User talk:Ejshepperd/Naacal Tablets

I've added some additional hyperlinks. In general, it's good to avoid these in headers and to add them at the first mention of a name, place, or other subject.

The citations should include year of publication. You should also provide a clearer citation when referring to websites (such as "My-Mu"). Citations should be consistent with regard to form, (i.e. Wicks and Harrison 1999: 213 or Churchward 1926: 15) and all references should appear in a complete and standardized form (with place of publication and publisher) in the bibliography.

You don't provide any critical assessments of Niven's and Churchward's interpretations, even though these are to be found in one of your textbooks (Fantastic Archaeology by Stephen Williams). As a result, your entry is biased towards interpretations by non-archaeologist authors. What are some assessments of claims about the tablets by experts in the archaeology of either Mexico or India? (That is, beyond the brief comments mentioned in Wicks and Harrson's book)? Hoopes (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the faking, there has been some speculation that Niven purchased the tablets from local residents, who may have been inspired to fabricate the tablets to sell.Hoopes (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no reason to believe that Niven's tablets were related to the ones reported by Churchward? What are some alternative theories for why these connections would have been claimed? (Such as Churchward's association with the Theosophical Society and the pseudoarchaeological claims of Augustus Le Plongeon and Helena Blavatsky. Hoopes (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]