Talk:Chichen Itza/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment 1

I've added a number of pics to this article..both small and large images of each pic. If some one with photo-editing-talent likes the pics but thinks they need some editing, please help yourself. I took these pics on my honeymoon....can't show the others...haha just kidding. B 05:08 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I did away with the tables and just alligned the images after the relevent paragraphs? -- Infrogmation 23:21 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

In some instances, articles don't need tables for images, but I wouldn't delete them all. How else would you word wrap? B

I did the first pic using float with a border, and the rest with simple old style center tag. I just checked it with two browsers; Looks okay to me. -- Infrogmation

The first pic format looks good. B — Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 1 February 2003 (UTC)

Fatal fall from the top?

Can anyone provide a hardline citation for this? My understanding is that INAH shut down all climbing to the tops of pyramids, especially the Castillo, due to excessive graffiti and vandalism. I think the "fatal fall from the top" is something that guides might say, even though people have been falling from pyramids in Mexico for a long time - I don't think INAH shut down the climbing due to one recent occurrence. Any thoughts? -- Oaxaca dan 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that unless someone can find some written directive to this effect, the sentence can safely be removed; even if true it's not really all that pertinent.

One fatal incident which perhaps could bear mentioning here is the unfortunate demise of the archaeologist Dennis Puleston, struck by lightning in 1978 atop the Castillo.--cjllw | TALK 05:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

On January 5, 2006, an 80-year-old woman from the San Diego area (Clairemont) fell while climbing El Castillo. Merida's Diario de Yucatan ("Fatal caída del Castillo de Chichén: Una turista de 80 años se resbala y cae desde 20 metros," 6 Jan. 2006) makes no mention of the closing of El Castillo. The earliest report by tourists of the closing of El Castillo to climbing that I was able to find was 18 Jan. On 3 March 2006, Diario de Yucatan reported that the closing was as a result the fatal fall ("Fin a una exención para los mexicanos: Pagarán el día del equinoccio en la zona arqueológica"). 19:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)User:coyoteman31

Ballcourt

The text under ballcourt was incorrect according to the guide I had. The captain of the "winning" team was decapitated. It was considered an honour to die in this manner. The frieze shows the captain of the losing team holding the head of the winner. [User:Hugh_Chatfield] 9:30, 16 February 2007

Don't believe everything your guide tells you. Those guys are notorious for exaggerating to make the tour more "impressive." -- Oaxaca dan 03:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well - the guide was part of the archeology team working at the site and seemed very knowledgable about everything. I was especially taken with his demo of the sounds from the plumed serpent. At a specific location, a hand clap gave two distinct echoes - one sounding like a bird cry - the second like the rattle of a snake. Neat design - or accident?

I note the following site as well - http://www.internet-at-work.com/hos_mcgrane/chichen/chichen_index.html that cites the following

"Let's Learn about Chichén-Itzá , Chichén-Itzá: The City of the Wise Men of the Water. by Roman Chan and All About the Mayas. by C. Dorese. published by Producción Editorial Dante (Mérida, Mexico)" - the text based on these texts reads...

"One of the scenes, the beheading of a player in center field witnessed by the players of both teams, is one of the most dramatic examples of Maya art. The scene not only illustrates the horror faced by the players but also the sacred importance of the game. At one time it was believed that the losers were destined to die but new theories have been proposed by researchers. Some think that the captain of the winning team was sacrificed since his team's triumph made him a fitting offering to the gods."

Certainly one captain was beheaded - according to the frieze on site. That it was the captain of the winning team - ties in with the "platform of skulls" just outside the ball court. Of significance was the fact they could not find any skulls on the site. The current thinking based on the decoration of the place was that the decapitated skulls were displayed on a stake on this platform until all flesh was gone - then the skull was carefully decorated and used as a revered object. This is consistent with the notion of the captain of the winning team not the loser. --Hugh Chatfield 13:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been in contact with Dr. Aguilar at Cal State who provide me with the following information.

The guides at Chichen Itza tell that the captain of the winning team was sacrificed, based on a single source - a colonial manuscript. The discrepency in this manuscript could be due to a misinterpretation, imprecise telling of oral stories, or even different "local rules" for the ballgame.

The "authoratative source" for the beheading of the winning captain is most likely in one of the following (none of which I have access to).

- Cronica de Oxkutzcab
- Relaciones Geograficas de Yucatan
- Cronica de Mani
- Relacion de algunas costumbres de los Indios de Yucatan by Gaspar Antonio Chi (1582)
- Relaciones de Yucatan by Juan de Reigosa (1579)
- Historia de Yucatan by Lopez de Cogolludo (c.1670)
- Chilam Balam de Chumayel 

Most researchers believe that the bulk of evidence points to the losing team being decapitated. Dr. Aguilar says:

I believe that the losers of the game, and not just the captain, were sacrificed and a testimony of that are the stories of the Popol Vuh, where Hunhunahpu, the maize god and his brother Vucub Hunahpu were decapitated after losing a ballgame against the Lords Of Xibalba (the Death Gods). We know also by Classic Maya data that prisoners of war were decapitated in ballgame related events, etc

.

It seems to me that barring some additional evidence that a different set of rules were in effect at Chichen Itza, it was indeed the losing captain that was decapitated. --Hugh Chatfield 13:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Hugh, your investigation results are most interesting, appreciate the efforts you have taken. Even if one or more of those sources mention it, since they are post-conquest they presumably won't be eyewitness accounts, but "tradition". Unless someone unearths an explicit text we'll probably never know, and leave out the tale of 'winning team sacrifice'.--cjllw | TALK 01:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Cenote of sacrifice

"“Cenote of Sacrifice” is the more famous of the two, and it was sacred to worshipers of the Maya rain god Chaac. Various objects and materials, such as jade, pottery, and incense, were thrown into the cenote as offerings to Chaac. It is claimed by some (mainly tour guides) that occasionally, especially during times of intense drought, human sacrifices were offered into the well. There is, however, no confirmation of this, and archaeological dredging of the cenote does not support these assertions.

From the Wikipedia article "Human Sacrifice": "The most notable example of this is the "Sacred Cenote" at Chichen Itza where extensive excavations have recovered the remains of 42 individuals, half of them under twenty years old."

See also: "Sacrifice and Ritual Body Mutilation in Postclassical Maya Society: Taphonomy of the Human Remains from Chichén Itazá's Cenote Sagrado" in: "New Perspectives on Human Sacrifice and Ritual Body Treatments in Ancient Maya Society", New York, 2007.

See also: Cucina, Andrea, "Procedures in human heart extraction and ritual meaning: a taphonomic assessment of anthropogenic marks in classic Maya skeletons" in: Latin American Antiquity, Dec. 2006.

"Divergence of the sex and age distributions from expected mortality profiles has also been considered as evidence of unnatural death, as is shown by Chichen Itza's Cenote Sagrado collection, with its strong male dominance (over 70 percent of the sexed sample) and subadults concentrated in the 7 to 15 years age range"

[edit] Ascension — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.173.222.97 (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Images

West side of El Castillo

Having added a slightly better quality image of El Castillo, I'm moving the previous image here for safe keeping. -- Solipsist 18:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone could find a picture of the back side of the El Castillo, I was surprised to see that it doesn't look anything like the front. I was told by my tour guide that an explorer stole bricks from it to build a house. --TimothyRoger 17:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Timothy. I added to the main page a wiki commons image showing the detail of the East Side. Glory be to Chaac! -- Masongl 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I was never told about an explorer stealing bricks. The back doesn't look like the front because the front has been restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.140.236.124 (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Footnoting

I rewrote two sections in this article, but included no footnotes. I'd like to go back and put the footnotes in. Can someone direct me to a Wikipedia style guide on footnotes? Some of the specific questions I have pertain to the level of detail in footnoting. Thanks. CoyoteMan31 20:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi CoyoteMan. See WP:CITE, and in particular WP:FN (FN=Footnotes), for relevant style and how-to guides. In general, a widely-used scheme and one that is most frequently used on Mesoamerica-related topics at any rate is to have the footnotes (which may be actual parenthetical footnotes, citations such as Bloggs (2006, p999) or a combination of both) appear in a section towards the end called ==Notes==, immediately followed by an alphasorted list of bibliographical references by author, in a section called ==References==. There are other ways of doing it, but I think this one provides the best consistency.

Those two guides I mentioned demonstrate how to put it in effect, you can also look around at some other articles eg Mayan languages for examples in practice.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That Mayan languages article is impressive. I'll take a shot at duplicating the footnote format. Thanks.CoyoteMan31 14:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

New Seven Wonders

There is ongoing discussion at all the sites listed as "New Seven Wonders". So far, the consensus appears to be that mention does not belong in the lead section of the article. It is already mentioned later in the article. IPSOS (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. -- Infrogmation 18:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What, exactly, was named a world wonder? Even the Web site at the new7wonders.com is not clear. Sometimes it's "Chichen Itza" (http://www.new7wonders.com/index.php?id=633) and on other pages it's "El Castillo" (http://www.new7wonders.com/index.php?id=396).CoyoteMan31 21:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

...which just goes to show how hackneyed and phoney the whole episode is- the organisers evidently do not care about distinguishing, and show no signs of knowing anything about Chichen Itza other than its name. Personally I don't think that the 'results' of this overhyped 'poll' warrant any mention in the article at all, any perceived import is completely illusory. So what, if Chichen Itza along with many others has been caught up in a marketing and revenue-generating exercise indistinguishable from other online scams? (For insight into the likely true motives behind this, need go no further than the 'Business Opportunities' page at the website: "Unique business benefits are available with New7Wonders - together we can make marketing and commercial history!" ).

Maybe the episode would be useful material for sociological, marketing or internet phenomena studies; but really it's no more significant a listing than my next-door neighbours' seven favourite places to go on holidays. At the very most, it warrants no more than a bare footnote under a "Trivia" or "Pop-culture references" section. If that.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

General History Revisions

I have added and ammended some of the chronological info in this article based upon recent archaeological data. However, the article (IMHO) requires a major revision of this content. References to the Toltecs and the ethnohistoric documents appear to guide readers in a way that is not an accurate reflection of current archaeological thought. Chichen was not likely Toltec. The histories mentioning its fall in the 13th century are not borne out by current data. Any references to such matters should carry added notes such as "according to..." so that readers can differentiate the folklore from the archaeological data. This is not an easy task, but I strongly suggest it needs to be done. However, to be perfectly honest, the final story of Chichen's history has yet to be written, as work still needs to be done both at the site and at related sites such as Mayapan and Tula to truly differentiate fact from historical fiction. As I said, the biggest step forward at this point for the Wiki article would be to have many more in-text citations so that readers can go directly to the source for more info. Chunchucmil 03:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I reworked the section regarding ownership of Chichen. The original text--"The land under site, however, is co-owned as communal property by the town of Piste and as private property by the Barbachanos family, one of the most powerful families in Yucatán since the early 19th century"--requires attribution. As I added to the footnote, Lisa Breglia in her book Monumental Ambivalence charts the history of the ownership of Chichen and other sites of patrimony. No property is "co-owned," although it is possible that some of the archaeological zone falls within the ejido of Piste. Also, describing the Barbachano family as one of the "most powerful" requires some qualification. The family is not members of the Castas Divinas, that is, those families descended from the holders of the original Spanish land grants. Nor are they, as the original link assumes, directly descended from Miguel Barbachano, the governor of the 19th century, as he had no children. They are successful in the tourism business, owning hotels and property, but does that make them powerful?User:coyoteman31CoyoteMan31 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to sign in, but made three changes: Added subsection on Akab Dzib, clarified statement about closing of El Castillo, and changed pronoun "one" to "Great Ball Court," the common name of the monument.CoyoteMan31 19:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Style question: Monument names

We seem to have a mixed bag of names for monuments: El Castillo (Spanish), Temple of the Warriors (English), Ballcourt (generic term), High Priest's Temple (English), Las Monjas (Spanish), El Caracol (Spanish), Akab Dzib (Maya), Old Chichén (English). Shouldn’t these be consistent, if possible? For example, couldn’t there be English name with Spanish name in parenthesis, so the list would be: Temple of Kukulcan (El Castillo), Temple of the Warriors (Templo de los Guerreros), The Great Ball Court (El Juego de Pelota), High Priest’s Grave (Ossario), The Nunnery (Las Monjas), The Observatory (El Caracol), Akab Dzib, Old Chichén (Chichén Viejo). Thoughts?CoyoteMan31 19:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In the general case, the guideline would be to use the "most common name" for the structure as appears in english-language literature (which is not necessarily an english-language name). However, there may not in all cases be a clear winner in the "most common name" stakes, and for some of these eg el Caracol the spanish name is probably at least as or even more common than the english trans. The "nunnery"/Las Monjas & el Castillo/Temple of Kulkukan are probably equally recognisable alternatives. For the others, the english lang. name will probably do (except Akab Dzib). As long as we give the main alternatives when first mentioning each structure I think that will be the best we can do, though happy to entertain any other suggestions.--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Circular References: An Observation

CJLL Wright recently pointed to an article that appeared in the Independent in the UK regarding the ongoing controversy over the ownership of the land under the monuments at Chichen Itza. But what is ironic is that many of the facts of the article were, in fact, taken from this article in Wikipedia. I know this because there is one fact in the case that has only been published here, and every other source I've seen contradicts it (this fact came from my own research). Wikipedia gets no credit in the article, I notice. Let me throw this out there for discussion: If a journalist draws facts from Wikipedia, does that make the entire article suspect? Or can we say that Wikipedia has made the big time, more trusted than all other sources?CoyoteMan31 13:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, most interesting - I suppose that should be taken as a compliment..! I guess that an awful lot of journalistic pieces are pretty cagey or neglectful in identifying their sources, whether it's been cribbed from wikipedia or elsewhere, so any of these reports ought to be treated with some caution. Looking across multiple sources may help, but then again we all know a lot of 'facts' get parroted uncritically from one source to the other.

Which was the bit of info that you are referring to? From the article in the Indie, it certainly seemed to imply much was drawn from interviews with the Barbachano family, to whom it was largely sympathetic. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Send me an e-mail, ejalbright AT americanegypt DOT com, and I'll fill you in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoyoteMan31 (talk • contribs) 17 November 2007

OK thanks, will do. --cjllw ʘ TALK 22:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Dates: Fall of Chichen Itza

"Archaeological data now indicates that Chichen Itza fell by around AD 1000."

It is clear that the fall of Chichen Itza is not clear (no pun intended), but if that is so, how come that El Castillo was built around XI-XIII centuries. Is that in question too, according to those "archeological data"? I would like to see a citation for that previous sentence.Nazroon 21:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That passage concerning a proposed recent reassessment of date correlation was added by a contributor here who in real life is an archaeologist working in the field[1], and one whose contribs have been highly reliable so I've no reason to doubt. But you are right, it would be much better to have specific citations- he hasn't been very active around here of late, I'll contact him separately & see if we can get a couple of refs, and/or track down some papers.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My concern was not about the credentials of the new investigations (although it is better to have a source, of course), but about the actual building of El Castillo, which, according to this new information was built after the fall of Chichén Itzá. So, if we say that Chichén Itzá fell long before it is commonly held, it should be addressed the question of when buildings like El Castillo were constructed. Nazroon 15:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the tenets of writing for Wikipedia is "no original research." That the dates of the fall of Chichen Itza are being challenged is not surprising, but is it appropriate to put that information in this entry? Has this challenge gone through peer review or been published? There is a lot of new information coming out about Chichen Itza, but it seems to me premature to put it here. For example, Eduardo Perez de Heredia, the INAH director at Chichen, has conducted some fascinating research with pottery shards that indicates that the "Toltec" arrival on the scene was sudden, suggesting conquest instead of assimilation. However, this is a new (actually old) interpretation and has yet to be fully reviewed, and therefore not appropriate (as I understand it) for this article. Or am I missing something?CoyoteMan31 22:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

Just to clarify, I didn't mean to imply that I thought the original contributor (User:Chunchucmil) based the info about a possible reassessment of Chichen's dates on their own research. Rather, my presumption is that it's based on some other published material/sources. I haven't yet contacted them to validate this assumption; will try to do so soon & we'll see.--cjllw ʘ TALK 23:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good. CoyoteMan31 21:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I finally followed through and contacted Chunchucmil, and he kindly pointed me in the direction of several publications in the past couple of years that reconsider the dating of Chichen's decline. I've added in one of the refs, have only the abstract at the moment but will look to obtain the full article(s) somehow for further use. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Check your e-mail. I just sent the article to you.CoyoteMan31 (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Got it, superb! cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Tour

I deleted the following: "The Yucatan Tourism Board and the Government of the Yucatan are currently constructing the worlds first full screen virtual tour of the entire Citadel. The virtual tour is scheduled for release in Early August 2008." However, I'm willing to rewrite it and put it in its proper place if the author would put some information and a contact name or email address or a link to a news article about it. The author isn't registered, unfortunately, so it's impossible to directly contact them and explain why this isn't appropriate here. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Substantial Rewrites

In light of the publishing of this article in the forthcoming Wikipedia encyclopedia, and that in the couple of years I've been watching this page certain sections have not improved or statements not attributed, I began a couple of days ago to rewrite several sections. I'm pretty sure I've footnoted everything I've touched, and I made a good faith effort to find sources for everything that I eventually deleted. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks CoyoteMan, grateful for your informed & critical eye being cast over this piece. There may not be enough time before the current scheduled 0.7 take, to add in more of the archaeological & epigraphic details that easily could/should be here, but at least what is here can be validated and tended. Glad you're on the case, looks good so far! Saludos, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, C-Wright, for cleaning up my mess. I still have a few more monuments to add, and when I'm done, I'll throw in my footnotes. But it won't be for a couple of weeks as I am off to Mexico. Does this article need any additional photographs? I can snap a few when I down there ... CoyoteMan31 (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional photos, especially of aspects of the site not yet covered by photos on Wikimedia, are always welcome. If you can upload photos to Commons and add them to Category:Chichén Itzá that would be great! Happy travels. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Friederichsthal and the First to Chichen

Please allow me to take issue with a recent change to the entry, specifically the insertion of Friederichsthal in the lead paragraph of archaeology and exploration. He was neither the first non-Spaniard/Mexican/Maya to visit Chichén Itzá (that honor fell to New Yorker John Burke), nor did his visit have any significant impact (he published a mediocre article in an obscure, at least for Western audiences, French-language magazine). Stephens and Catherwood also shot daguerretypes, although they were destroyed during their travels. Friederichsthal’s photos were displayed twice for small audiences and only two are known to survive after his lifetime (none from Chichén Itzá). I mentioned him in passing in the section on “Tourism,” along with Benjamin Norman, whose book, at least, went through several printings. Friederichsthal is a footnote, in my opinion, and does not deserve such prominent mention. I suggest it either be deleted or moved (after being corrected) to a less prominent spot. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine with the suggested corrections, and F's mention being reduced or moved to less prominent spot. He at least has his own article, and can be included along with other early visitors who are notable enough for an article, even if not for any contrib or exploit at the site. --cjllw ʘ TALK 22:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

New external link

I thought this would be a nice addition to the Eternal Links section.

{{editsemiprotected}}

• Photosynth view of Chichen Itza (requires Photosynth)

Done! Thank you for that addition! --DA Skunk - (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Mayan?

Mayans were in South America. The Aztecs were in Mexico. (Yes, and the Olmecs, and the Toltecs, but Aztecs had pyramids for their human sacrifices.)

The Mayans are in central America, you were proberly thinking of the Inca from South America. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The full range of the Maya covers southeastern Mexico (specifically the states of Yucatán, Campeche, Quintana Roo, Chiapas and parts of Tabasco), and western Central America (all of Guatemala and Belize, plus the western portions of Honduras and El Salvador. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The four serpents

Shouldn't there be something on here about the four shadows climbing downs the stairs on September 12, 2012? ₭øμt̪ũ (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There is, see El Castillo, although I don't know about there being four. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This alleged hierophany at Chichen would almost make for an interesting subarticle on its own. Not because it's a purposeful or unique effect, which it's not, but more so because of the way it has developed as a phenomenon of contemporary public interest and myth-making. There's some good background info written by archaeoastronomers like Aveni and Ruggles on how this 'serpent-shadow' belief has came about.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Archaelogical Investigations -- Correcting Corrections

I edited several changes made recently by member Quetzil.

Paragraph 4: The Carnegie Institution, per Morley's proposal which is now cited, committed to the study and excavation of Chichen Itza only. It did not commit to a broader program of studying the Maya until later. See also, Robert Brunhouse, Sylvanus Morley and the World of the Ancient Mayas (Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1971) 74-75. I don't see the relevance of Morley's spy work to his work at Chichen Itza. This is covered in the article on Morley, so I deleted it here. I also made the revised sentences active versus passive.

Paragraph 5: Wikipedia member Quetzil, who I presume is Quetzil Castaneda, quotes liberally from his own research. However one of the notes (regarding involvement of Manuel Gamio) is not supported by the article he cites. Other notes cite his book, but don't list page numbers, so I cut many of his edits out. As he went to the trouble to add citations to previously unattributed paragraphs, I dug out the references to those paragraphs and inserted them.

CoyoteMan31 (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Stairway angle at El Castillo (Temple of Kukulkan)

Is 45 degrees. [2]. The timing of the depopulation is not known, but is most likely somewhere between 900 and 1200 AD, and the lede of the article should say that most archeologists believe it was about that time. It's the first question visitors ask, and it's what the guides (archelogists from the University of Mexico) tell them (I assume you've actualy been there, CoyoteMan?). What El Castillo looked like in the 19th centuries is known from watercolors of that time by those who saw it: [3]. If you don't know this subject, CoyoteMan, please at least stop being obstructionist. SBHarris 01:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I find your tone condescending and lack of respect offensive. I've been researching Chichen Itza for more than seven years, spent 3-10 weeks every year in Yucatan, and have contributed/edited numerous sections of this page (which you would know if you took the time to look). Please delete the personal attacks and caustic comments above, and I will be happy to have a reasonable dialog with you about Chichen Itza. Saludos! CoyoteMan31 (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Great. With all your time there (supposedly), why is it that you literally don't know the first thing about the place, like the stair angle so important for visual effect (and acustics), and what the site looked like a century ago? This is not a personal attack, this is saying you are ignorant of basics on this subject, and have have been doing bad editing. I suppose I could phase it differently: "some editor here is ignorant of basics and has been doing bad editing." But since you'd know who I meant, what's the point. SBHarris 17:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've reverted an edit from Sbharris; which I assume was made with good intentions but did not improve the article. Timeline already discussed and linked in article; no reason to think the population "disappeared" (as opposed to declined/left). Regarding link [4], I suggest you can find much better info about Chichen and the Ancient Maya at sites websites that are not also covering UFOs and the Shroud of Turin, and don't refer to the Maya peoples as "Mayans". Interestingly, the webpage does link some good books; I recommend "The Maya" by Michael Coe as a good introduction and overview. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Disappeared" is a synonym for declined/left, except not so awkward. You can use "declined" except that you need to explain it in context, so that it's clear that when European explorers found this site, there was nobody using the main complexes (cenotes excepted, if you count them as structures) and they were overgrown. That's a "decline" of population to zero. It looks a lot like "disappeared." Had gone away under mysterious circumstances. You've managed to keep that essential bit not only out of the lede, but also WHEN it happened (unless the reader follows a link to a phrase obscure to anybody but an Mesoamerican archeologist). Why do you demand this be so opaque and difficult to access? WP is not a mystery novel, and ledes are not supposed to be teasers.

As for keeping the information on the angle of the temple steps out of the article because you don't like the quality of the cite, are you still arguing with the fact itself? Do you know it yourself but can't find a good reference (as you suggest by giving me books to read), or do you still disbelieve it? I'd like to know, because you're reverting things without good reason.

Finally, I can refer to the Mayans however I please! Although "Maya" is the more common English term for the people, and probably should be what is used here in this article, there's nothing wrong with the English term "Mayans," which continues to be used in various scholarly sources, including archeological journals. This is not a point of "right" or "wrong", so don't lecture me about it as though it was. [5][6](see page 7) [7][8][9]. SBHarris 17:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If information is added to this article and it does not contain a citation to an authoritative source, I will usually look for the source myself before deleting. Before you got personal and called me "reactionary" and a "bad" editor, I went through my library in search of a reference that the staircase was 45-degrees. I couldn't find one, nor could I find a reference that said it was at any other pitch. Not sure what more I can do. I'm not going to leave edits that are not sourced. If the staircase being 45 degrees is such common knowledge, you should be able to find a source in a scholarly journal or book. The same applies to the other material you added. If it is common knowledge, you should have zero problem sourcing it. Saludos! CoyoteMan31 (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I did have zero problem. The slope of the Kukulcán stairways in this scholarly survey is given as 45 degrees: See Tomás García-Salgado, The Sunlight Effect of the Kukulcán Pyramid or The History of a Line. Nexus Network Journal, Volume 12, Number 1, 113-130, DOI: 10.1007/s00004-010-0019-3. The figures are on page 118 in the pdf at [10]. It took me five minutes to find this; and all because you didn't like a popular source. Though if you'd ever seen or climbed this thing, you'd know the angle very well (it's now closed to tourists, but five years ago it was not). Now, remind me why again why I called you reactionary and a bad editor? You resisted letting me add this fact (which is non-controversial), you didn't know this fact, you apparently didn't believe this fact, you hadn't been told this fact, you hadn't experienced this fact, and finally you could not find this fact in the scholarly sources. So what good are you? Saludos yourself. SBHarris 23:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to your other citations. And I will continue to review and edit every change. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Link

I am very proud of my Web site, americanegypt.com. I built it myself, pay for it myself. I keep up the blog, add the occasional feature article. I don't accept money for ads, so the advertisements are from friends and colleagues. And it is the most comprehensive source on Chichen Itza on the Web, bar none. Yesterday ohnoitsjamie deleted several links, because that's what he does. He marked them all Spam. I restored all the links save one, the link to my own Web site. I asked him to put it back, as my site is not spam. He apparently changed his mind and now says it's a conflict of interest. We probably would still be going around about this, but as his objection is now based on COI guidelines, per those guidelines, I'm asking the other editors of this page for permission to put it back. But only if you believe the site has relevance and merit. Thanks. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as you WP:OWN this article already, why don't you restore the link to your own site, yourself? It would be appropriate. SBHarris 21:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Not the response I was looking for, but I should have expected it. Did you notice I put in your 45-degree staircase and citation? That turned out to be a great article. Lot of good info in there. How are the rest of those citations coming? CoyoteMan31 (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

First Paragraphs

Despite my unpleasant exchange with Sbharris, I believe he had the correct basic idea. Information is missing from the lead of this article and has been for years. We should look at the opening and, if agreed, rewrite it. I believe, for example, that the sentence about the mix of styles being the result of cultural diffusion is not one of the most important facts about the site and should be moved below (not to mention properly sourced). I think we can now eliminate that phrase about it formerly being privately owned. SBHarris wants to add the following. I'm paraphrasing and interpreting what he wrote, so he should correct me if I'm mis-characterizing what he was trying to say:

• That Chichen collapsed and the population declined;
• That the site eventually became overgrown.

I suggest that we brainstorm a list of what should be added to the lead (with SBHarris's items as the first), and then attempt to reach a consensus. I'll add a couple of suggestions:

• That Chichen was one of the first sites archaeologically restored in Mexico
• That it is one of the most popular tourist attractions in Mexico.

I assume most folks are away for the summer, but this seems like a perfect activity to begin now and carry into the early fall. Saludos! CoyoteMan31 (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

age that chichen itz was built

hello i have information contained in a book called "Mayan Temple Discovered In Europe" that offers some substantial proof that the age of the building of Chichen Itza must be prior to 79 AD, but ever time I put a referenece to it on a site it gets rejected as fringe archaeology, can you explain why? if no one has evern read it?

tks Sussan Evermore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sussan evermore (talk • contribs) 09:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Chichen Itza largely dates to the Maya Classic period, with most construction taking place in the period 600-1050 AD, with the earliest hieroglyphic text dating to 867 AD. Chichen Itza just wasn't built in 79 AD. Before placing too much weight upon fringe claims, I would recommend reading a decent overview of the Maya civilization, such as The Ancient Maya, 6th ed, by Robert J. Sharer and Loa P. Traxler. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes with the current scholarly consensus. If new discoveries change our understanding, great, but there's no indication that the book you co-authored has changed the consensus among students and scholars of pre-Columbian MesoAmerica yet. Also, note that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to tout your work, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:No original research. Hope this helps. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

We also do not accept self-published books as sources, see WP:SPS. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

About the echo that the temple produces whith a clap of hands

Hello there! It would be interesting if were included on this article, the fact that if you clap your hands at the front of the piramid temple, the echo that you hear is the call of the bird quetzal. There is some videos where you can see and hear that. Here are some:

Chichen Itza clap quetzal call Acústica de Chichén Itzá

The history channel has made an episode about it, including calculations of how the echo on each step of the stairs was designed to produce this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weschenfelder (talk • contribs) 12:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate section about the various acoustical phenomena at Chichen Itza would be appropriate. The Great Ball Court is a well known whispering gallery, where a normal voice from one end temple can be heard clearly at the other end temple and to those inside the court.http://www.acoustics.org/press/152nd/lubman.html Since "The thinking now is that this court is not a place to play ball, being an "effigy" court for the purpose of ceremonial political and religious installations."* then "Undoubtedly we must consider this feat of acoustics as another noteworthy achievement of engineering realized millenniums ago by the Maya technicians" "Chi Cheen Itza" Manuel Cirerol Sansores 1947 "

• http://archaeology.about.com/od/archaeologic7/ig/Chichen-Itza/Temple-of-the-Jaguars.htm
• http://www.mesoweb.com/chichen/features/tour/04.html
• http://books.google.com/books?id=dVfG9bJsd6sC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=great+ballcourt++as+%22effigy%22&source=bl&ots=UwCevKWSMy&sig=TibDZpyoXdJzsDhckpuDQNYWeRo&hl=en&ei=yMDjTum1LMiCsgLLvdSIBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=great%20ballcourt%20%20as%20%22effigy%22&f=false

Also a handclap from in front of the Temple of the Warriors echos as a quetzal-like chirp from the stairs and a rattlesnake sound (ZZZZZzzzz) from the colonnade (Group of a Thousand Columns). It should be noted that the entryway on top of the temple is book-ended with feathered rattlesnake piers, with rattles held high.* http://www.mesoweb.com/chichen/features/tour/09.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by WEVK (talk • contribs) 15:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The introduction

I just thought I'd make a comment about the introduction of this article. It is by no means my intention to offend anyone, but I believe I can see some points where there is room for improvement. I am a frequent user of Wikipedia and I'm often here to look for facts on different subjects. In this article it is pretty hard to grasp the facts. I think the introduction of the article could be a lot better if it was a bit more precise. I'll give some examples:

1. I wanted to know what Chichen Itza is, or was. The answers I get is that Chichen Itza is "large pre-Columbian archaeological site built by the Maya civilization". And the answer to what it was is that it was "a major focal point in the northern Maya lowlands". It's not really what I was looking for. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I find it hard to believe that this is the most precise description of the site. I was actually looking for confirmation on my thought that it was an ancient Maya city.

2. The second thing I would like to have clearified is connected to the time-line. I wanted to know when the site was built. Here we have some references to different Maya time epokes like Late Classic and Terminal Classic. Since I'm not an expert on the Maya civilization, this does not tell me much. When I follow the links I come to a site where the time epokes are described. Sadly, even here the real dates are hard to grasp. There is actually no time epoke named Late Classic and Terminal Classic. The name of the epoke there is Classic Era. It is not explained any further. If it's not possible to give a accurate date, a range would be fine. And if it's not possible to date the first building, at least a range about when the most important or largest part was build. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjell voldgift (talk • contribs) 23:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Kjell, all great points. Above there is a section called "First Paragraphs" that raises similar concerns. Unfortunately I haven't had an opportunity to tackle the open graphs and no one else apparently has risen to the challenge. Let's see if your comments will help stir the pot. Best, CoyoteMan31 (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

They are good points. I have been gradually working through the articles on Maya cities and trying to bring them up to a decent standard, so maybe I'll do Chichen Itza next...once I'm finished with the article I'm currently working on. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Climbing the steps of El Castillo

The article mentioned that the stairs of the temple were closed because of a fatal fall. What is the source?

I climbed the stairs back in 2002 and the tour guide said the stairs will be closed down indefinitely by the end of the year because of all the wear and tear from tourists. Azn Clayjar 20:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

i climbed a year ago

Really? Then the tour guide was mistaken. It would be cool to climb again. :) Azn Clayjar 05:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I just returned from Chichen Itza. El Castillo is closed indefinitely, according to both the tour guide and the folks employed by the site. 17:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I was there is 2010. We were not allowed to climb. I suspect that's a smart move, if only to help preserve the structure; it really is quite spectacular!JoelWhy (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Not only is El Castillo closed to climbing, but everything is. Preservation can not be the reason because most the park is a reconstruction anyways, so what deteriorates can be easily reconstructed. It is a very bad management decision that will reduce tourism as word of mouth gets out. I for one will be telling everyone not to waste their time with the fraud of Chichen, where you can not even go in the observatory (caracol). The park has been converted into nothing more than a giant artisan bizarre with an expensive cover charge.189.149.142.215 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC).

The katun is established at Chichen Itza.

The settlement of the Itza shall take place there. The quetzal shall come, the green bird shall come. Ah Kantenal shall come. It is the word of God. The Itza shall come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countzander (talk • contribs) 08:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yea, you have fun waiting on that...JoelWhy (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ozmatli changes.

The changes made did not reflect what the source, Erik Boot's Continuity and Change, says regarding the name of Chichen Itza. See page 12 where he confirms the translation of Chichen in the existing article. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Decline date

In the Decline part, someone wrote “Archaeological data now indicates that Chichen Itza declined as a regional center by 1250 CE”. But the abstract of the source quoted says : “The collapse of the entire Classic-period societal structure throughout the lowlands can now be compressed into a 200- or 250-year period and seen as a progressive chain of events that began in the south and culminated with the fall of Chichen Itza in the eleventh century” and “We assign this final occupation of the Itza capital to the Terminal Classic period, which ended sometime in the eleventh century in the northern Maya Lowlands”. El Comandante (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

At one point I was going through this article sticking in cites and generally trying to knock it into shape for GA but moved onto other stuff. The 1250 reference doesn't seem to have a cite at sll, and I suspect it was either something I didn't get around to fixing, or was added after I stopped working on the article. I really must get back to tidying this article up... Simon Burchell (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Of bacteria, fungi and the invisible world

Regarding the following statement, which I edited out of the article: "Aureobasidium and Fusarium fungi species are present at Chichen Itza. Heterotrophic bacteria are the most common microorganism found in Chichen Itza." The source of this information does not support the second statement (Heterographic bacteria was found on the surface of the monuments in a series of samples, but it cannot be said that it is the most common microorganism), and the first statement, while it may be true, lacks context. Why are those fungi important? And how are they directly relevant to Chichen Itza versus other places? CoyoteMan31 (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Toltec Conquest

Lena958 added the following: "The architectural diversity shows the Toltec take-over at Chichen Itza. Prior to the Toltec invasion, the Puuc culture of Chichen dominated the Mayan region of the Yucatan. Once the Toltec leader invaded Chichen, the site became almost a copy of the Toltec capital, Tula. The combination of Toltec and Puuc cultures, created a unique architectural style, that can be seen throughout the site. The hall of thousand columns, is a direct copy from the Toltec capital of Tula." As the sentence that preceded this edit states, there is debate as to whether there was a Toltec conquest or if it was assimilation over time. Furthermore, recent archaeology at Tula suggests the possibility that it was built after the similar structures at Chichen Itza. That said, there may be a new consensus that Lena958 is privy to, in which case the editor needs to supply sources for the information. As this is the second time the editor has tried to post this and two different editors have disagreed, it might be prudent to offer the proposed changes here on the Talk page before adding them to the article. 13:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC) CoyoteMan31 (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the idea of a Toltec invasion of Chichen Itza is seriously outdated - most modern scholarly sources would disagree. I've written a little about the cultural interchange between Chichen Itza and central Mexico somewhere but I forget where - it might be at Chacmool. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

We may have had this conversation before, but the pendulum may be swinging back the other way, to a Chichen Itza that was conquered. There's a study of ceramics at Chichen that indicates a rapid conversion, rather than a slow transition. I'm not sure that its conclusions have been published yet. If we were taking a vote, I would bet a majority of archaeologists believe there was an assimilation versus a conquest ... CoyoteMan31 (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That's quite interesting; of course, these days archaeologists tend to go for assimilation vs conquest until the evidence is solid. I'd be very interested if you could give me more details of the ceramic study - even if it is just the author... All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Still not published, unfortunately. I've been waiting several years, but the archaeologist is from Mexico, and folks from that country seem to take a looooong time. 22:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoyoteMan31 (talk • contribs)

Maya god K'awiil

Seems that user Ermahgerd9 reverted my edit on The Chichen Itza page, in wich i added a link to the Maya god K'awiil. "Kauil" is another form of writing K'awiil, as stated in this wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Maya_gods_and_supernatural_beings so i think this edition is erroneous. Soparamens (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chichen Itza. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.elasticcreative.com/stream/meso/CAA21/chapter1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011181420/http://aaanet.org/press/an/infocus/Heritage_In_Focus/Castaneda.htm to http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/infocus/Heritage_In_Focus/Castaneda.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not what it says at all

From the Decline section:

While there is some archaeological evidence that indicates Chichén Itzá was at one time looted and sacked, there appears to be greater evidence that it could not have been by Mayapan, at least not when Chichén Itzá was an active urban center. Archaeological data now indicates that Chichen Itza declined as a regional center by 1250, before the rise of Mayapan.

Here's the relevant portion of the source it cites at the end:

Mayapan is traditionally thought to have seen its major settlement from a.d. 1200 or 1250 to 1450, but the beginning date is uncertain (Brown 2001). Some archaeologists are now willing to entertain a date 100 or 150 years earlier. This view results in part from the inability of excavators and ceramicists to demonstrate that the Hocaba and Tases ceramic complexes at Mayapan (Smith 1971) characterize separate and sequential phases. The appearance of Hocaba pottery (Peto Cream Ware) at the end of the Chichen Itza sequence, therefore, suggests that the rise of Mayapan follows the decline of Chichen Itza by only a short interval.

— Anthony P. Andrews et al., The Northern Maya Collapse and its Aftermath

As you can see the source has been quite misinterpreted. All this is saying is that Mayapan is seen to arise sometime around 1100 or 1050 and that this is not long after Chichen Itza's political decline c. 1000 AD. --TangoFett (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2018

My request is to change Chichen Itza to Chichén Itzá for the correct name has the line thingy (′) above the e in Chichén and the a in Itzá My request is to change Chichen Itza to Chichén Itzá for the correct name has the line thingy (′) above the e in Chichén and the a in Itzá My request is to change Chichen Itza to Chichén Itzá for the correct name has the line thingy (′) above the e in Chichén and the a in Itzá Ericthemaster11 (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong venue for this; please submit a requested move instead. ToThAc (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Note that since Maya languages do not have accented vowels, Maya articles don't use the Spanish-language accenting. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Spacegamer09 (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

please let me edit this page for a vid I will change it back after promise Spacegamer09 (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. You can alternatively edit another article that is not semi protected. Danski454 (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

"Chichén wierd" or "Chichen Itza"?

I generally appreciate the work people have been doing about changing and moving Spanish language terms and articles to their properly accented forms. However, I'm much less enthusiastic about the changing of Mesoamerican names to such forms, especially in the case of Maya language names. The accenting of sylables has generally consistent rules in Maya, they are just different from those in Spanish. I think I had it right in my earlier version of the article when I named the site "Chichen Itza (Chichén Itzá in the Spanish language)". The site needs no special accent marks in Maya and is more often than not without them in English language print. I note that the Corpus of Maya Inscriptions, in both English and Spanish text, as official policy does not use the Spanish style accent marks for Maya names. I suggest we adopt a similar policy. I am therefore tempted to move this article back to Chichen Itza... but wish for others interested to discuss this matter before making a decision. -- Infrogmation 15:59, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For the reasons above, I will move the article back to Chichen Itza in a few days if there are no objections. -- Infrogmation 16:31, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am no expert, but your scheme makes sense to me, so in absence of more authoritative reply, I would say go ahead. Perhaps you could add the above explanation to a help page like Wikipedia: Naming conventions for future reference. -- Viajero

I mentioned it on Wikipedia talk: Naming conventions. -- Infrogmation 21:55, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think you're right, too. The next step would be to tackle Cuauhtémoc, Cuitláhuac, et al., which don't really need accents in English, either. Following that through to its logical conclusion, you'd have the monument to Cuauhtemoc in Cuauhtémoc, Chihuahua, and the Teotihuacan pyramids in Teotihuacán municipality. It's a fair amount of work, but logically coherent. – Hajor 19:56, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Some of those I think may well be more problematic. I'd like to just argue for Maya ruins with Maya names at present. I'm not familiar enough with other Mesoamerican native languages to suggest any policy on non-Maya names. -- Infrogmation 21:55, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. You don't get an English name by removing the accents. And the Mayas themselves obviously had an entirely different script, which we can hardly use here. The original transcription is in Spanish, and that's what we have to use. There is no separate English version. I don't see any reason for a different treatment of Cuauhtémoc and Cuauhtémoc, Chihuahua. --Wik 20:33, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

I am not arguing for Cuauhtémoc etc, which may well be a different case. More narrowly, I would like to forgo accent marks for Maya ruins with Maya names, however. Maya is still a living language in everyday use and has been written in Latin characters since the 16th century. As to English, I see "Chichen Itza", "Chichen-Itza" and "Chichen" in the earliest published descriptions. "Chichen Itza" has been more common in English language publications, including scholarly ones, since (although I certainly conceed that there is a notable minority that uses the Spanish style "Chichén Itzá"). The Corpus of Maya Inscriptions is the standard modern scholarly work referred to by students of the Pre-Columbian Maya; I think their policy of adhering to Spanish language accenting rules for Spanish language names and Maya language rules for Maya language names makes sense. Also, I note in a google search (no language preferences), "Chichen Itza" gets 102,000 hits, while "Chichén Itzá" gets 19,500 hits. Do you object to my proposed move in this specific case of Chichén/Chichen? Cheers, -- Infrogmation 21:31, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It goes for just about any accented place name that a Google search will find more hits without accents since most people writing in English simply ignore all diacritics, but that is not what we do here. However, if it's written without accents in modern Maya language, it might be acceptable. --Wik 22:24, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for having confused the issue with Nahuatl personal names when we were talking about Maya place names. I'll have to agree to disagree with Wik about Cuauhtémoc – the diacritical on that word is a Spanish one, to help the pronunciation in Spanish; it's not a Nahuatl one (which, after all, doesn't use diacritics when written in Latin characters), and it certainly doesn't help in any way in English. Just because the name entered other European languages by means of a Spanish adaptation ("Cuauhtémoc" from "Cuauhtemotzin", wasn't it?) doesn't mean that en, fr, de and the rest should observe the rules of Spanish orthography. But I'm digressing, and I know from past experience that I'm in a minority on this point... Infrogmation, I agree with the page move. –Hajor 03:09, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that the move is a good one. One needs to consider the purpose of accents in Spanish. They let the reader know that the stressed syllable is not where we would expect it. Without the accent the tendency for both English and Spanish speakers would be to pronounce "Chichen" with a stress on the first syllable. The accent is an aid to pronunciation. ☮ Eclecticology 10:22, 2004 Jan 21 (UTC)

I'm moving it back to "Chichen Itza". I mention "Chichén Itzá" in the first sentence of the text. -- Infrogmation 23:44, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I guess I thought I was putting in the Spanish name with proper accents, and patting myself on the back to boot! But it looks like you're looking at the ruins in terms of its Mayan origins. Is that why you don't care for the Spanish accents? (In any case, I bow to your superior expertise; I'm just asking ... :-) --Uncle Ed 14:31, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You were correct Ed, but it's hard to confront the forces of ignorant anglocentrism. They seem to have made a stand on this item but if you look at the links in Yucatán (sic!) they are terribly inconsistent. Eclecticology 17:21, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

"Ignorant anglocentrism"? I thought it was an anti-imperial indigenist stance we were taking. –Hajor 18:20, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Heh, I wasn't trying to promote any particular lingistic-centric adgenda. I thought the standard of the scholarly reference work Corpus of Maya Heiroglyphic Inscriptions that Spanish language names of Maya sites should be rendered as in Spanish and Maya language names of Maya sites should be rendered as in Maya made sense. -- Infrogmation 18:39, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I wish I knew who you were trying to insult, so we could fight about this! Who are you calling sic anyway, you Chichen?! ;-) (Get it? "It's a chicken" = "Chichen Itza", Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!). --Uncle Ed 18:57, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A (obvious?) question: where does the stress fall in Maya? (on this name in particular and/or in the language in general.) A related point: I've regularly heard people in central Mexico make a (self-conscious? affected?) effort to pronounce "TeotihuAcan", "TenonchtItlan", etc. -- presumably to get away from the imposed foreign forms. –Hajor

The stress is usually on the last syllable of words in Maya. I don't know about Nahautl. -- Infrogmation 02:07, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So "Chichén" is a faithful representation of the indigenous pronunciation, then. OK. Re Nahuatl (which I do seem to insist on dragging in to these discussions on things Maya) -- I looked it up this afternoon: stress there is generally penultimate in most dialects. Fwiw. –Hajor 02:37, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about the lame humor. It's Friday, and it's been a rough week... --Uncle Ed 19:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps I should never have entered this debate! Going more deeply into it only makes it more confusing! In the notes to the introduction to the Corpus cited above Graham states his position: "In choosing between alternative names and spellings, preference has usually been given to the more commonly accepted form, rather than versions that might be pedantically correct. ... Accents have been omitted from all Maya place names." (p. 1:11) Or later in the Spanish version: "Al escoger enter nombres alternativos o la mejor ortografía, usualmente se ha dado preferencia a la forma màs comúnmente aceptada, en lugar de las versiones que pudieren ser pedantemente correctas. ... Los acentos han sido omitidos en todos los nombres de lugares mayas." (p. 1:19) Graham omits the accents from "Chichen Itza" in both language versions. He does, however, retain the accent in the Spanish for "Petén", but does not retain it in English.

To say that we retain the accents because it is the "Spanish" version is misleading. The accents are an aid to pronunciation to both the English and the Spanish speaker; they do not somehow make the accented version into the Spanish one. The Oxford Style Manual in its "Dictionary for Editors" section does use the accented version of "Chichén Itzá"; the "Chicago Manual of Style" avoids the issue entirely. There is perhaps a need to develop some consistency around this issue, rather than just dealing with it one title at a time.

So, I'm not going to insist that we return to the accented version for the title, but I will continue to object that the accents somehow make it a Spanish language version. Eclecticology 20:22, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and your edits. I appreciate your work to make it clearer and more susinct, but the last one looked to me like it was giving the mistaken impression that Maya uses the accented version, hence my most recent edit. -- Infrogmation 02:07, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate to conjecture about how the Mayans would write the name. To say that original Mayan was unaccented clouds the issue. The accentuation was there whether it was written or not. To say that the letters in question are written without diacritics in modern Mayan languages may be a little more accurate, but I don't feel comfortable making that assertion without knowing more about the orthography of these 30 or so languages in general. To say that the original Maya was written that way is ridiculous since latin letters were not used in these languages until after these people were occupied by their Spanish or English invaders. Yucatac is the Mayan language for the area in question, and it may very well write the name without diacritics, but one site [11] also suggests that the name is written Chitzen-Itza, but even I don't suggest that we go in that direction. In another site [12] I find "Though Yucatec, unlike Itzá, has been extensively studied and many dictionaries exist for it, none are complete enough to meet scholars' needs. Some don't include grammatical analyses; others omit usage examples or Spanish definitions; and still others don't adequately record vowel tone, which is crucial in Yucatec. Like Vietnamese, it is a tonal language: the same word may have two very different meanings depending on whether the vowel has a high or low tone."

So let's agree to the name without diacritics, but at the same time let's not go so far overboard in our justifications that we pretend to know how the Yucatec write something - and that without even reviewing the other Mayan languages. Eclecticology 05:26, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

"It would be inappropriate to conjecture about how the Mayans would write the name." I suspect you are making a false assumption here. The Maya language is very much alive in the Yucatán, both written and spoken. In some places signs are written in it. As I mentioned here earlier, it has been written in Latin characters since the 16th century. Accent marks generally point out exceptions-- when the accent falls some where other than would be expected by the normal rules of the language. In "Chichen Itza" it falls on the last sylable of each word, as would be expected in Maya, so no accent is needed. This was and is how the name has been written in Yucatec Maya. -- Infrogmation 18:55, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

User:Eclecticology just deleted my text in the article saying "It is not accented in the original Maya language (still spoken in the area)." with the comment "(We can't presume about how it was written)". I don't understand this edit. Are you under the mistaken impression that Maya is not written? What do you mean? Puzzled, -- Infrogmation 04:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict when I went to post the above, but I think that what I said would answer your question. Eclecticology 05:30, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

I've just taken a stab at a new wording. Perhaps we needed to stress it is the methods for transliteratiing Maya into western ABCs that don't use accents? –Hajor 05:29, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your edit presumes that there is a "standard" orthography. What is the source for that? Which of the 30 Maya languages are you referring to? The term transliteration does not apply either; it is only relevant when you are attempting to represent one alphabetically or syllabicly written language into another. Original written Maya was a hieroglyphic language. Eclecticology 05:46, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

Ok. (1) For "transliteration" read "transcription"; sorry to have confused the terms. (2) Which of the 30? I'd assumed Yucateco, which is the dominant form in the entire peninsula -- fortunately much more linguistically homogeneous than the patchwork you get in the highlands of Chiapas or Guatemala. (3) Standard transcribed orthography? The one I've most often seen, in govt-issue Maya-language schoolbooks and on signposts at archaeological sites in Mexico -- which does feature plenty of apostrophes and acute accents, but only on doubled vowels (and I have no idea if that's a stress mark or indicates something entirely different). I can't find any SEP or INAH materials on the web, but here's the UDHR in that same transcription scheme: [13]. I've always seen that as the standard method for transcribing peninsular Maya, but I readily admit that I have no idea what approach is used in other parts. –Hajor 17:53, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good! I think we have an understanding on (1). For (2) I also accept that Yucateco is the modern Mayan language that applies to the area. Still, to say that it is the same as the original language requires quite a leap.

It's (3) that's the problem. The link that you give (for which I thank you) also has versions in Q'echi and K'iche' which are also Mayan languages. The apostrophes are glottal stops, but I see nothing to explain how the accents are used. A deeper study of the linguistics of the language would be required to determine whether a standard even exists, and that is clearly beyond what we can expect for Wikipedia. The second of the citations in my previous post points to the problem. How can we honestly say that anything is standard when no standard exists? Eclecticology 18:37, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

And Tzotzil, Tzeltal, Tojol, Cakchiquel, Mam, and two versions of Huasteco. But I think Infrogmation makes a good point with what he says below: there is a tendency to use "Maya" restrictively to refer to the Yucatec(o) variety. Perhaps we do need to be more precise with our terminology. When talking about "a standard for govt-issue Maya-language" texts, I meant Maya-Yucateco. –Hajor 19:22, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yucatec Maya is the dialect throughout the Yucatán peninsula. It is the largest of the Maya languages; it is called "Yucatec Maya" by linguists but is known to its speakers and Yucatecos in general simply as "Maya". -- Infrogmation 18:57, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey all, I know this is a two-year-old debate, but I just got around to reading it. I studied and I speak Yucatec Maya (although I'm a gringo). I'm not going to come down on any side of any issue here, just clarify some points. The language in Yucatan is technically just "Maya". Every Yucatecan speaker of the language calls it "Maya". However, there are other "Mayan" languages (Quiche, Kanjobal, Kekchi, etc. - dozens of them). So, modern researchers often use the term "Yucatec Maya" to signify that they mean "Maya as spoken in Yucatan". As for the accents on syllables. Everyone is correct, but none are correct. The words would be spelled without accents in English, however the lack of accents often lead to poor pronounciation for English speakers (sounding like Chicken Pizza). The Maya would actually spell it Chi Ch'en (so the accent is really on the CH, which neither Spanish nor English orthographies use - it's a very hard CH created by a more forceful stop of the airflow on your upper pallate with your tongue). In Maya, the sounds CH and CH' are different consonants and can change the meaning of a word. So, like I said, everyone is right, yet no one is right. You just have to pick a standardization and stick with it. HOWEVER, please note that anyone who uses the "K" excessively (such as "Yukatan" or "Yukatek") is calling for a radical revision of the orthography that is not widely accepted. This arose largely out of a native language movement in Guatemala, and should not be applied to Yucatec Maya at this time, especially in a general-content format like Wikipedia. Chunchucmil 03:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Accenting cannot be technically correct, since there weren't apostrophes in Yucatecan Maya; I agree with Chunchucmil, but we should probably stick to the spelling that is used currently by local government (Chichén Itzá). Let's forget the imperial this and that--e.g. calling Myanmar Burma--as it is irrelevant to the actual spelling and pronounciation used today. Also, accenting will, as discussed above, help people with pronounciation from 'chi-chin' to 'chee-chen'.

On a side comment, this is an awfully long thread without a satisfying resolution in 6 years!Apothecia (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(((I just put my comment in incorrect section. Can someone erase it from images please.))) Here is the comment and I did make a change.

Auf Wiedersehen to the old good Chichén Itzá. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.147.179.73 (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even finish reading all the comments. Just want to put my two cents in. I went to Mexico in 1968 or 1969 (I cannot remember) and I have pamphlets about Chichen Itza. They had accents on the last syllables and verbally pronounced it to me as Chi CHEN It ZA. I believe we should put the accents on it so that people can learn to pronounce it correctly. I think the pronounciation of it as CHI chen IT za possibly was from the travel industry. Just my humble opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.87.217 (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi anon 71.132.87.217, your duplicate message is removed. If you read through the first section in the article on name and orthography, you'll see it gives a reasonably detailed account of the pronunciation and orthographical variants. Folks reading through that should be able to get a handle on it, I don't think putting the accents on it (which are only a requirement of spanish spelling/orthographical conventions, not mayan nor english) throughout would add anything to that. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Chicken Pizza"? the mayan language sound a lot like a chinese name. The words are broken down into syllables. I heard the name pronounces as something close to you saying chicken pizza with no space in the middle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.106.240.164 (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The word Itza or Itsa is an ancient Athabaskin word. It means eagle.However as far as conjugation, it may be Ne or n' which means "yours" or "of you". I doubt that it is N'itsa and is properly itsa. What is the take away from this? The translation becomes The mouth of the well of the feathered-being. It may be derivative of the feathered serpent which would make sense. Possibly it is "mouth of the feathered serpent". The monuments are not dedicated to a faction, they are dedicated to the symbol of the being "Feathered Serpent". Tredcloud (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The fact that it coincides with an Athabaskin word is irrelevant in a Maya context... The cultures are far removed. It's a bit like arguing for "red" in English meaning something in a Spanish sentence where "red" means "net", pure coincidence without any linguistic relationship. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Link rot

Please add this. Thanks.

Too Soon?

An edit done in good faith does not belong on the page, at least for now. I'm copying the text here to point out the issues: "A cave system known as Balamkú (English: Jaguar God), first discovered 50 years ago, was rediscovered in March 2019. [It was not rediscovered. The cave was well known, and published on official maps]

Long forgotten, [The cave was never forgotten.]

155 ceramic incense burners, as well as clay boxes and other vessels, have been discovered. [The artifacts were discovered 50 years ago]

November 2019 findings by archaeologist Guillermo de Anda, who leads the Gran Acuífero Maya project, indicate the city may have been founded 400 or more years earlier than previously believed, i.e. in about 100 CE, rather than between 525 and 1100 CE. [The charcoal that was radiocarboned is from another cave, Balankanche. As human habitation on the Yucatan Peninsula has been traced back 12,000 years (oldest in the Americas), finding traces of human habitation in a cave is not proof of settlement. These findings will be discussed this week, and perhaps, after peer review and once published in a journal, the timeline may change. But for now, it's speculation.]CoyoteMan31 (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

References