is a historial one. I agre with Dunadán. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 01:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm; while of course it is in the Americas, how can we note that Mesoamerica is in North America, also in Central America, but not in Middle America? They are frames of reference. Anyhow, saying just that it is in the mid-latitudes of the Americas (with details in the geography section, and a link somewhere to Middle America) is fine with me at this point. Corticopia 01:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. We can also add a link on the "see also" section in North America. --theDúnadan 01:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've no problems with Dow's essay as a reliable source, but will note that his presentation of Middle America as a cohesive culture-area (meaning that its participating cultures have some complex of traditions and practices in common) is much less well-defined and recognised in the archaeological and cultural history arena (the "culture-area-with-time-depth" concept employed for Mesoamerica.) My impression is that Middle America is used (when it is used) more for contemporary ethnography, and so it's not quite a comfortable fit with a concept rooted more in historical studies. However, I guess equally there are some divergent formulations of Mesoamerica between Mesoamericanists as well, with some summaries omitting Costa Rican and Nicaraguan sites, for eg.

But for the present purposes it's probably a little too-subtle a difference to worry about addressing in the lead / main sections here; for that at least I'm not seeing any issue with Corticopia's current suggestion to "saying just that it is in the mid-latitudes of the Americas" and somehow cover the reference to Middle America later on. Just so long as we are not saying or implying that mesoamerica and middle america are interchangeable terms.--cjllw | TALK 09:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Please refer to the original edits: they didn't revolve around whether or not the two terms were synonymous (though I believe that case can be made etymologically), but I merely indicated (as Dow does) that 'Mesoamerica is a sub-area of Middle America'. (My current suggestion was my original one.) That is all I ask, and I really can't see why things have to mushroom like this because what was once a solitary editor takes issue with greater precision here and elsewhere. Corticopia 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cjll's comment that the info provided by Corticopia is too specific to include for the intro section which, if I had a problem with it, it was because of that - I had moved some of it (i think - it was prior to the main revert war, but after info was added by C and AC) to the etymology section - not sure if its still there or not. Perhaps we can have all that info put there, or as a lead-in to the geography section. It seems more appropo there. -- Oaxaca dan 13:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal of just noting that Mesoamerica is located in the mid-latitudes of the Americas (and avoiding to imply it is a synonim of "Middle America"). However, are we gonna omit the physiographical description of the region? AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 09:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we clearly need to (a) locate the culture-area for the reader in geog. reference terms that will be familiar, and (b) describe in more detail the physiography of the region, how its characteristics influenced development, and so on. For (a) in addition to the 'mid-latitudes' desc we probably don't need to do much more than place it in reference to modern-day nations. For (b) we cover a bit of that in the geog. sections, and maybe Geography of Mesoamerica is the place to go into whether & to what extent "Middle America" has a pre-Columbian culture-area definition.

The mention of the 'contemporary' Mesoamerica per OECD usage in the lead's 2nd para needs to go- entirely, or somewhere else such as a footnote or possibly a mesoamerica dab pg.--cjllw | TALK 00:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your first paragraph, but not necessarily with the second. If the 'contemporary' paragraph must be moved, though, it should be added into a footnote or into the etymology (usage?) section. Remember, a number of commmon publications (the OED) define Meso-America as a region that especially (not exclusively) concerns pre-Columbian peoples, and I'm not denying that; also, it seems a futile exercise to create a dab and possible fork for said perspective. Corticopia 01:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

CJLL, I agree with "a" if that does not imply to use the modern meaning of "Middle America" because that would be confusing. I agree with only saying that it is located in the mid latitudes of the Americas and also including the list of countries comprised in the region. I also agree with "b", the use of "Mesoamerica" is rare to describe nowadays countries. I think we need to start thinking about the terms we are gonna use in the intro. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 05:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent) OK, well maybe there could be some mention of the OECD[sic] political usage worked in lower down somewhere- I'm not sure that definition is something which could be worked as a separate article which could be then dabbed in any case (if there were enough to say about it then I think it would be able to stand as a separate article, it wouldn't be a fork as such, just a different concept going under the same name).

I'll be away travelling for about a week or a little more from now, and will be offline. The protection should expire of its own accord shortly anyway and editing can recommence. Happy for you guys to proceed as we have been discussing in that time, in any case there'll be others around who can help out. Appreciate the cooperative approach, AC and Corticopia, glad we are able to move things forward.--cjllw | TALK 07:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The OECD usage is not political, but economical. Just clarifying that. I don't think it should be included at all, but of course we can mention it somewhere in the article (as you said worked in lower down somewhere). I think we should start writing a draft.AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 13:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Mesoamerica as a culture area

If you want a dictionary definition put it at Mesoamerica (disambiguation).·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally! - Thank you Maunus. Otherwise, this will all fall back into another revert war. -- Oaxaca dan 20:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, whatever ... Corticopia 02:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And here we go again - on this page as well as Geography of Mesoamerica. You guys are approaching 3RR's again. -- Oaxaca dan 19:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message in Corticopia's talk page to let him know that he's not being neutral about this issue, particularly because Mesoamerica is primarily a culture area that existed long time ago. However I also told him that if he considers the current version "not netural enough", he's welcomed to propose something else. I think there's no doubt that Mesoamerica is rarely used to refer to any "contemporary area", so I honestly consider my edit neutral and accurate. That's it. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary. And I have responded -- 'may be' already implies rarity (making the phrase a tautology) and (as elsewhere) by making a point about the statement, it may have the opposite effect. For editors that are so adamant about pruning the article, adding redundant text is of course not the way about it. Corticopia 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys are both being quite obnoxious squabbling over a completely irrelevant detail. Nobody else cares whether mesoamerica is part of north or middle america or whether middle america is a continent unto it self or part of north or south america - it is simply not interesting or important. I would much prefer that you both begin adding actual content to the articles or in case its to emotional a topic for you that you leave it alone. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted ... but if you can't comment constructively, don't bother. Corticopia 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Typos needing correction in this article

I believe the following typos need correction:

Bodies of water: (end of first paragraph) … consists of water from aquifers that which is retained within cenotes -- should be that or which, not both.

Early Classic: (end of first paragraph) … that expanded and floresced during this period -- Cannot find the word floresced in any dictionary, and doubt that fluoresced is what is intended; maybe flourished?

Political organization: (end of first paragraph) … each person could identify themself with the city in which they lived -- need to make consistent between singular (each person) and plural (themself, they lived).

The symbolism of space and time: (toward the end) -- The info on South is repeated within the info on West, as well as on its own.

Medicine: (second to last sentence) ... Tuberculosis, although wide spread both in North and South America, has not been documented in Mesoamerica, with the exception of 3 skeletons near today's Mexico City, it can be due to a wide spread of Iron deficiency common among the Mesoamericans, according to a recent (2006) study by AK Wilbur, JE Buikstra, from Arizona State University. -- Either this sentence is a run-on, or it is missing some text in the middle.

Medicine: (last sentence) ... as well as maternal brest feeding and pregnancy -- Should be breast, not brest.

=

I did not make the changes myself because I am new to this. Figured it was better to alert one of the current editors.

Thanks for an interesting article!

A lot of people get started on Wikipedia because they are reading an article and they notice a factual error or a typo. If you know how to make edits and changes, go ahead, but if you aren't sure what to do, go to the talk/discussion page associated with the article, hit the "+" tab, and make a comment on what you think needs changing.

Oaklift 20:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

joining North America and South America

Hiya. Read again the revert, it says so, look in the bottom. JC 23:55, 4 March 2008 (PST)

It says "Located on the isthmus joining North and South America" it says that mesoamerica is located ON the isthmus that joins the NA and SA, which is perfecly true. It does not say that mesoamerica joins the two Americas, it also doesn't say that Mesoamerica is the same as Central America. This statement excplicitly does not state that Mesoamerica is a part of either the North American, Central American or South American continents but only that it is located on the thin stretch of land connecting the two continents. Central America is also located on this isthmus just on another part of it.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be clear to most that the isthmus being referred to ain't just the Darien Gap, but instead the whole continental narrowing from Mexico thru to Panama - what is also sometimes called in a rather literal way "Middle America(s)". I s'pose it's possible JC parses the sentence as "Mesoamerica is located on the isthmus, [where it is] joining NA and SA", but this is not the intention.

I don't really understand JC's apparent reluctance to have Mesoamerica mentioned in association with Central America. No-one is claiming the two are one and the same, but there is an undeniable and considerable overlap. Don't forget, Mesoamerica is first and foremost defined as a culture area, not merely a geographical convenience. As such, Mesoamerica's cultural, linguistic and historical ties with Central American peoples past and present are at least as significant if not more so than with Northern American cultures taken as a whole. While it may be geographically the case that Mesoamerica (and Central America for that matter) are on the North American continent, when we are talking about ethnohistorical cultures it's much more relevant to distinguish these from what are most commonly thought of as North(ern) American ones.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposing to mention the association with CA, of course not, I trying to clarify that just around the half of the geopolitical Central America is part of the cultural area, the southern half does not. Geographically, Mesoamerica also includes land northern of Central America (beyond Tehuantepec isthmus). Talking about Northen America, this cultural region and Mexico also shares the Aridoamerica/Oasisamerica region, a cultural region separated by the modern linguistical area.

Moving to the CATs, having a "cat" in North America and a similar "cat" in Central America doubles the "cat", is a question of style, not a wacko removal. The "cat" in Central America wont include the northern part of Mesoamerica, creating a "cat" for Mesoamerica wont include southern Central America, the "cat" in North America is simple and include both sides. JC 17:12, 5 March 2008 (PST)

IMO the fact that half of Mesoamerica is on the north american continent and the other half within Central America is exactly a reason for it to be marked for both categories. It is also a reason to use the rather vague expression "in the mid-latitudes of" instead of giving a precise location. Another conern of mine is that there seem to be no complete consensus as to where north and central america ends and begins. The article has been subject to tedious revertwars over this topic which is in fact quite irrelevant since we all agree on the exact boundaries of Mesoamerica and the fact that these boundaries are not geographically but culturally defined. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus for location once and for all

User:Jcmenal and User:AlexCovarrubias have begun another edit war trying to assert that Mesoamerica is within North America something which has earlier been shown to be highly controversial for some reason. In order to avoid this futile discussion completely I have introduced a vague compromise wording that states that "Mesoamerica is in the Americas". This however appears tp be unacceptable to the before mentioned users. Could we please get a consensus decision once and for all to avoid this stupid bickering over a piece of irrelevant information?·Maunus·ƛ· 04:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I can live with "in the Americas". The term "Central America" is technically wrong but gives me, as a Yank, a better feel for the location. Technically, "in North America" is correct, but to us Yanks at least, we think of North America as primarily Canada and the US and maybe Mexico. Moreover, Mesoamerica is very much on the edge of North America and, to my mind at least, the cultures there had more in common with the South American cultures than the ones in to their north. So, I believe that "in the Americas" is best. Madman (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, to the English speaking world uses the geographic model with Central America as an integral region of North America, the Mexicans "we" think in America as a single continent with 4 sub-regions, but Wikipedia is a place to be objectives, so, this is English Wikipedia and North America is a continent; Mexico, Mesoamerica and Central America are part of such continent. JC (talk to the JC) 08:02, 9 September 2008 (PST)

Hmm, as you see not all English speakers use a geographic model of north america that includes central america. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

But English Wikipedia does. talk to the JC (JC) 11:30, 9 September 2008 (PST)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. However I don't give a damn if the article says one or the other I just want some sound arguments to be presented instead of just opinions. Since as I am trying to tell you there is always an opposite opinion - in this case User:Corticopia has the opposite opinion of you and he also don't present any arguments stronger than an opinion for his preference. If we continue like this this futile revert war will break out everytime one of you is unblocked.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

English wikipedia uses this model in the American related articles. So then, Mesoamerica is geographically located in North America which is correct and follows the model used by English wikipedia. I'm agree to have consensus to end this, the location issue is simple, to use the continent, North America is a continent where Mesoamerica is a cultural region. JC (talk to the JC) 12:40, 9 September 2008 (PST)

I feel a little hypocritical that almost (if not all) of Wikipedia is using the 7 continents model, in which North and South America are separated entities, and yet in this particular article it is said that Mesoamerica is simply in "the Americas". I think the best should be introduce both notions, as both are correct: Mesoamerica is an acient cultural region located in the Americas, specifically in the North American continent. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think it's a question of accuracy as much as it is a question of being specific. It would be correct to say that that Mesoamerica is either in North America, parts of Central America, or the Americas because it is; however, in my opinion, we should avoid saying "in the Americas" as a whole because a) it is not in South America and b) none of the sources I looked up mentions both the Americas a whole. I looked up several definitions to see how it is described in other sources:

Merriam-Webster [4]: region of S North America that was occupied during pre-Columbian times by peoples (as the Olmecs, Mayans, and Aztecs) with shared cultural features.

The American Heritage Dictionary [5]: a region extending south and east from central Mexico to include parts of Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, and Nicaragua. In pre-Columbian times it was inhabited by diverse civilizations, including the Mayan and the Olmec.

Random House Unabridged Dictionary [6]: 1. Anthropology, Archaeology. the area extending approximately from central Mexico to Honduras and Nicaragua in which diverse pre-Columbian civilizations flourished. 2. (loosely) Central America.

Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology [7]: an area which extends from central Honduras and Costa Rica through Mexico to Tamaulipas and Sinaloa that was first defined in 1943 by Paul Kirchoff as a geographical and cultural entity.

Yourdictionary.com [8]: region including parts of modern Mexico and Central America, formerly inhabited by various ancient and pre-Columbian Indian civilizations.

MSN Encarta Dictionary [9]: Part of Central America: region of Central America and southern North America that was occupied by several civilizations, especially the Maya, in pre-Columbian times.

MSN Encarta Encyclopedia [10]: cultural area encompassing present-day Mexico and most of Central America, where a number of civilizations with shared traits and cultural traditions developed before the arrival of Europeans in the 16th century.

As you can see, the definitions vary, but none says "in the mid latitudes of the Americas". On a side note, I've never heard of North America only including Canada and the U.S. in English until I came to Wikipedia. In Spanish, I've heard "norteamerica" to include Canada, U.S., and Mexico, but in English, I've known North America to include Panama up to Canada as a continent. Do any of the above definitions from reliable sources inspire a new proposal? I don't have a strong opinion other than I think it's too broad to simply say "in the Americas". Kman543210 (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer the specific version like the one in the american heritage dictionary - since this can never become the subject of more editwarring.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I agree with Madman: "in the Americas", or even "in the mid-latitudes of the Americas", is fine. While, technically speaking, Mesoamerica is located in the southern part of the North American continent (which includes Central America), 'North America' is frequently considered in English to exclude Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean,[11], perhaps in a cultural context, and may be contrasted with Latin America.[12][13] As well, we are speaking of an ethno-cultural region, not the usual geographic entity. Case in point: the relevant reference work The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas is subdivided into three volumes (see p. 2)[14]:

• North America
• Mesoamerica
• South America

So, clearly, the two can and do exist in isolation. In addition, if it can be accepted that Mesoamerica is in southern North America, it is not a leap of logic to consider it to also be in Middle America - that's what Mesoamerica means literally. The New Oxford Dictionary of English defines Meso-America as (p. 1161):

• the central region of America, from central Mexico to Nicaragua, especially as a region of ancient civilizations and native cultures before the arrival of the Spanish

Note: "America", which is synonymous with 'Americas'. Lastly, it isn't too broad to describe Mesoamerica as being in the Americas or, particularly, in its mid-latitudes, since the introduction goes on (in the second sentence) to describe its precise location. So, in summary: "in the Americas" is unambiguous and appropriate for this article's lead, "in North America" - in this instance - is not. Brittonica (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this "Mesoamerica or Meso-America (Spanish: Mesoamérica) is a region extending approximately from central Mexico to Honduras and Nicaragua, defined as the culture area within which a number of pre-Columbian societies flourished before the Spanish colonization of the Americas in the 15th and 16th centuries."?·Maunus·ƛ· 05:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This reads OK ... HOWEVER, it now duplicates content in the sentence after. Based on this, and particularly on the commentary above, I've restored a prior version, with 'Americas' in it, and which actually paraphrases the Oxford dictionary definition above somewhat. Thanks Brittonica (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Maunus, I agree with your version, and as far as I can read, it is the most acceptable and accepted by the persons discussing this. So, I just want to tell you that I fully support it and that I've reverted "Brittonica's" since nobody is supporting his. Seems he's the only one that's going for it... AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 09:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Maunus's version was fine, but Brittonica has a point that it is somewhat repeated a sentence later: "The culture area extends from central Honduras and northwestern Costa Rica in the south to, in Mexico, the Soto la Marina River in Tamaulipas and the Rio Fuerte in Sinaloa in the north." Just simply saying that it's in the Americas isn't necessarily ambiguous, but it's not very specific (like saying Spain is located in Eurasia). That repeat sentence will have to either be removed or incorporated in the first part so it doesn't sound like the editor had a written stutter. Kman543210 (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)::::::

This can be mended by removing the second mention, which I will proceed to do.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus, I didn't see the repeated sentence. Now the paragraph reads fine. I agree with your version. I think the issue is solved, at last! AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 13:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be the most accepted and accurate version. JC (talk to the JC) 09:30, 11 September 2008 (PST)

Archive 1

Archive 2