Talk:Sylvanus Morley

Epoch Ambiguity

I find it annoying for 40 years now that a single list of epocs is not given per scholar (having seen Gregorian Aug 10/11/12/13/14) so as to favor the prediction of winter solstice 2012 when (though solstice worshippers) a one-time finale-event isn't enough proof; especially when the epoc doesn't begin with solstice. I noted this to World Almanac in 1990 when showing them that 7 books skipped two leap days in Julian Day; so that it mangled many consulting scholars besides using cardinal exactness or ordinal whole in JD. I do note that Spinden's 3374bc G.Oct 4=Nov 10 will then fall on 3114bc G.Aug 11 where Thompson and Pavon Abreu is G.Aug 13. But i have no source showing me what Morley uses (though working with Thompson). I favor G.Aug 12 because G.Aug 13 is then Chinese Day Wu (imix or chuen) of which then every 780-day Mars is day Wu-Monkey (ratio 10:12) on Mayan imix-Monkey (ratio 13:20). Notation also i think Tzolkin and Kin are sunset days of 360, while haab date is sunrise dates of 365 changing the tzolkin name every 12 hours. Also to be noted is EAST Asian-Mayan date is a whole 24-hour day ahead of WEST (British) Spanish-Mayan date. So Asian G.Aug 12 equals Euro G.Aug 11 (of import in connection with Wu-day across Pacific). And (i know God-haters, bible-haters, secular atheists will hate this but) the wave of death (flood) of Spinden 3374bc can exist in Mayan world as 1996am 260 haab before wave of Flood 2256am used by most ancient empire nations (thus flipping the Peleg longevity-crash before Flood instead of after Flood). In your eyes, did i just ruin my stand on calendar info! 172.56.17.18 (talk)

Chichen Itza

Good article! However I removed the phrase refering to Chichen Itza "of which little was known other than it covered an extensive area." This seems to me an inaccurate overgeneralization. Certainly no major archeological project of the like had been conducted there previously, but the surface structures had been photographed, drawn, and mapped repeatedly for generations by a number of researchers (eg Maudslay, Maler, etc). (There had even been some earlier excavations, from amateur Edward H. Thompson and crackpot Augustus Le Plongeon -- I think our article on Le Plongeon is too kind, but that's a seperate issue.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Infrogmation, and I agree with your alteration. I ran out of time last night to properly expand what Morley actually achieved in his excavations, and overlooked the work of his predecessors. As for the le Plongeons, I certainly agree that they were at the very least eccentrics, and that today their contributions are noted more for curiosity value than anything substantial. They did pioneer some photographic techniques, but of course their theories were not widely held even at the time; even so they might have then sounded more plausible back then than they do today. The most comprehensive account on the le Plongeons available would seem to derive from someone who did his PhD on them, and is perhaps a little biased in their favour; if I get around to it I may put a little more context into their articles. Ciao, --cjllw | TALK 23:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the phrase "whose scholarly investigations he commenced" from the introduction refering to Chichen for about the same reason as mentioned above. -- Infrogmation 17:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Infrogmation- fine with me.--cjllw | TALK 04:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

SG.Morley and cousin SG.Morley

As noted in the article, there were actually two individuals named Sylvanus Griswold Morley in operation at the time: the archaeologist, and his older cousin the Spanish professor. This has resulted in some confusion of their biographical details in some sources; in particular, several sources used here give the archaeologist's birthplace as Baldwinville, MA. However, according to the Spanish professor's autobiography, he was born in Baldwinville, so I have elected to follow Columbia Ency. and give Chester, PA. as the archaeologist's birthplace- at least until more definitive sources can be found.--cjllw | TALK 23:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The inspiration for Indiana Jones?

I wonder if Mr. Morley was the inspiration for Indiana Jones - I mean, he looks uncannily like Harrison Ford in Raiders of the Lost Ark. This Fire Burns Always 02:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh - I guess he does! It has been speculated, and is mentioned in the article (see the "Summation" section. It may have been him, according to one source, although the Carnegie Institution notes it might have been one of his field directors, Earl Morris. I'm not sure if Speilberg himself has said anything about it, tho'.--cjllw | TALK 02:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs more work

Going through the article, I found many of the sentences to be wordy, loaded, written in the passive voice, and needlessly rambling. Much of the content needs to be rewritten for clarity and brevity; I'm not sure that it should remain a Featured Article. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-12-23 21:07Z

I agree with your conclusions and was about to correct a glaring error when I decided to come here first to see if I would be tampering with someone's sacred cow. It seems that I would not as there is no mention of an edit war so I will change "artefacts" to "artifacts" and press on through the article. JimCubb 03:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Artefact" is the accepted British spelling.

Before we get into artefact / artifact changing there is an established Wikipedia rule about such variant spellings - where there are differences in accepted usage its the first major author who selects the spelling for the article and later authors follow suit, however much it pains them. See the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English for clarification 60.242.50.195 05:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The original author, an Australian, used 'artefacts', the spelling in Commonwealth English. I am reverting Jim Cubb's changes, as it hasn't yet been done, despite the above discussion. 86.142.110.18 18:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am the original author of the article, which was written over a year ago now, so any deficiencies are largely mine, I'm afraid. Thanks to all who took the time to review and improve the phrasing; unfortunately, this came up (unexpectedly) for a main page appearance while I was away for a couple of weeks, hence this late response.

I guess a few of the sentences were constructed in a round-about fashion- partly due to my own idiosyncracies and partly to the desire to avoid the staccato effect that a run-on of purely active sentences (of the "Morley did this. Then he did that." variety) can produce. While some style guides may frown on passive voice constructions, IMO they have their place and function in english usage & remain grammatically acceptable, if not stylistically so. Still I've no real complaints with those changes; again, thanks. I do think the assessment of it perhaps not meeting FA standards is a little harsh, and there have been no issues raised re content, comprehensiveness and citations.

As for the choice of english spelling conventions, like anybody else I guess I went with what I (even unconsciously) am in the habit of using, although there were some areas where (in links like Maya civilization for example) I used variants. Others have subsequently come by and changed a few, so it's probably a bit of a blend at the moment. I suppose it could be argued that American spelling ought to apply for an American subject, but there are times when I'm not altogether sure what the 'correct' Americanisation [sic!] should be...--cjllw | TALK 08:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Pun

"uaxactun, from the Mayan languages,[..] and its pronunciation is also perhaps a pun on "Washington", the home of his sponsoring institute" Seems a stretch to me. Rich Farmbrough, 09:07 27 December 2006 (GMT).

I put that bit in there as it was mentioned by one of the sources used in compiling the article, though I'm not sure whether it was their own take on it or they were working from a more direct knowledge of the name's coinage. I should've footnoted it at the time though, as presently I'm unable to recall which particular source it appeared in. Will see if I can track it down, though it's really only of passing interest so I suppose it doesn't have to be there.--cjllw | TALK 07:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The "other" Sylvanus G. Morley?

The title for the section about Sylvanus G. (Small) Morley sounds rather weakly contructed. There should be a better way to title that section about the "other" Sylvanus Morley. —Black and White (_TALK^CONTRIBS) 21:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, it still seems ok to me. Open to any suggestions, can't think of a better one offhand. I also don't see the need for the moment for the hatnote added to the article disambiguating the two, at least unless or until the Spanish professor acquires his own article...--cjllw | TALK 07:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Edward Thompson note

"Most of these artefacts had been spirited out of the country illegally by E. H. Thompson without the consent of the Mexican government; see Pérez de Lara (n.d.)." It is a common misconception that what Thompson did was illegal, but the Mexican Supreme Court in 1944 cleared him.CoyoteMan31 17:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. If you have the reference(s) for the update, pls feel free to expand/amend as appropriate; cheers. --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the footnote without comment, because I've never seen a footnote of a footnote. However, for future reference, I refer you to the oft-quoted Clemency C. Coggins and Orrin C. Shane III (eds.), Cenote of Sacrifice: Maya Treasures from the Sacred Well at Chichen Itza (Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1984) 25; Also, Antonio Mediz-Bolio, A la Sombra de mi Ceiba (Mexico City, D.F.: Ediciones Botas, 1956) 250; and others.

Thanks. We probably don't need to go into the legal status of E.H. Thompson's actions in this article anyway. Thompson's own article, and possibly Chichen Itza's, would be the more relevant places to cover this.--cjllw ʘ TALK 23:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm back to writing about Morley. This paragraph is giving me some trouble: "His directorship over all of the Institute's activities in the Maya region soon ran into difficulty. In 1926, a dispute arose with the Mexican government over the ownership of the plantation in which Chichen Itza was situated; however, the digs and reconstruction effort were able to continue after some interruptions." The only note to this graph refers to Villela (2000, p.2), but this article has nothing about the Thompson controversy. Brunhouse writes, "Thompson's situation became critical in 1926, when the Mexican government brought suit against him ... The government estimated those objects [from the Cenote Sagrado] to be worth $500,000 and seized his hacienda. This action made Carnegie officials somewhat uncertain about the continued use of his property. But the government did not interfere with the Chichen project ..." (210). As such, unless there is some other reference, I'm going to rewrite this graph. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks CoyoteMan. I think that Villela cite was originally hard up against some other point, but became disassociated somehow when the para got an overhaul/addition to it. Wld hv to check back thru the edit history, but in the meantime pls do go ahead and add in the bit from Brunhouse. Regards --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Early Career Edits

I have recently been researching Morley. I notice that Brunhouse's biography has not been used as a source. I have therefore rewritten portions of Morley's early career and for the most part referenced the Brunhouse book, although the facts that I change or corrected are based on my own research (although corroborated by Brunhouse). If that makes any sense. CoyoteMan31 01:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, nice work. At the time didn't have access to Brunhouse's biog, glad to see someone has. Pls feel free to further expand any points of interest. Cheers! --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto nice work. You added the Boas controversy, which was also covered in depth in the Brunhouse book (as was Morley's espionage work, which I thought hadn't been revealed until The Archeologist Was a Spy.) CoyoteMan31 04:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had thought so too. I guess there may have been just a tad of promotional hoopla from the publisher concerning that latter's "revelatory" nature... ;-) --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Early Excavatinos

According to various sources, the first area selected for excavation was the Temple of the Warriors, although I don't believe it got that name until after it was excavated. According to the Carnegie reports, the first project was to be the Group of a Thousand Columns, although it is clear from Morley's diaries that the plan was to exacavate and restore what is today the Temple of the Warriors. To simplify things, I've left it as Group of a Thousand Columns.CoyoteMan31 (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted some vandalism

I've just reverted some vandalism that was originally missed and got mixed in with later changes. Unfortunately I couldn't be certain what the correct text was. Could someone knowledgeable in the subject review my change please? Kiore (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There was another little bit of undetected vandalism, think it shld all be corrected now. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And thanks to you also CJLL. I thought I'd scanned the page for remaining vandalism, obviously I wasn't cool enough to spot that one :( Kiore (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Morley's ideas about Mayan writing

I believe this section is misleading. According to An Introduction to the Study of the Maya Hieroglyphics, Morley did believe most of the symbols would turn out to be mathematical and calendrical, but he certainly did not believe the symbols had no phonetic component. Pages 26-30 are devoted to discussing whether the glyphs are phonetic, ideographic, or a combination, and after several examples and reviewing the opinions of scholars on both sides, he explicitly concludes that "...the author may say that he believes that as the decipherment of Maya writing progresses, more and more phonetic elements will be identified, though the idea conveyed by a glyph will always be found to overshadow its phonetic value" (p. 30). I'm reluctant to edit this myself because I must admit that I'm not familiar with the other scholars listed here, nor with whatever later opinions Morley may have developed. However, since I just finished reading that section of Morley's book, I do know that the section as it stands is not completely accurate. 76.76.87.25 (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that saying or implying that Morley thought there was no phoneticism there at all is at least a bit of an exaggeration. I have tweaked the account of his views on phoneticism in the article accordingly, pls review.

However I think the gist of the section is still correct—while admitting to likelyhood of some rebus-like principles in the script (as was already known at the time for Aztec writing), Morley never regarded phoneticism as a significant component or the phonetic approach as the most fruitful path to understanding & decipherment. In the same book (p.27) he notes that all attempts at producing a phonetic system or alphabet had "signally failed", and that the ideographic meaning and reading was the major component. His Introduction was written in 1915, but even in his later corpora of inscriptions and his 1946 classic The Ancient Maya he maintained more or less the same view, and preoccupation with astronomical and calendrical glyphs. As Brainerd, Sharer, Coe & other later commentators note, his disinterest in phoneticism and focus on astronomical/calendrics was sufficiently acute that he at times even omitted from his reproduction drawings as unimportant details, any glyphs that evidently had no astronomical or calendrical meaning (ie many that ultimately turned out to be syllabic or logosyllabic phrases).

But in any case, thanks for picking up on the statements, they did need some qualifying. And pls don't worry too much about editing such things yourself, so long as you explain in the edit summary or talkpage, and provideverifiable and reliable sources, we encourage contributors to be bold and edit to correct, update and improve all content here. The worst that might happen is that your edit would be reverted, but in most cases a discussion like this on the talkpage will be able to sort out any differences. Best regards --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Work needed

This article needs a major re-vamp to be kept at FA status. It has not kept up to standards, and needs substantial work, especially with regard to adding and improving references. There are many paragraphs and at least one section that completely lack references, with unreferenced information that includes opinion and potentially controversial information. There has been a references needed banner on the article for over a year, without response. If the referencing issues are not addressed, this article will need to be taken through a featured article review. Dana boomer (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sylvanus Morley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910034046/http://www3.widener.edu/SiteData/docs/1926_Vol_9_No_2_Feb/1e86492fc6872ed493b093da59f728bb/1926_Vol_9_No_2_Feb.pdf to http://www3.widener.edu/SiteData/docs/1926_Vol_9_No_2_Feb/1e86492fc6872ed493b093da59f728bb/1926_Vol_9_No_2_Feb.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927070343/http://carnegieinstitution.org/news_011210.html to http://carnegieinstitution.org/news_011210.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205160531/http://www.newmexicohistory.org:80/filedetails.php?fileID=21257 to http://www.newmexicohistory.org/filedetails.php?fileID=21257
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515062938/http://www.planeta.com:80/ecotravel/mexico/yucatan/tales/0509yucatan.html to http://www.planeta.com/ecotravel/mexico/yucatan/tales/0509yucatan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051221073933/http://libweb.hawaii.edu:80/libdept/charlotcoll/J_Charlot/charlotmcvicker.html to http://libweb.hawaii.edu/libdept/charlotcoll/J_Charlot/charlotmcvicker.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205161928/http://www.newmexicohistory.org:80/filedetails_docs.php?fileID=9948 to http://www.newmexicohistory.org/filedetails_docs.php?fileID=9948

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Xtocche

Is this a real site? I can't find anything on Google about it. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Good question. Possibly a typo for Xocchel or Xocheila Yucatan? A number of sites were sometimes known under different designations by early explorers from what is now their standard name; possibly somewhere now known under a different name? -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Sourced to 1949 obit by J.E.S. Thompson, online at [1]. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I spent a pleasant hour unraveling the mystery Xtocche. Fortunately I have a copy of Morley's diary from 1907. There is no mention of a site called "Xtocche," but I suspect Thompson, the source of the name, misread Morley's handwriting. Morley visits a site he calls Xoralche, which like Xtocche doesn't correspond to anything. I used maps to follow Morley's route (the site is between Ticul and the Hacienda Tabi) and found Pich Corralche in Joyce Kelly's An Archaeological Guide to Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula. That led me to George Andrews' Architectural Survey Puuc Region 1984 Season. He corraborated that Xoralche and Pich Corralche were the same. Teobert Maler visited in 1888, first recorded it and he wrote it was named X-coralche. When Morley wrote about the site 30 years after his visit he inexplicably called it "Tabi I." Pollock was the one who published the site in 1980 and wrote it was named Pich Corralche.

Frankly, the site is a trifle (Morley spent less than an hour there) and doesn't deserve any mention. It should be deleted. Also, I don't see any mention in Morley's diary that he visited Mayapan on that trip, so that, too, should be deleted.CoyoteMan31 (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice bit of sleuthing. I agree, article would be improved if these obscure sites were removed.Glendoremus (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)