MayaSkies.net is an independent educational publication exploring Maya astronomy, calendars, mathematics, archaeology, architecture, writing, cosmology, archaeoastronomy, and digital heritage.
Our research standards are designed around a simple principle:
Claims should be no stronger than the evidence supporting them.
Maya history contains remarkable achievements that do not need exaggeration. At the same time, archaeology rarely provides perfect information. Buildings change, inscriptions survive incompletely, interpretations develop, calendar correlations require methodological choices, and new discoveries can overturn older conclusions.
These Research Standards explain how MayaSkies.net evaluates evidence, selects sources, handles uncertainty, checks calculations, interprets archaeological claims, and distinguishes documentation from reconstruction.
1. Our Research Approach
MayaSkies.net is primarily a secondary educational publication.
We synthesize and explain existing research rather than presenting ourselves as an archaeological institution conducting original excavations.
Our research may draw from archaeology, astronomy, epigraphy, anthropology, history, linguistics, mathematics, cultural heritage studies, and digital archaeology.
For significant claims, we aim to determine:
- What is the original evidence?
- Where does the claim come from?
- How strong is the supporting evidence?
- Is the interpretation widely accepted?
- Are credible alternatives available?
- Has newer research changed the picture?
- Can the reader trace the claim to a reliable source?
- Are we reporting evidence or merely repeating a popular story?
When those questions cannot be answered satisfactorily, greater caution is required.
2. Source Hierarchy
Not every source carries equal evidentiary weight.
The appropriate source depends on the claim, but MayaSkies.net generally prefers sources in approximately the following order.
Tier 1 — Primary Archaeological and Documentary Evidence
Examples include:
- excavation reports;
- archaeological surveys;
- site measurements;
- inscriptions;
- codices;
- artifact documentation;
- original field reports;
- archival records;
- astronomical datasets;
- documented 3D survey data;
- original photographs; and
- published primary historical materials.
Primary evidence is especially important when discussing what exists physically, what was measured, what an inscription records, or what an excavation discovered.
Primary does not automatically mean correct. Measurements, translations, interpretations, and documentation can later be revised.
3. Tier 2 — Peer-Reviewed Scholarship
Peer-reviewed research is generally preferred for questions involving interpretation.
This includes research in:
- archaeology;
- archaeoastronomy;
- Maya studies;
- epigraphy;
- anthropology;
- astronomy;
- history;
- linguistics;
- mathematics;
- conservation; and
- digital heritage.
Priority may be given to publications that clearly describe their evidence, methods, data, and reasoning.
A peer-reviewed article is not treated as unquestionable simply because it passed peer review.
Research must still be evaluated in relation to other evidence and later scholarship.
4. Tier 3 — Academic Books and Scholarly Reference Works
Books by recognized specialists can provide valuable synthesis, interpretation, historiography, and context.
When possible, important claims derived from books should be checked against the underlying evidence or research they cite.
Older scholarly works remain valuable, especially for the history of research, but they should not automatically override more recent evidence.
5. Tier 4 — Museums, Universities, and Cultural Institutions
Reliable institutional resources may include material published by:
- museums;
- universities;
- archaeological institutes;
- government heritage authorities;
- research institutions;
- cultural heritage organizations; and
- reputable scientific organizations.
Institutional resources can be particularly useful for introductory explanations, collections documentation, site information, educational material, and public access to research.
Institutional authority does not eliminate the need to evaluate evidence.
6. Tier 5 — High-Quality Secondary Sources
Reputable journalism, professional reference works, documentaries, and well-researched educational publications can provide useful context.
They may help locate primary research or explain complex subjects.
For disputed archaeological or scientific claims, however, they should normally be traced back to stronger sources when possible.
7. Sources We Treat With Greater Caution
Additional verification is normally required when a claim originates primarily from:
- anonymous websites;
- tourism marketing;
- social media;
- unsourced videos;
- AI-generated summaries;
- commercial astrology sites;
- paranormal publications;
- sensational documentaries;
- content farms;
- copied encyclopedia pages;
- websites without identifiable sources; or
- pages that repeatedly cite one another without reaching original evidence.
Such sources may still reveal popular beliefs or misconceptions worth discussing.
They should not automatically be treated as evidence that those beliefs are historically correct.
8. Wikipedia and Similar Reference Sites
Wikipedia and similar resources may be useful as research starting points.
They can help identify:
- terminology;
- researchers;
- publications;
- dates;
- alternative names;
- citations; and
- questions requiring further investigation.
For important claims, research should proceed to the underlying sources.
Wikipedia should generally not be the sole evidence for a disputed archaeological, astronomical, or historical conclusion when stronger sources are available.
9. Triangulation
For complex or consequential claims, relying on one source may not be sufficient.
Whenever practical, MayaSkies.net attempts to compare multiple independent forms of evidence.
For example, an archaeoastronomical claim might involve:
- architectural measurements;
- horizon geometry;
- astronomical calculations;
- archaeological dating;
- inscriptions;
- iconography;
- regional orientation patterns; and
- calendar intervals.
Agreement among independent evidence can substantially strengthen an interpretation.
Multiple websites repeating the same original claim do not count as multiple independent sources.
10. Distinguishing Evidence From Interpretation
Articles should make a clear distinction between what has been observed and what researchers infer from those observations.
For example:
Evidence: A building has a measured orientation of a particular azimuth.
Interpretation: The orientation was intentionally selected to mark a particular sunrise.
Those are different claims.
Likewise:
Evidence: An inscription contains a particular date.
Interpretation: That date commemorates a particular astronomical phenomenon.
The interpretation may be compelling, but it should not be described as though it were identical to the underlying evidence.
11. Levels of Confidence
MayaSkies.net may use language that communicates the strength of a conclusion.
Well Supported
Multiple reliable lines of evidence support the conclusion and major alternatives are comparatively weak.
Probable
The available evidence strongly favors the interpretation, although uncertainty remains.
Plausible
The interpretation fits some evidence but cannot yet be considered strongly established.
Proposed
Researchers have offered the interpretation, but stronger confirmation is needed.
Debated
Credible researchers disagree about the interpretation or significance of the evidence.
Speculative
Evidence is insufficient for a confident conclusion.
These descriptions are editorial aids, not formal scientific probability scores.
12. Archaeoastronomy Research Standards
Archaeoastronomy is one of the core subjects of MayaSkies.net and requires especially careful methodology.
A building pointing approximately toward sunrise or sunset is not by itself proof that astronomy determined its orientation.
When evaluating an astronomical-alignment claim, relevant questions may include:
- What is the measured azimuth?
- How accurately was it measured?
- What is the elevation of the local horizon?
- Has the horizon changed?
- What astronomical declination corresponds to the alignment?
- What date or celestial event would be visible?
- What uncertainty range applies?
- When was the building constructed?
- Was the structure modified?
- Which direction of the architectural axis matters?
- Does the pattern occur in other buildings?
- Are the intervals calendrically significant?
- Is supporting epigraphic or iconographic evidence available?
- Are alternative explanations equally plausible?
Approximate graphical overlays should not replace measurement.
13. Avoiding Alignment Hunting
With enough buildings, stars, planets, sunrise dates, sunset dates, lunar extremes, and architectural lines, apparent correspondences can occur by chance.
MayaSkies.net therefore avoids the practice of selecting a structure first and searching through many celestial events until one appears to match it.
A stronger case normally requires context and independent supporting evidence.
Repeated orientation patterns across a meaningful sample are generally more informative than an isolated coincidence.
14. Replication and Remeasurement
Published interpretations may change when sites are measured more accurately.
Where a claim depends strongly on geometry or astronomical orientation, newer high-quality measurements may deserve greater weight than older approximate observations.
If researchers reproduce, challenge, or reject an earlier conclusion, articles should reflect that research history.
Changing a conclusion in response to better evidence is a strength of research, not a failure.
15. Astronomical Calculations
Historical astronomy requires more than applying the modern night sky to an ancient date.
Depending on the question, calculations may need to consider:
- geographic coordinates;
- date system;
- calendar conversion;
- precession;
- solar and lunar motion;
- planetary ephemerides;
- atmospheric refraction;
- horizon altitude;
- historical epoch; and
- uncertainty in archaeological chronology.
The level of precision presented should match the precision of the underlying evidence.
A calculator producing many decimal places does not make an archaeological conclusion equally precise.
16. Maya Calendar Research
Maya calendrical systems should be identified accurately rather than referred to collectively as one single Maya calendar when the distinction matters.
Relevant systems may include:
- Tzolk’in;
- Haab;
- Calendar Round;
- Long Count;
- lunar series;
- supplementary series; and
- additional cycles documented in Maya texts.
Calendar terminology should be explained rather than assumed.
17. Long Count Correlations
Converting a Maya Long Count date into a Gregorian or Julian calendar date requires a correlation between calendrical systems.
Correlation has been an important subject in Maya chronology, and alternative proposals have existed historically.
When a precise cross-calendar conversion matters, MayaSkies.net should identify the correlation or computational convention being used rather than presenting the converted date as methodology-free.
A tool may use a default correlation for practical purposes, but the methodology should be documented.
18. Calendar Calculators
Educational calculators published by MayaSkies.net should undergo testing before release.
Testing may include:
- known historical examples;
- independently calculated test cases;
- boundary conditions;
- negative/BCE years where supported;
- leap-year behavior;
- unit conversion;
- repeated calendar cycles; and
- comparison with reputable independent implementations.
When practical, a calculator page should explain its methodology.
If a bug is identified that materially changes outputs, it should be corrected and documented when appropriate.
19. Maya Mathematics
Claims concerning Maya mathematics should distinguish documented historical practice from modern teaching methods.
For example, a modern visual converter may illustrate Maya numerals using a convenient standardized layout.
That does not necessarily mean every Maya community, period, inscription, or scribe used an identical convention.
Articles should distinguish:
- mathematical principles;
- historical notation;
- calendrical notation;
- modern reconstruction; and
- educational simplification.
20. Epigraphy and Maya Writing
Maya script has undergone major advances in decipherment, and individual readings can change.
When discussing inscriptions, preference should be given to current epigraphic scholarship where available.
Articles should distinguish among:
- visible glyphic evidence;
- transcription;
- transliteration;
- linguistic reconstruction;
- translation; and
- historical interpretation.
Where scholars disagree on a reading, uncertainty should be acknowledged.
21. Archaeological Dating
Dates assigned to buildings, artifacts, occupations, or cultural phases may derive from different methods.
These can include:
- stratigraphy;
- ceramic chronology;
- radiocarbon dating;
- inscriptions;
- architectural sequence;
- stylistic analysis; and
- historical correlation.
Articles should avoid creating artificial precision.
If researchers date a construction broadly to a century or archaeological phase, MayaSkies.net should not convert that into an exact year without evidence.
22. Digital Archaeology
Digital technology can record archaeological heritage with remarkable detail.
Relevant methods may include:
- terrestrial laser scanning;
- photogrammetry;
- LiDAR;
- GIS;
- remote sensing;
- three-dimensional modeling;
- digital mapping; and
- virtual reconstruction.
Digital output should nevertheless be evaluated according to how it was created.
A visually impressive model is not automatically an accurate archaeological reconstruction.
23. Scans Versus Reconstructions
MayaSkies.net distinguishes between several forms of digital representation.
Measured Digital Record
Geometry derived substantially from measurements such as laser scanning or photogrammetry.
Reconstructed Geometry
Missing elements recreated from archaeological evidence.
Hypothetical Reconstruction
Elements inferred where evidence is incomplete.
Artistic Visualization
Imagery created primarily to help audiences imagine a historical setting.
These categories can overlap, but readers should not be encouraged to mistake an interpretive visualization for direct archaeological recording.
24. Reconstruction Transparency
When discussing or creating reconstructions, relevant questions include:
- Which elements survive?
- Which were directly measured?
- Which are inferred from comparable structures?
- Which colors are documented?
- Which decorative elements are conjectural?
- Which architectural phases are represented?
- What restoration has occurred since excavation?
- How much uncertainty exists?
Where practical, important uncertainties should be disclosed.
25. Photographs and Image Provenance
Images used as evidence should be traceable to their source whenever practical.
Research should consider:
- creator;
- date;
- location;
- caption;
- license;
- modification history; and
- whether the image depicts original archaeological material, a restoration, replica, or reconstruction.
A modern restoration photograph should not automatically be treated as evidence of the site’s ancient appearance.
26. Maps and Geographic Data
Maps should identify their purpose and appropriate degree of precision.
Exact coordinates of vulnerable archaeological locations should not necessarily be published merely because they are technically available.
Protecting cultural heritage can take priority over unnecessary geographic precision.
27. Sensitive Archaeological Information
MayaSkies.net does not assume that every piece of archaeological information should be maximally public.
Publication may be restricted or generalized when information could reasonably contribute to:
- looting;
- vandalism;
- illegal collecting;
- disturbance of burials;
- damage to vulnerable sites;
- exploitation of sacred locations; or
- inappropriate disclosure of culturally restricted information.
Educational transparency must be balanced with stewardship.
28. Human Remains and Funerary Contexts
Human remains should not be treated as decorative imagery or sensational content.
Coverage involving burials, human remains, funerary objects, or sacred contexts should consider:
- archaeological relevance;
- dignity;
- descendant-community concerns;
- cultural context;
- applicable legal or institutional restrictions; and
- whether graphic imagery is necessary.
The fact that an image exists online does not automatically mean republishing it is responsible.
29. Indigenous and Descendant Knowledge
Maya knowledge is not limited to archaeological artifacts.
Contemporary Maya communities maintain languages, histories, cultural practices, knowledge systems, identities, and traditions.
Community knowledge should not automatically be treated as freely extractable data.
When using information attributed to contemporary Maya individuals or communities, MayaSkies.net should consider:
- who provided the knowledge;
- how it was originally documented;
- whether attribution is appropriate;
- whether the information was intended for public circulation;
- whether cultural restrictions apply; and
- whether researchers are interpreting community knowledge accurately.
Respect for Indigenous intellectual and cultural rights is part of responsible research.
30. Ancient and Contemporary Evidence
Contemporary traditions can provide valuable perspectives, but continuity should not simply be assumed.
A practice documented in a present-day community should not automatically be projected backward 1,000 years.
Likewise, an ancient practice documented archaeologically should not automatically be attributed to all contemporary Maya communities.
Articles should explain the chronological and cultural relationship when making comparisons across periods.
31. Geographic Specificity
The Maya world encompasses substantial cultural, linguistic, environmental, and historical diversity.
Research should identify geographic context when it matters.
A finding from Chichén Itzá cannot automatically be generalized to:
- Palenque;
- Tikal;
- Copán;
- Calakmul;
- Yaxchilán;
- the Guatemalan Highlands; or
- every other Maya region.
Statements such as “the Maya believed” should be used carefully when the evidence actually represents a more limited context.
32. Chronological Specificity
The Maya past spans millennia.
Evidence from one period should not be automatically applied to another.
Relevant periods may include different portions of the:
- Preclassic;
- Classic;
- Terminal Classic;
- Postclassic; and
- colonial periods.
Chronological categories themselves can vary by region and scholarly convention.
33. Historical Sources
Colonial and later historical documents can provide valuable information but require contextual reading.
Questions may include:
- Who wrote the source?
- When was it written?
- What language was used?
- Who translated it?
- What was the author’s purpose?
- What political or religious context shaped it?
- Was the author describing personal observation or repeating another account?
- How far removed was the document from the events being described?
Written documentation is evidence, not a guarantee of neutrality.
34. Translation
Translation can materially affect historical interpretation.
Where a translated word or passage is important to an argument, articles should prefer established scholarly translations or compare multiple translations where appropriate.
Terms without direct English equivalents should not be simplified beyond what the evidence permits.
35. Old Research and New Research
Older scholarship is not automatically inferior.
Historic publications may preserve observations, photographs, measurements, excavation information, or intellectual history unavailable elsewhere.
However, older interpretations should be checked against later developments when possible.
Maya studies have changed substantially through advances in:
- epigraphy;
- archaeological dating;
- LiDAR;
- astronomical computation;
- remote sensing;
- linguistics;
- conservation science; and
- regional survey.
An article should not present an abandoned interpretation as current consensus simply because it appears in an old authoritative book.
36. Negative Evidence
Absence of evidence and evidence of absence are not always equivalent.
If no inscription currently demonstrates a particular belief, that does not necessarily prove the belief never existed.
Conversely, possibility is not evidence.
MayaSkies.net should avoid both extremes:
“There is no evidence, therefore it was impossible.”
and
“It was possible, therefore it happened.”
37. Extraordinary Claims
Claims that would substantially revise established understanding require correspondingly strong evidence.
Examples might include assertions of:
- unknown advanced technologies;
- transoceanic contact without accepted evidence;
- extraterrestrial intervention;
- supernatural prediction demonstrated as historical fact;
- extreme astronomical precision unsupported by measurements; or
- hidden codes discovered through arbitrary numerical manipulation.
Such subjects may be discussed when culturally or historically relevant, but the burden of evidence remains with the claim.
38. Statistical and Numerical Claims
Numbers can create an appearance of certainty that the underlying evidence does not justify.
Articles should identify, where relevant:
- sample size;
- measurement uncertainty;
- date range;
- calculation method;
- source dataset; and
- meaningful limitations.
A numerical result should not be given more decimal precision than the underlying data support.
39. Reproducibility
When MayaSkies.net performs its own educational calculation or analysis, the method should be reproducible where practical.
This may involve publishing:
- formulas;
- assumptions;
- input values;
- source datasets;
- calculation conventions;
- tool methodology; or
- code references where appropriate.
Readers should ideally be able to understand how a result was obtained rather than being asked simply to trust the output.
40. Data Provenance
Research data should be traceable.
When datasets are used, we aim to identify:
- creator or institution;
- dataset title;
- version where relevant;
- publication or access date;
- methodology;
- license where applicable; and
- transformations performed by MayaSkies.net.
Derived data should not be presented as though they were original measurements.
41. Citations and References
Major research articles should include references appropriate to their subject.
References should allow a reader to locate the underlying source.
Where available, useful citation information may include:
- author;
- title;
- journal or publisher;
- year;
- volume and issue;
- page range;
- DOI;
- stable institutional URL; and
- archaeological report information.
Links alone may disappear. Bibliographic information improves long-term traceability.
42. Citation Quality Over Citation Quantity
An article with 50 weak citations is not necessarily better researched than one with 10 strong sources.
Citation counts should not be used decoratively.
Each source should have a purpose.
Particular weight should be given to sources that directly support the statement for which they are cited.
43. Avoiding Citation Laundering
A common research problem occurs when many publications repeat a claim that originated from a single uncertain source.
Before describing a widely repeated claim as well established, researchers should attempt to identify its origin.
If all citations eventually lead back to the same unsupported statement, repetition has not independently confirmed it.
44. Artificial Intelligence in Research
Artificial intelligence may assist MayaSkies.net with research organization, translation support, coding, search-term development, data processing, outlining, or drafting.
AI is not treated as an evidentiary source.
An AI-generated statement should not be cited as proof of an archaeological or historical claim.
When AI surfaces a potentially useful fact, the research process should continue until the claim is verified against credible sources.
45. AI Hallucinations and Fabricated Citations
Generative AI systems can produce incorrect facts, nonexistent publications, invented quotations, inaccurate URLs, or plausible-looking citations.
Therefore:
- citations generated by AI should be verified;
- quoted language should be checked against the original source;
- publication titles and authors should be confirmed;
- numerical outputs should be tested;
- translated technical terms should be reviewed; and
- uncertain claims should not be promoted to fact merely because an AI system stated them confidently.
Human editorial responsibility remains with MayaSkies.net.
46. AI-Generated Historical Images
An AI-generated scene is not archaeological evidence.
If synthetic imagery is used to illustrate an ancient environment, reconstructed person, ceremony, building, artifact, or landscape, it should not be presented in a way that leads readers to believe it is a historical photograph or scientifically exact reconstruction.
Material AI-generated imagery should be identified where appropriate.
47. Corrections to Research
Research pages may change when better evidence becomes available.
A correction may be appropriate when:
- a source was misunderstood;
- a calculation was wrong;
- a date was converted incorrectly;
- a scholarly interpretation has been misrepresented;
- a citation does not support the claim;
- newer research materially changes the conclusion; or
- a reconstruction was described with excessive certainty.
Substantive errors should be corrected rather than preserved merely because an article has already been indexed or widely shared.
48. What We Do When Sources Conflict
Conflicting sources should not automatically be resolved by selecting the source that produces the most interesting story.
Research should consider:
- date of publication;
- quality of evidence;
- methodology;
- sample size;
- disciplinary expertise;
- access to primary material;
- whether the result has been replicated;
- later criticism or reanalysis; and
- potential methodological limitations.
When disagreement remains reasonable, the article should say so.
49. What We Do When Evidence Is Insufficient
Sometimes the most accurate answer is:
We do not know.
Other appropriate conclusions may include:
- the evidence is incomplete;
- researchers disagree;
- the interpretation is possible but unproven;
- available measurements are insufficient;
- the original context has been lost; or
- further research is required.
Uncertainty should not be filled with invented certainty merely to produce a more satisfying article.
50. Research Review Checklist
Before publication of a substantial research article, editors should ask:
Sources
- Are important claims sourced?
- Are the strongest available sources being used?
- Were major claims traced beyond secondary summaries?
Evidence
- Is evidence separated from interpretation?
- Are alternative explanations considered where necessary?
- Is uncertainty represented accurately?
Chronology
- Are dates and periods correct?
- Are calendar conversions methodologically clear?
- Has false precision been avoided?
Archaeoastronomy
- Are alignment claims based on measurements rather than visual resemblance?
- Were horizon effects and uncertainty considered?
- Is there independent contextual evidence?
Culture
- Is geographic and chronological diversity respected?
- Are ancient and contemporary Maya communities clearly distinguished?
- Could publication expose culturally sensitive or vulnerable information?
Visuals
- Are photographs, scans, reconstructions, and illustrations properly distinguished?
- Is image provenance known?
- Are hypothetical elements labeled appropriately?
Calculations
- Can important calculations be reproduced?
- Have independent checks been performed?
AI
- Were AI-generated factual claims independently verified?
- Were citations checked against real sources?
- Is disclosure warranted for synthetic imagery or substantial automated content?
Conclusion
- Does the article say only what the evidence allows it to say?
If not, additional research is required.
51. Our Research Commitment
MayaSkies.net does not aim to eliminate scholarly disagreement.
It aims to represent it accurately.
We do not expect every page to provide a final answer to every archaeological question. In many areas of Maya studies, the evidence itself makes that impossible.
Our responsibility is instead to give readers a clear path from:
claim → evidence → source → interpretation → uncertainty.
That process is central to understanding not only what researchers currently know about Maya astronomy, calendars, mathematics, architecture, and archaeology, but also how they know it.
Research quality is therefore not measured by how certain an article sounds.
It is measured by how faithfully the article represents the evidence.
Maya Skies
Reading the Sky, Time, and Architecture of the Maya.
Independent educational reference for Maya astronomy, calendars, archaeology, mathematics, and digital heritage.