Talk:Becan

I changed back 250 to 250 after it was changed to 250 BC, as the Mesoamerican early classic was AD. It's not the same as the Classical era of Europe. I (or someone, but as I seem to be the main one editing Mesoamerican articles, probably me) should write up something about the standard timeline terms used for Mesoamerican history & archeology. -- Infrogmation 04:53, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I created the first version of such an article at Mesoamerican chronology. -- Infrogmation

The moat at Becan and the photo 'within the moat' and the diagram showing a moat are not correct.

Source: Visit to the site and INAH information: While there are seven causeways over the trench that give access to the city, the idea they were once filled it with water (still reported by Mayanists) to provide a moat has to give way to the geographical structure of the region. Becán sits on porous limestone rock well above the water table, and the trench shows no signs of being sealed or connected to any canal. The Maya probably planted thorn bushes at the bottom to dissuade intruders.

The photo captioned 'within the moat' is misleading. It looks to me to be the passageway that leads from the main plaza towards one of the causeways. ññññ richard crosfield.

Very good point. The notion of a water-filled moat is obviously a product of rooting a conceptualization in medeival european castles, and without a linkage to a canal or river (which, as far as I remember, did not exist), the moat would never receive enough water to fill it and could never hope to retain it if it did. I've only been to Becan once (5 years ago) and don't recollect the moat itself, so I can't comment on the photo being misleading. -- Oaxaca dan 16:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the caption on the photograph - it was of a walkway - not the "moat". As is now widely considered to be a ditch, rather than a moat I changed the language in the article to reflect this. --Neatguy (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]