Talk:Battle of Tikal

Dubious copyvio

Most of this stuff is cut and paste from other articles, I've removed what I could identify, see edit summariesDoug Weller (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work Doug. I doubt that there is sufficient evidence to justify an article here on some specific battle in the first place, and will look to propose this for deletion. Just to repeat what I'd earlier commented at my talk pg:

"The Battle of Tikal article had always read like a fictionalised account- it might be OK for folks like Linda Schele and David Freidel to indulge in some imagined narratives alongside their factual material, like in A Forest of Kings, but that style is completely out-of-place here on wiki. In fact, given that there's absolutely no archaeological evidence for such a particular battle, and at best it can only be inferred from the epigraphic record that the coincidence of Chak Tok Ich'aak's demise is due to some military engagement/takeover. And while some are of that view, not all sources see it that way. There's really nothing AFAIK to substantiate an article on some individual 'battle' that may or may not have occurred, and if it did it's anyone's guess what transpired other than the end result. The data in the infobox is pure fantasy, it seems to me. I would/will put the whole thing up for deletion, once I can round up together accessible sources on the epigraphy." --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a Friedel review of the latest edition of Coe's book that may have something and I'm trying to get that. There is [1] which looks relevant.

From a review in Antiquity Vol 78:300, 2004 pp 460-464 - Norman Hammond - Ancient Maya aristocracy Vol 78:300, 2004 pp 460-464 by Norman Hammond - Ancient Maya aristocracy "One aspect of Tikal’s history, intriguing and highly controversial for more than forty years, is the impact of Teotihuacan. This great city in the Basin of Mexico, flourishing between roughly AD 100 and 650, had a distinctive art style which impacted on Maya public monuments – architecture and architectural sculpture as well as royal portraits on stelae – and some kinds of sumptuary artefacts, notably elaborate pottery vessels; the striking green obsidian of Pachuca came from nearby. The association of Teotihuacan iconography with an event in AD 378 which has been interpreted as the conquest of Tikal by outsiders has led to a range of scenarios, from penetration by invaders from Central Mexico, 1000 km to the west, to the adoption of exotic imagery and imported goods as a way of upgrading status by still-petty rulers." This article in Athena: [2], something to do with a course at the University of Texas [3] -- that's all I have right now. Delete or just a quick merge?Doug Weller (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

To save further mucking about, I have for now just redirected this to Tikal.

To justify/reiterate, there is so little (ie, practically no) factual data on any specific 'battle' or engagement that may (or may not) have taken place in January 378 CE, btw the Tikal polity and some belligerent force, that the scope of this is way too narrow and hypothetical to justify an article. I would be quite confident that no deciphered text provides any information with regards to timing, location, participants, strengths, etc for any specific engagement coinciding with the demise of Tikal's ruler Chak Tok Ich'aak I, and the enthronement about a year later of Yax Nuun Ayiin. The data in the battle infobox is plucked from the air- at least 10,000? random guesswork.

To the best of my knowledge none of the relevant texts (eg. Tikal Stela 31, the Marcador stone, Uaxactun Stela 5, El Perú Stela 15) make any mention of any battle event, and at best hostilities can only be inferred. All that the epigraphers (led by David Stuart) interpret from these is that in Jan. 378 the incumbent Tikal ruler, Chak Tok Ich'aak "entered water" (ie, glossed as "died"); on the same day, a figure who's name has been deciphered as Siyaj K'ak' "arrived" at Tikal (or possibly Uaxactun), after having been at El Perú a few days before; and that about a year later Yax Nuun Ayiin is installed as Tikal ruler, under perhaps the oversight of Siyaj K'ak' and as the son of the mysterious Spearthrower Owl who might have sponsored Siyaj K'ak's activities in the first place. Now, it's true that ever since Stuart proposed these readings and interpretation (an early version of this thesis is here), both he and others have suggested that this is the tale of Teotihuacano-sponsored forces making a successful militaristic/political play for the governance of Tikal, and that the 'takeover' likely involved a display of force. However, this is a far cry from knowing anything about a particular battle, which Stuart acknowledges as "speculation".

Of course, the question and nature of Teo influence at Tikal (and elsewhere in the Maya region) is a valid and worthy topic, but a much wider one with more than one interpretation still running in the field. While Stuart's thesis here has been influential and there are a number of Mesoamericanists who do suggest that Teo's involvement in the region's politics had a militaristic component, the question is quite aways from being settled and there are other viable alternatives out there. See for example the essays in The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction (2003, ed. Geoffrey Blanton) for competing interpretations that also bear mentioning.

Ultimately, it would be great to have an article devoted to the theories concerning and the nature of Teo-Maya Classic era interactions, it's one of the big questions and there'd easily be enough material for a full treatment in an article. But that may be a longer-term project, if we do start one then maybe this redirect cld change to point to it, and I'd suggest moving this talkpg over. Until someone gets around to that, the Teo, Tikal, rulers, etc articles will hv to deal with the interpretations specific to them, of their own accord. At the moment, a lot of 'em take the "Teo takeover" as read, but I'd eventually like to see a more nuanced and balanced treatment that explores the various possibilities that are still current candidates. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much -- the brief looking around I did, and you know much more about this area than I do, had convinced me we don't know enough for an article claiming that there was such a battle.Doug Weller (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this attracted attention. I agree that the Teo-Maya interaction is worth its own article, though not one as sensationalized as the putative 'Battle of Tikal' page. As a Teo specialist who has looked at much of the Maya literature on the topic, I agree that any talk of a actual military engagement between a force sent from Teo to fight a comparable force at Tikal is speculative at best. That is not to say that it didn't happen, but there is no evidence for it external to the texts from the above-mentioned sites. In the 1990s, of course, these texts were widely interpreted as describing a conflict between Tikal and Uaxactun; this is still reflected on the current version of the Uaxactun page. Mhrobb (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)