Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Chetro Ketl/archive1

Tula

Maunus, without going into too much detail on the Tula point, which we discussed at length during the (PR), I can say that after asking Lekson about this specific issue today and supplying him with the diff of your above comments, he has affirmed my position and refuted yours. He's worked as an archeologist in the Southwest for more than 30 years, and he is as confused by your criticism as I am. He has recommended removing the mention of Tula, which is exactly the way I had it before you insisted during the PR that I include it. As I said then, Tula is not mentioned on any of the 355 pages of The Architecture and Dendrochronology of Chetro Ketl: Reports of the Chaco Center, Number 6, which is arguably the most comprehensive report on the architecture of Chetro Ketl that has ever been published. So to push for emphasis on it here is probably WP:UNDUE. Lekson's given me permission to quote his recent messages, BTW, but I won't do so unless you think it's necessary. Again, thanks a lot for your support, but I have to emphatically state that your assertion: "Toltec equals Inhabitant of Tula, therefore 'Detect a Toltec influence' equals 'Detect similarity with Tula'" is just plain wrong; at least according to Lekson, one of the world's leading authorities on Chaco Canyon and the American Southwest. RO^(talk) 21:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've now removed the mention of Tula ([1]), which, ironically, would seem to remediate both your concern that it's wrong to mention it at the end of the section and Lekson's concern that it shouldn't be mentioned at all. RO^(talk) 22:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesnt remediate the concern since the only reason anyone has ever suggested any mesoamerican influence at Chetro Ketl is (as fr as I can surmise) because there is a colonnade at Tula (and its sister city Chichen Itza where it was also first considered a sign of Toltec invasion, but now considered a sign of an expanding Quetzalcoatl cult). To get this right you need to let the reader understand why archeologists would suggest a Mesoamerican influence? If there is any other sign of Mesoamerican and or Toltec influence apart from the colonnade then you should mention that (Toltec style pottery? Any Quetzalcoatl images? etc.). Ask Lekson what the alleged evidence of Toltec influence has been and why it is considered to suggest a Mesoamerican influence. If he says the collonade ask him what is Mesoamerican about it. A better way perhaps to describe the problem with the section is that it does not allow the reader to understand what made anyone think of Mesoamerican influence, but just posits the theory and then rejects it without saying why anyone thought of it in the first place. But I am not going to spend more time arguing about this. With you or with Lekson by proxy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, try to read page 167 in Lekson, Windes and Fourniers "the changing faces of Chetro Ketl" (which incidentally mentions Tula 6 times). "From our perspective the analogy between the impressive collonaded halls with round columns and rectangular pilatsers found in Tula and the modest collonaded hall with pilaster like features in Chetro ketl remains valid. The parallels in certain aspects of architecture at Tula and Chaco Canyon, particularly the unique collonade at Chetro Ketl are probably attributable to the adoption of Mesoamerican symbols propitiated by merchants which were modified for the Southwest situation..." They then go on to discuss the possibility of a direct influence from Tula, which they reject positing instead an indirect connection through previous sites such as La Quemada and Altavista (from which they posit that Tula inherited some of its features, including the collonade). But the idea of "Toltec influence" comes directly from originally observed similarities between Chetro Ketl and Tula, Hidalgo. And this is what Lekson himself wrote. As for the meaning of "Toltec" in Mesoamerican archeology you may want to read Diehls[2] fine review of the concept and its history. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Diehls' 22-year-old piece might be "fine", but it's a cherry-pick, as lots of other RSs refute your position. Such as, "Toltecs, Tula Tollan or Toltecs can refer to one of two things: either the residents of the highland Mexican, Postclassic city of Tula and Tollan the home of Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl; or the residents of any number of urban centers that lived and died before the conquest. Residents of Teotihuacán, for example, were sometimes considered Toltecs."(Mesoamerican Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Heroes, Rituals, and Beliefs of Mexico and Central America. page 312. Oxford University Press, 2002) This is exactly what Lekson is saying. You say you've read Lekson, Windes and Fournier (2007), and take it as support for your argument, but I quote Lekson from a personal communication dated July 14, 2015: "Toltec is usually equated with Tula and its region. Colonnades were used at important buildings in many parts of Mesoamerica, not just Tula or the Toltec area [and] Maybe get rid of Di Peso/Vivian? He's not adding anything to what Ferdon said, and that sentence introduced Tula, which is a bit of a red herring; get rid of 'Tula, Hidalgo' in the last sentence, too. There were colonnades all over Mesoamerica in the PostClassic." RO^(talk) 15:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"Toltec is usually equated with Tula Hidalgo". Yes. And no Diehl is not a "cherry pick", he is the main expert and this is the main article argueing for even using "toltec" as an arhcoelogically valid concept which most people today reject. Taube and Miller are not using the archeological sense of the word but the ethnohistorical sense used by the colonial Nahuas who used the word about all past civilizations that left monumental architecture. I have tried to explain this but you are completely unable to see past your own stubbornness and actually learn something. You are not even reading what Lekson actually published and only tendentiously reading his personal communications to you here, since he clearly is not suggesting that Ferdons suggestion was not originally motivated by observing a similarity precisely to Tula. But honestly I have wasted enough time argueing this with you. You are clearly not interested in making the reader actually understand what the Mesoamerica argument is based on here. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The only reason the question of 'Toltecs' even comes up is because Tula, Hidalgo is the only other site with a similar colonnade. Not mentioning it but talking about Colonnades and Toltecs and Quetzalcoatl is very weird - and not very helpful to the reader. I've taken the liberty to add a sentence."·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC) ([3])

Maunus: "Tula, Hidalgo is the only other site with a similar colonnade" ([4]); Lekson, Windes, and Fournier: "Colonnaded halls ... predate Tula. Pilasters have been identified in residential compounds and palaces like ... Teotihuacán [and] Plazuelas".(2007, page 168); Lekson: "There were colonnades all over Mesoamerica in the PostClassic." (personal communication) RO^(talk) 16:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You are citing a personal communication by Lekson while I cited an actual publication by him where he explicitly compares it to Tulas colonnade, not all the other colonnades which allegedly exist. And yes there are some other colonnades (e.g. in Chichen Itza where it has ALSO been taken as a sign of influence from Tula, Hidalgo) but Chetro ketls collonade is being compared specifically to the one at Tula, and that is the reason any one has ever suggested "toltec influence" as opposed to just "Mesoamerican influence".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be operating under the assumption that there is a strong connection between Chaco and Tula that isn't being properly described here, but the whole theory has been seriously doubted since at least 1980. Here's ([5]) a great piece that looks at all the evidence in a systematic way and concludes basically the same things that the article and Lekson state. I.e., there is no direct Tula/Chaco connection in the first place, so this is a time waster on so many levels. Either you are seriously misapprehending Lekson et al (2007), or Lekson is changing his stance to refute you now. Doesn't that sound at least a little bit silly? RO^(talk) 17:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

No I am under no such assumption. Which anyone who had actually understood what I write here would realize. I know that the experts say that there is at best an indirect connection. I am talking about why Ferdon originally suggested Toltec influence (which archeologists did all the time back then, whereas today the term "toltec" is not even considered valid). The point is that YOU wrote that someone had suggested specifically "Toltec" influence and I am telling you that if you do that you have to say what that argument was based on. Yes you can cut Tula, but then you have to cut the Toltec mention as well and simply say what Lekson et al concludes - namely that there is an indication of a general Mesoamerican influence. But any mention of specifically Toltecs is motivated directly by the Tula colonnade. I do not trust you to represent my argument accurately nor Leksons and will not respond to any arguments based on your personal communications with him or anyone else.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

See below. I didn't "represent" your argument to Lekson. I supplied the diff of your exact words. During the PR, you said "Tula, Hidalgo is the only other site with a similar colonnade". Are you now admitting that you had that wrong? Did you not say "Toltec = inhabitant of Tula"? RO^(talk) 17:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are other colonnades, for example at Chichen Itza. I didnt think of the ones in northern Mesoamerica and neither did Ferdon - he specifically thought of Tula. And yes Toltec means inhabitant of Tula in the Nahuatl language. Nahuas called all major urban centers "Tula" (Tollan). In archeology "Toltec" traditionally means something like "Showing some affinity with Tula, Hidalgo" (which was traditionally seen as the center that dominated central mexico in the postclassic).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you can admit that you've made some erroneous statements during this debate. This all started from the fact that you wanted to add a topic sentences to the article that was not supported by the following source. That's Wikipedia 101, so you really should stop acting superior to everyone else, when you still haven't learned the basic premise of WP:VERIFY, which is one of our pillars. RO^(talk) 17:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I would be glad if I thought you actually appreciated the difference between erroneous and correct statements. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

FTR, this is the first thing Lekson said after reading your comments: "I'm not sure I get the point of the criticism ... Maybe get rid of Di Peso/Vivian? He's not adding anything to what Ferdon said, and that sentence introduced Tula, which is a bit of a red herring; get rid of 'Tula, Hidalgo' in the last sentence, too. There were colonnades all over Mesoamerica in the PostClassic." RO^(talk) 17:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Maunus: "But any mention of specifically Toltecs is motivated directly by the Tula colonnade."; Lekson: "that sentence introduced Tula, which is a bit of a red herring; get rid of 'Tula, Hidalgo' in the last sentence, too. There were colonnades all over Mesoamerica in the PostClassic". RO^(talk) 17:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes the other solution to the crappy paragraph is to get rid of all mentions of Tula and Toltecs and just stick to mentioning that some people have suggested that the colonnade is a sign of a general Mesoamerican influence - which is clearly the only conclusion being defended today. And add a topic sentence to the paragraph to make the prose less choppy and enable the reader to actually understand what is going on. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't add an unsourced topic sentence to a highly vetted article during FAC. You need to show some respect for the noms. RO^(talk) 18:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes I can. That is called improving poor writing which is part of the vetting process. Topic sentences are cited because they introduce the following cited sentences, without adding any information. You need to show some respect for the peers who are reviewing your noms.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This edit is not supported by the following citation ([6]), which is Vivian & Hilpert (2012). Have you read Vivian & Hilpert (2012)? RO^(talk) 18:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The next edit tweaked to take care of that by removing the mention of the colonnade specifically in the topic sentence. You reverted that as well on spurious grounds.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

But that was your last edit to the article, so there was no "next edit" ([7]). Vivian and Hilpert, page 266, says nothing about "a Quetzalcoatl cult which expanded in Mesoamerica". RO^(talk) 18:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

But Ferdon does, and he should be cited when he is mentioned by the way.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Not true. Vivian & Hilpert are a fine source for his views. Do you have a copy of Ferdon? If I buy one and it proves you wrong will you apologize? Here's a piece by Francis Joan Mathien about this issue ([8]). She talks about Ferdon's theory without once mentioning Tula: "[Ferdon] favored the concept of a pochteca-like group from the Toltec area entering the Southwest." Notice she said, "the Toltec area". RO^(talk) 19:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I just ordered a copy of Ferdon's monograph, because at this point there is no evidence whatsoever that he made a direct connection between the colonnade at Chetro Ketl and one at Tula. If I'm wrong I'll gladly apologize for not ordering a copy sooner, but if you are wrong will you admit that your topic sentence ([9]) was not only unsourced but also inaccurate? RO^(talk) 19:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not necessary because Lekson et al. explicitly say so and spend an entire page (167) discussing the possibility of direct influence from Tula, Hidalgo before they finally discount it. There is plenty of sources discussing this, you have just refused to let that influence your argument. The "Toltec area" = Tula.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As for you reading Ferdon what worries me is whether if you buy it and it proves you wrong, will you even realize it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack, and you want to claim some kind of moral/intellectual superiority. In his original notes, Lekson took no issue with my presentation of the Mesoamerican connection, and that's all I need to know that it was ok to begin with. RO^(talk) 20:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry but you do not get to personalize a dispute as shamelessly as you have done here and then whine at every personal remarks the other side makes. If you can dish it out you have to take it too.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you please show me a diff where I attacked you personally, because I don't think I did, Maunus. RO^(talk) 21:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Lekson's take on Tula and the Toltecs

Okay, here's what Maunus emailed Lekson, and here's Maunus giving me permission to post it here ([10]):

Dear Professor Lekson,

I am writing because I am engaged in the peer review process at Wikipedia where a user named RationalObserver has written a quite thorough overview of the archeological literature on Chetro ketl. She says she has corrresponded with you and is using quotes from emails from you as a kind of appeal to authority in a specific argument regarding the proposed Mesoamerican connections. She claims that you think that "I am misguided" in my critique of the way that she represents those arguments in the article, but I am not sure how exactly she has presented my argument to you.

My argument is basically that in the short paragraph on the proposed Mesoamerican connections she does not adequately show how the archeologists who have proposed this connection have reasoned. But simply represent them as disjointed claims, which leaves it hard for the reader to understand the argument (which is then subsequently rejected, based on your own excellent 2007 article).

What I claim is that that scholars who "detect a Toltec influence" do so because they consider the colonnade to be somehow reminescent of the well known feature of the Toltec capital Tula Hidalgo. (Sure there are other colonnades in Mesoamerica, but Ferdon and similar scholars are not argueing for influence from Chichen Itza or Altavista, or Casasgrandes - but instead they specifically working within the idea of a Toltec horizon where architectural and cultural ideologies spread from Tula hidalgo (which may iteself be a problematic idea))

Hence I argue for. 1. either a more coherent representation of the line of reasoning followed by the scholars who have proposed the Toltec connection, or for noting that the well known Tula colonnade probably motivated the proposal, or 2. simply leaving out entirely the idea of a specifically Toltec influence (neither mentioning Tula or Toltecs specifically) and simply write briefly that the colonnade has been considered a sign of Mesoamerican cultural influence as argued by yourself in 2007.

I hope this email is not unwelcome, I just felt it was weird to discuss with you by proxy, and was uncertain what elements of my argument were actually being relayed to you.

All the best,

User:Maunus

And here's Lekson's reply, which he gave me permission to post here:

I'm all for dropping Tula/Toltecs, and instead saying "from one or more sources in Postclassic Mesoamerica and West Mexico." Back in Ferdon's (1955) and Di Peso's (1974) day, Tula and the Toltecs were likely candidates because they were understood as an aggressive empire that united most of central Mexico and maybe even conquered Chichen Itza. It looks now like Tula & Toltecs were a big deal (but not that big), and there were plenty of other small "empires" or city states -- many of which had buildings with colonnades. In fact the earliest colonnades I know of are NOT in central Mexico, but at La Quemada in Durango. The form could have diffused from that part of Mexico both north and south. In "Changing Faces of Chetro Ketl" we refer to Tula a lot because Patricia Fournier was then working at Tula -- and that was the whole point: bring a Mexican archaeologist to Chaco (in 2000) who actually knew what she was looking at. (That didn't get published until 2007, for a variety of reasons). In my recent stuff (Chaco Meridian 1999 and 2015, History of the Ancient Southwest 2009, and others) I say "Postclassic Mesoamerica and West Mexico" -- in fact I talk more about Culiacan on the Pacific coast than Tula (as I recall). And all the cacao and macaws are making people reconsider the Gulf Coast, too, all the way down to the Maya. In short, people are looking at LOTS of possibilities in Mesoamerica, now that the early Postclassic is NOT all Tula and Toltecs.

At least now everyone can decide for themselves who was mistaken. RO^(talk) 20:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Short version: "My" version of the article from May 4 mentioned Toltec without mentioning Tula ([11]), then Maunus made this edit that inserted Tula ([12]) in front of a source that did not support that topic sentence. I reverted that edit and added the mention later in the section, where the following source did support it ([13]). Now it seems Lekson has suggested we not mention Tula or Toltecs at all. So, in hindsight, maybe both of us were wrong, Maunus. Can you accept that summation? RO^(talk) 22:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I dont really think that summarises it. And I also don't think that Lekson's sensible suggestion to avoid the problem altogether by simply cutting the reference to Tula or Toltec suggests that both of us were wrong. But it does provide a satisfying solution.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You wanted more Tula, but Lekson said less. RO^(talk) 16:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This was ultimately my fault for not consulting Ferdon's monograph. A good researcher would have done that, and Maunus told me during the PR to cite him directly. At the time I didn't see any libraries that had it available for interlibrary loan, and I didn't want to spend $25 on a long-debunked 38-page "book" for what I thought was a minor point. So I'm willing to take the blame, learn my lesson, and move on. But what if Ferdon did not make an explicit connection between the colonnades at Tula, Hidalgo and the one at Chetro Ketl? Stay tuned ... RO^(talk) 23:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If he did not, then Lekson, Windes and Fournier made that explicit connectionon his behalf in 2007...·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

But your topic sentence presented that as Ferdon's idea from his monograph ([14]), which may or may not be misrepresenting his work, which you haven't yet read (I suspect you've now ordered a copy). RO^(talk) 16:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

And you've contradicted yourself on this point, because you told me twice that I shouldn't use Vivian & Hilpert to source a claim from Ferdon's monograph (here and here), but now you're saying that you can do exactly that with Lekson, Windes, and Fournier. Maunus: [Lekson] clearly is not suggesting that Ferdons suggestion was not originally motivated by observing a similarity precisely to Tula ([15]), I didnt think of the ones in northern Mesoamerica and neither did Ferdon - he specifically thought of Tula. ([16]), Chetro ketls collonade is being compared specifically to the one at Tula, and that is the reason any one has ever suggested "toltec influence" as opposed to just "Mesoamerican influence". ([17]), What I claim is that that scholars who "detect a Toltec influence" do so because they consider the colonnade to be somehow reminescent of the well known feature of the Toltec capital Tula Hidalgo. (see above). Lekson: It looks now like Tula & Toltecs were a big deal (but not that big), and there were plenty of other small "empires" or city states -- many of which had buildings with colonnades. In fact the earliest colonnades I know of are NOT in central Mexico, but at La Quemada in Durango. The form could have diffused from that part of Mexico both north and south ... [remove the] sentence [that] introduced Tula, which is a bit of a red herring; get rid of 'Tula, Hidalgo' in the last sentence, too. Maunus: The only reason the question of "Toltecs" even comes up is because Tula, Hidalgo is the only other site with a similar colonnade.([18]). Lekson: There were colonnades all over Mesoamerica in the PostClassic. RO: "I just meant that the Mesoamerican connection is mentioned, but if you are specifically talking about a direct connection with Tula, I would say that Lekson, Windes, and Fournier, say in "The Changing Faces of Chetro Ketl" from The Architecture of Chaco Canyon, "we conclude that the Chetro Ketl colonnade is a local architectural interpretation of Mexican models". They think Mesoamerica influenced northern Mexico, and Northern Mexico influenced Chaco Canyon, which I have included as a quote. I can add more background detail about the theory, but the academic consensus is currently represented." ([19]) RO^(talk) 00:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

What Ferdon actually said

I got my copy of Ferdon (1955) today, and here are some interesting takeaways:

1. Ferdon writes, "In Mexico there are both round and square, or rectangular, columns ... the square column is found earliest at Teotihuacán ... Of most importance to our problem, however, is the use of columns as a fronting device for galleries. As far as we now know, their presence in Meso-America is pretty much limited to Chichen Itza and a few other Mayan sites of the northern Yucatan. There, notably at the former site, they are found only in buildings of Toltec-Chichen; i.e., buildings of Toltec Mexican influence. Various excavations at Teotihuacán have not disclosed this building type, and the excavations at Tula de Hidalgo have not proceeded far enough to be sure whether or not this feature exists there." Ferdon goes on to say that "it seems highly probably that, in time, it will be found at Tula de Hidalgo, or a site comparable in age and culture to it", but at the time of writing (1955) there was no direct example of "the use of columns as a fronting device for galleries" at Tula.(Ferdon, 1955, page 5)
2. Ferdon quickly shifts the focus away from columns and towards platforms, compounds, multi-walled structures, and round towers. He states: "Circular religious buildings have survived, so far as archeological evidence goes, only at Chichen Itza and Mayapan in Yucatan, where the trait arrived along with other evidences of Mexican influence, and at Cempoala on the coast and Malinalco in the highlands of Mexico."(Ferdon, 1955, page 11) Ferdon makes no direct connection to Tula and round towers, but several direct connections with sites other than Tula and round towers. It is here that he introduces the Quetzalcoatl cults as possible influences, but on the round towers and multi-walled structures only, not columns. He makes a direct comparison between the round tower at Chetro Ketl and structures at Malinalco, with no specific mention of Tula.(Ferdon, 1955, page 12) He also clarifies that the influence might have come from "part of the Quetzalcoatl complex", or "as fragments of the greater Mexican religious pattern of which Quetzalcoatl was but a part."(Ferdon, 1955, page 12)
3. At the bottom of page 12 Ferdon stops talking about Chaco Canyon and starts discussion of Mexican influence on the Hohokam during the post-Chaco period; i.e., 1250 to 1400. This discussion centers on similarities between Casas Grande in northern Mexico and the Hohokam house mound, with no mention of Tula or Toltecs except to make clear that a mound/pyramid at Teotihuacán predates Tula, and sometime after Tula collapsed another was built at Tenochtitlan. On page 19 he states that the Hohokam platform-mound is similar to those found during "Tula de Hidalgo times and later", but he seems to conclude that these mounds were a type of transitional architecture that fall somewhere in between Tula and Tenochtitlan. "In other words, a somewhat post-Toltec type is indicated."(Ferdon, 1955, page 14)
4. On page 20 Ferdon writes, "Any attempt to compare the domestic architecture of the Southwest to the Valley of Mexico is doomed to the barest generalities, owing to the lack of interest in such sites in Mexico."
5. On page 26 Ferdon clarifies that the influence need not come from central Mexico: "It is not necessary that such an expedition initiate its trek in the Valley of Mexico", owing mostly to the great distance they would have had to travel (more than one thousand miles). In fact, he concludes that "present evidence points to La Quemada and its environs as being the northernmost outpost of clearly recognizable central Mexican affiliation." He qualifies the point by noting similar Mexican architectural elements at Chalchihuites and Durango, in northern Mexico.
6. On page 23 Ferdon appears to make a direct connection; he says "Since the Mexican architectural features at Chichen Itza show greatest similarities to those at Tula de Hidalgo ... it seems possible that the origin of these Southwestern traits may be assigned to the Tula-Mazapan horizon. If this is the case, it could mean that these introductions were made by the Toltecs, or people strongly influenced by them." But he has focused primarily on Hohokam platform mounds and compounds, and his comment on page 5 would seem to dispel the notion that a specific colonnade at Tula influenced the one at Chetro Ketl: "the excavations at Tula de Hidalgo have not proceeded far enough to be sure whether or not [columns as a fronting device for galleries] exist there."(Ferdon, 1955, page 5)

The main crux of Maunus' argument has been that Ferdon was connecting the colonnade at Chetro Ketl to a specific colonnade at Tula, Hidalgo: [Lekson] clearly is not suggesting that Ferdons suggestion was not originally motivated by observing a similarity precisely to Tula([20]); I didnt think of the ones in northern Mesoamerica and neither did Ferdon - he specifically thought of Tula.([21]); Chetro ketls collonade is being compared specifically to the one at Tula, and that is the reason any one has ever suggested "toltec influence" as opposed to just "Mesoamerican influence".([22]); What I claim is that that scholars who "detect a Toltec influence" do so because they consider the colonnade to be somehow reminescent of the well known feature of the Toltec capital Tula Hidalgo.(see transcribed email above); and The only reason the question of "Toltecs" even comes up is because Tula, Hidalgo is the only other site with a similar colonnade.([23]). I think it's quite clear now that Maunus' original assumption, which led to this extended discussion, was misguided and incorrect, exactly as I originally stated on May 4, during the peer review: ([24]). RO^(talk) 20:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)