Talk:Maya civilization

I cut the phrase from the description of stelae saying they listed "tribute payments due from various conquered regions". I'm unfamiliar with any Maya stelae which include tribute lists, but I certainly don't pretend I've kept up with all the advances in decyphering the texts in recent years. If someone can give a source/example, I'll be happy to put that phrase back in. -- Infrogmation 23:34 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

---

Just to note: I've moved this back here from Maya civilization in repsonse to a request to do so - it shouldn't be taken as a sign that I think this is a more correct name than "Maya..." --Camembert

I wasn't a party to the move and move back, but I'd prefer the article be at Maya civilization. Any objection to my putting it back there? -- Infrogmation 16:23, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Second, I think it belongs under Maya. -- Viajero 17:25, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Page moved from "Mayan civilization" to "Maya civilization". I've been directing some links to Maya people, now a redirect, because I plan to make that a seperate article in the future. -- Infrogmation 05:19, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Maya people

I finally got around to making a rough start at the Maya people article. -- Infrogmation 16:17, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Writing systems

Sorry if I'm not doing this properly. Anyway, I was wondering if there is a list of pre-Colombian native languages which had some form of a writing system. Thanks. JM

Most of the people of Mesoamerica had some system of writing in Pre-Columbian times, but most others relied heavily on pictograms and ideograms; the Maya system seems to have been the only one that could fully represent any word or sentence of a language in the way that the classic Old World writing systems do. IMO it is one of the mysteries of history why it didn't become more wide spread. -- Infrogmation 21:28, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Priority of invention of zero

I cut this text concerning the invention of zero:

(indeed, they seem to have been using the concept centuries before the Old World)

since I think this is wrong. Searching the web, I find this claim:

The oldest Maya artifact employing both positional notation and a zero is Pestac, Stela 1, with a contemporaneous date of Feb. 8, AD 665. The oldest Maya artifacts employing a zero but not positional notation are Uaxactun, Stelae 18 and 19, with a contemporaneous date of AD 357. The oldest Maya artifact employing the same chronological system as in the previous cases but without a zero and without positional notation is Tikal, Stela 29, with a contemporaneous date of July 8, AD 292 (Michael Closs). [1]

whereas Babylonians had been using a symbol for zero from perhaps the 3rd century BC. Of course the Mayans or their predecessors were certainly using their notation for some before the earliest extant inscription, so they may have got there before the Babylonians but I think it would be better encyclopedic practice just to give the known facts. Gdr 13:14, 2004 May 14 (UTC)

Hm. I know zero was in common use by at least the early 1st century, probably earlier. The earliest Maya or Olmec long count inscription can be taken to show that zero was being used since it's inherent in that calendar's place value numeral system. Zero at least seems to have been in common use by the Mesoamerican civilizations before it was in common use in Europe, Egypt, or apparently even India. So what ever happened to the Babylonian zero? Did it not catch on for some reason? -- Infrogmation 21:45, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

The idea of zero being "inherent" in a "place value numeral system" is a very modern way of looking at this issue, with all the advantages of hindsight. But in history it seems that there were big leaps from having a place value system to recognizing that empty columns need to have an entry, to treating that entry as a number rather than the absence of a number. That's why the article I quoted is careful to distinguish place value system from place value system with zero.

Having said that, I find in the same article the quote

According to Milo Gardner, Mesoamericans used a fully positional base 4, 5 system, with zero as a place holder, counting 0-19, as early as 1,000 BC.

which would give priority to the Olmec (not the Maya). Gdr 13:44, 2004 May 16 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting reply. It might be best to talk about an early independent development of zero by the high cultures of Mesoamerica, rather than attributing them to a specific culture (beyond mentioning whatever the eariest relevent artifacts currently known to archeologists). 20 years ago I think giving priority to the Olmecs would been a reasonable assumption, but recent discoveries are finding ever more sophistication amoung the early Maya of the Pre-Classic contemporary with the Olmec. The Pre-Classic Zapotec were using zero too.-- Infrogmation 16:03, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Statue photo

Hey! I just noticed a rather serious, in my opinion, problem with this page. The picture of the statues from Mexico City that are supposedly of the Maya is actually a memorial to the foundation of Tenochtitlán by the Aztecs. I have removed the image. Micah 14 May, 2004

I was wondering. I didn't really think the statue photo added much of anything to the article. -- Infrogmation 21:45, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Omissions from significant site list?

I just came back from a visit to the Caribbean, where we visited the ancient Mayan sites of Dzibanché and Kohunlich. They're not listed among the significant Mayan sites; was that an accidental omission or a deliberate one? If the former, may I add them? If the latter, what was the reason for omitting them? --Jay (Histrion) 20:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Those sites (and a number of others) are I believe significant enough that we could have articles on them. Their absense is more a reflection of our still very incomplete coverage of the topic than any editorial decision. Feel free to add them. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

use of the word "pyramid" to describe Mayan temples

I noticed that infrogmation didn't like my note about use of the word "pyramid" to describe the Mayan temple structures. I just returned from a trip to that region and heard from a local that the Mayan take issue with "pyramid." Is that not true? Perhaps a better word is "ziggurat?"

Something like "temple platforms" may be a more technically accurate description for the structures. I removed the added text "Note that many Mayans take offense at the use of the word "pyramid" to describe these temples. They point out that (a) the Pyramids are in Egypt and (b) these structures are technically not shaped like a pyramid; they are simply a series of platforms topped by a small rectangular structure." as I doubted "many Mayans take offense" at the word; if you found that so, perhaps this is a development in recent years. Perhaps we could work on a better wording of the point? Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

more culture

Hey! I think it would be awesome if someone was able to add more about the current mayan culture such as marriages and dating or things like that, which would show how the still-present myans live.

thanks! Alex.

I agree, we could use more on such subjects. However info on the modern Maya should be at the Maya people article. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Important sites

I reverted the moving of Joya de Cerén to the "Most important sites" heading. Joya de Cerén (which we still need an article on) is important archeologically since it was unusually well preserved by volcanic eruption, but it was a small farming town of no particular note in its day. All the other sites on that part of the list are also unusually great both in size and of political importance in pre-Columbian history. -- Infrogmation 17:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maya vs Mayan

I know that the people are referred to, even in the plural, as the Maya. But, from looking at this article (and some of the others on related topics) I'm unclear on what the adjective form is supposed to be. I had thought it was Mayan, but it seems to mostly be Maya on these pages. The language page is still Mayan languages though. Beyond just wanting to know for myself, I think there needs to be a quick discussion of the appropriate forms somewhere either on Wikipedia or maybe Wiktionary (with a prominent link from relevant Wikipedia articles). What do the local Mayanists think? --Tox 08:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as academia is concerned (common usage is perhaps something else), the distinction between the two is that "Mayan" has conventionally been used by linguists, and thus is appropriate when referring to an aspect of language ("Mayan languages", "Proto-Mayan"). Everyone else (archaeologists, anthropologists, epigraphers, etc) are in the habit of using "Maya" (serving both as singular & plural) to describe their respective fields. Thus Maya hieroglyphics, Maya mythology, Maya architecture, etc etc. There's no particularly well-defined reason for this distinction, but it is almost universally observed in the field- at least judging from any survey of academic texts (and see for example, Note 1 of this reference which discusses the point). Outside of professional research, the man on the Clapham omnibus would probably more naturally feel that "Mayan" is the right adjective; however, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, IMO it would be best to follow the usage pattern which is observed in the references which are likely to be cited in the articles, to avoid possible confusion. This would also seem to be more "correct", although it is really no more "correct" than other grammatical conventions which are imperfectly observed, without impeding understanding.--cjllw | [[User talk:CJLL Wright|<small>TALK</small>]] 22:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, that explains where I got my terminology from. I'm an amateur linguist, and the only things I've read were on cracking the ancient Mayan language. It wasn't academic literature, so the author used Mayan for both the language name and as an adjective. It sounds like there's a real terminology showdown brewing, especially since language names are often the adjective form of a proper noun. Well, regardless, I'm an outsider on all things Maya, and I totally defer to the Mayanists on Wikipedia. I just hope that someone can write up a discussion of this somewhere on Wikipedia or at least list the variants on Wiktionary. Thanks for your answer, it definitely helped me understand the situation. --Tox 06:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No worries, Tox; and you are right, it would be useful to have a sentence or two somewhere in the relevant articles to highlight this distinction- if someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll see about addding something in the next day or so. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 22:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Issues

2 things. First, is it heavily debated what brought down the Maya? I've heard a snail was found in lake sediment that demo drought, the worst in 7KY as I recall, was prevalent & proximate cause; true? (I'm by N means expert.

Also, can somebody include pronounciations? The names & words are a bit tongue-twisting. Please, no IPA, it's gibberish to me (& doubtless many others), unless you can add an equivalent (like dictionaries do). OK? Gracias! Trekphiler 20:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent additions re Maya polities

The new passages on Maya polities, recently added by anon 24.61.41.158 (talk · contribs) are helpful and informative, but would be more so if the underlying reference source(s) are explicitly identified. Mayanists are not all in agreement as to the formation and character of Classic political entities, it would be useful therefore to identify which sources have been relied upon. Also, I'm not sure that the readings from the Naranjo texts have been so securely interpreted, or at least several of the readings are perhaps more tentative than indicated here. Again, it would help to know from which source these readings were obtained. In anticipation, --cjllw | TALK 06:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

New Age Numbers

Another issue is that someone has gotten all New Agey with the worship of circles and obsession with swasticas (which I've never seen and I know Maya--maybe they're talking about poop glyphs?) and bringing back the Carnegie "time and math worship" thing. Anyone else think that this should be deleted?

E-Groups?

Could someone please explain this to me? I've had a feeling that it might be vandalism, but it's been on the article for months.

Mik 03:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry, Mik, "E-group" is a valid type of Maya structure, documented at quite a few sites, mainly from the early classic period. It takes its name from a structure at the site of Uaxactun, designated as (by Morley, I think) Structure E-VII-sub (apart from a few well-known or prominent structures, most have been given rather prosaic names based on their numbering within a surveyed grid, or some other ennumerative schema). The structure at Uaxactun is believed to have been used as an astronomical observatory particularly for marking solar equinoxes; structures at other sites classified as of the E-group type have similar forms, and presumably had similar functions. See here for a description, and here's a link to an img of the original E-VII-sub structure. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 05:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

a big discrepancy

ok, there seems to be a total lack of consistency here. this article states that some writing about mayan women exists, in the following:

" Most surviving pre-Columbian Maya writing is from stelae and other stone inscriptions from Maya sites, many of which were already abandoned before the Spanish arrived. The inscriptions on the stelae mainly record the dynasties and wars of the sites' rulers. Also of note are the incriptions that reveal information about the lives of ancient Maya women. Much of the remainder of Maya hieroglyphics has been found on funeral pottery, most of which describes the afterlife. "

but the linked article Maya women seems to claim the complete oppoisite:

" Ancient Maya women had an important role in society: beyond just propagating culture through the bearing and raising of children, Maya women involved themselves in economic, governmental and farming activities. Yet the lives of women in ancient Mesoamerica were not well-documented: “of the three elite founding area tombs discovered to date within the Copan Acropolis," writes one scholar, "two contain the remains of women, and yet there is not a single reference to a woman in either known contemporary texts or later retrospective accounts of Early Classis events and personages at Copan.” "

maybe i have just completely misunderstood what is being stated, but it seems a contradiction to me. 204.95.67.67 05:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC) edited comment 204.95.67.67 05:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The discrepency is only apparent, but I can see where the perception has arisen. Historical female figures are indeed named in Maya inscriptions at a few different sites, generally as the mother or consort of a particular ruler, but also on a few occasions as rulers in their own right. The quote you mention from the Maya women article however is referring to inscriptions from only a single site, Copán. So, while explicit mention or naming of female personages at Copán may be lacking, they are present at some other sites. --cjllw | TALK 12:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What About the Chiapas Conflict?

I see the history does not seem to go beyonf the 1800's, can I mention the Zapatistas? -- 69.248.43.27 06:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can find evidence for the Zapatistas in Pre-Columbian times :-). Please look again for the seperate article on the modern Maya (which can use expansion). Cheers, -- Infrogmation 14:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation style

While this article contains much useful and valid information (as well as some areas in need of attention), it still needs to be marked-up with citations and references. Before going too far down that road however, we should determine up-front which of the various citation styles are best suited for the task. The contenders would be:

• the cite.php/<ref> footnoting feature,
• Harvard referencing, and the
• {{ref}}/{{note}} system.

My stated preference at the moment would be for the cite.php system, but each method has its benefits and annoyances. I'd be interested to hear of any others' opinions.--cjllw | TALK 04:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Check out the new Pre-Columbian templates

The original template is at Template:Pre-Columbian. The "new and improved" version is at Template:Pre-Columbian/Test.

Once we have a usable version of Template:Pre-Columbian/Test, we plan to move it into Template:Pre-Columbian and then insert it at the bottom of the Aztec, Maya civilization and Inca empire articles.

Discussion is at Template talk:Pre-Columbian. Please share any feedback and suggestions that you may have.

--Richard 19:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

re breaking up into sub-articles

I reverted the recent changes which cut out large topical sections of text to be placed into sub-articles, leaving behind only a "see main" pointer. Apart from noting that substantial changes such as those would be better placed if proposed, considered and discussed before they are made, I've some other concerns with that action at this point in time:

• While I agree that each of the topical areas in the article (as well as a few which are presently missing) are deserving of their own articles, I for one do not think that that was quite the way to go about it. This article needs to be able to stand up of its own accord, and by simply removing all mention of such significant topics such as architecture, writing, etc from the article renders it incomplete. If any topic in the article is to be covered in more detail on some (new or existing) subsidiary article, then at the very least it needs to be replaced with a considered and succinct summary, which then can point to the page where that material is discussed in more depth. Secondly, any such hiving-off of material into subsidiary articles will require some consideration as to how to structure the remainder of the article— otherwise, it looks and reads like huge chunks are missing from the article, and having a see main tag instead is no substitute. As it was, after those deletions we were left with an article which covered only origins-religion-decline-conquest-rediscovery; surely an unsatisfactory experience for the reader, who should not be required to go searching in subsidiary articles for any description of who they were, what they built, what they achieved, etc.
• I also have a few concerns with the groupings of topics selected for new, subsidiary articles. As a reader, I'd be surprised to find (when I eventually did find) that topics such as architecture and sites are sub-subsidiaries of the maya society article (but nowhere mentioned in the main maya civilization article, and that religion is not mentioned with society but is on the main article, etc. I realise that this is because they were not written that way, but that is rather the problem.

I reiterate that I think the goal (tidying up the article and expanding coverage in general) is worthwhile, but IMO we need to establish some sort of consensus and 'overall plan' first.--cjllw | TALK 02:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus and overall planning is good but so is "being bold". The key problem is that moving text to subsidiary articles is only half the task. The text being moved should be replaced with a concise summary of the key points in the text that has been moved. Usually, a first stab at this can be accomplished by using the first paragraph of each section. Piet should have done this but presumably he didn't have time to do it yet.

BTW, in the interim, I have condensed the "Architecture" section in this article a bit and added back the link to {{main|Maya architecture}}

--Richard 08:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

One more point, the overall plan can be seen at Template:Pre-Columbian/Test. Piet and I are not claiming that this structure is the "final word" but rather a first stab at bringing some order and consistency to the articles on the major pre-COlumbian civilizations.

--Richard 04:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So I see, but discussion on a template's talk page is easily missed. Still, no matter, and as per above I'm supportive of a sensible reorganisation for the article (and others in this vein as well); I appreciate the efforts being made in this direction, just so long as the remaining texts continue to make sense and cover all that they would be expected to cover.

I recognise the difficulties in trying to flesh out some consistency in a group of thematically-related articles, which would be challenging to achieve over a range of talk pages and the like. One method of coordinating such efforts between interested editors is to set up a WikiProject devoted to the task- this way, a common forum is provided away from article name- and talkspace where some strategy and action plan can be mapped out. >TALK 07:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remark that writing a short section at the appropriate place would have been more constructive than simply reverting the changes. The article as it is now is too long and unstructured, so the changes I initiated are still necessary. My apologies for not proposing it at the talk page, that was wrong. Piet 08:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right, Piet, and my reversion was perhaps a little precipitous. But, lacking at that point both the time to make any warranted alterations/repairs and any sign of whether there were any further intentions of "filling in the holes", I made a call to restore the status quo rather than leave it in that unfinished state. There is, I trust, no harm done either way, and I'm sure that an improved article (or series of articles) can result from the process in the end.--cjllw | TALK 12:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Mesoamerica

To this end (and since there is not another with the same scope), I've now created a bare-bones draft of just such a WikiProject :WikiProject Mesoamerica. I'm proposing a scope of Mesoamerica for now, mainly because it makes sense to treat the various Mesoamerican civilizations together since they share many common features and an intertwined history of several thousand years' standing; Mesoamerican studies is also a cohesive field in various academic disciplines. "Pre-Columbian" is omitted from the title partly because it is mostly implied anyway when the term Mesoamerica is used, and partly because the story of Mesoamerican peoples and their achievements does not stop in 1492. A project to encompass all pre-Columbian societies/civilizations could perhaps also be set up as a parent to this one, but might need some more rigorous definition if it is not actually to embrace all history and prehistory of the Americas.

You and any other interested party would be most welcome to transfer and continue any thoughts and scope/planning discussions you have to this WikiProject, as well as to work on building up other aspects of the project page, direction, definition, resources, etc. Cheers,--cjllw | TALK 07:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sort of OK with working together on WP:MESO and I think Piet would be OK with it also. However, I think that Piet and I have a slightly different vision. The context for this is that we started working together on Hernan Cortes and so we have more of a Spanish colonization of the Americas perspective than just a Mesoamerica perspective. When seen from a Spanish colonization of the Americas perspective, it makes more sense to talk about Pre-Columbian cultures than just Mesoamerican civilizations. This is the rationale behind the Pre-Columbian template and the Spanish colonization of the Americas template.

Thus, I would prefer to have a WikiProject called Pre-Columbian in addition to the one that you created for Mesoamerica. I will probably create one tomorrow.

In truth, the only real difference is that WP:MESO would focus on Aztec and Maya civilization whereas WP:Pre-Columbian would add [[Inca empire] as well.

Your thoughts on this are welcomed.

--Richard 08:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, my thoughts on proposed scope for WP:MESO would be for it to cover the full range of Mesoamerican peoples and their achievements and histories, including those who as yet have little representation in wikipedia, and those not necessarily described as 'civilisations'. I'd also see room in the scope to address some other areas beyond just pre-Columbian history and archaeology, and to get the fuller picture also consider aspects such as geography, environment, linguistics, sociology, and the field and history of Mesoamerican research itself. Something rather like in fact the scope mapped out by the volumes of the classic Handbook of Middle American Indians publications. It could also usefully extend to documenting the experiences and effects subsequent to European colonisation up to the present-day situation. So, while there are clearly synergies between the proposals, there may as you say be different perspectives and priorities. There's no reason not to have them both in some sort of complementary fashion; WP:pre-Columbian can parent WP:MESO as suggested even if there are some differences of scope.

I gather the intended scope for Pre-Columbian is to focus more on selected civilisations (however defined), than a general review of indigenous American societies pre-conquest? There is another project Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America which also has some of the same concepts (but more for contemporary than historical peoples), but none AFAIK looking at South American historical cultures.--cjllw | TALK 13:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Mesoamerican does not include the Carribean peoples either (I think). That would mean we would need three Wikiprojects to cover Meso/South/Carribean. I would prefer one. But that would mean we're splitting up these peoples along the current borderline between north and latin america, which may not make sense when looking at the historical situation before Europeans arrived. I don't really know. Anyway, starting a project seems like a very good idea. It will cost a bit of time at the beginning but our attempts at organizing more and more articles into a logical whole, has also shown the need for one central discussion point. I prefer the "pre-columbian" idea even though it is a Europe-centered view, because it has a wider scope. We could call it Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Central and South America. And make a shorter redirect of course :-). Piet 14:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

We also have to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups, which for some reason currently has nothing on South or Central American indigenous people. They probably focus on present-day groups. But I suppose they will have some guidelines that we could follow. Piet 14:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Piet that the "Pre-Columbian" approach is wider in scope. I don't think the Europe-centric criticism is much of an issue. The indigenous peoples of the Americas went though dramatic and radical changes as a result of the arrival of Europeans. AFAIK, none of the cultures have survived intact (except for a few tribes in the Amazon jungle and even those are rapidly shrinking and modernizing).

I like User:CJLL Wright's idea the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pre-Columbian could "parent" Wikipedia:WikiProject Mesoamerica. It could also "parent" Wikipedia:WikiProject Pre-Columbian Caribbean, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pre-Columbian South America and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pre-Columbian North America if there is interest in expanding and developing those areas. Frankly, these last three are outside my current area of interest. My main focus is on Mesoamerica but I want to provide linkages to the rest of Pre-Columbian cultures under "one big umbrella". There are some linkages based on the initial migration from Asia but the major linkage is through the European colonization of the Americas.

So, for now, let's stick with Wikipedia:WikiProject Mesoamerica and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pre-Columbian. We can create the other Wikiprojects if and when we run into other people who have an interest in those areas.

--Richard 16:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible approach, and WP:Pre-Columbian can serve as a broader strategy forum which can tie together WP:MESO and any other regional sub-projects which might like to be defined. WP:MESO and other potential subprojects would be the actual workspaces to hold the details of plans for article improvement in their particular field/region, while WP:Pre-Columbian would allow space for discussions, themes and guidelines which are inter-regional and provide any necessary coordination and consistency between regions.--cjllw | TALK 00:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

New Age Numbers

Another issue is that someone has gotten all New Agey with the worship of circles and obsession with swastikas (which I've never seen and I know Maya--maybe they're talking about poop glyphs?) and bringing back the Carnegie "time and math worship" thing. Anyone else think that this should be deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.211.225.78 (talk • contribs) 7 May 2006.

The so-called "swastika" motif might possibly as you suggest refer to one of the central elements in glyphs for the 'month' Pop, but it seems more likely a reference to elements in the Distance Number Introductory Glyph (T573), such as in the examples seen here. These have been nicknamed 'swastikas' on occasion by researchers (of course, without any suggestion that there is a relation with the designs known to Eurasia). There are also some motifs in Maya art and incised pottery design which might vaguely be said to be swastika-shaped (such as in Tajin-styled wares), but AFAIK no-one has ascribed any particular religious significance to these decorative elements. In any event, this motif does not have the 'religious symbol' role attributed to it in the text. Agreed it can go, unless there's some reference to the contrary.--cjllw | TALK 06:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sub-articles

What sections do people feel should have sub-articles? Do we need a "History of" or, given that this is already a historic civilization, should the main article be the History of? "Art of" or move "Architecture" to "Art and architecture"? Finally, with sub-articles created how long should the sections be here? The architecture section has been copied and pasted, and we should probably now reduce it, for example. Marskell 13:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)