User talk:Tcsgenerics

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Maya and Teotihuacan

Hi, you mentioned that you were going to look at the Maya Collapse and its influence on the Classic Maya collapse. You may want to look at the Tikal article which I recently greatly expanded, this includes an overview of Teotihuacan intervention in Petén although it does not specifically link the destruction of Teotihuacan with the Collapse. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, thanks, yes, I will read the article on Tikal; actually after I sent my last message I see that Teotihucan is touched upon in the article headed 'Classic Maya Collapse' & there is a paragraph on Teotihuacan and trade routes. I'm currently reading about this with respect, amongst others, to two tribe the Itza and the Ytza - there's no mention of the Ytza in Wikipedia, so it might be good to include a short article at a later date - and how they related to each other, to Teotihuacan and to the Maya in the Yucatan. Kind regards Tim Tcsgenerics 15:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that the Itza and the Ytza are identical - the Itza were involved in a series of migrations, and appear to have originally been based around Motul de San José just north of Lake Petén Itzá. Around the time of the Classic Maya collapse, they apparently migrated to Chichén Itzá, and after its downfall to have moved back to the Petén lakes region, at Tayasal. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Colonial times the Itza were considered as one ethnic group, however there were at least two separate (both linguistically & politically) groups. They are distinguished as the Itza from the SW zone and the Ytza from the eastern Peten. This distinction was drawn from & in various papers in the 1970s & 80s. This is an important element and key to understanding the trade relationships between Teotihuacan and the Maya and the two different trade routes the Itza & Ytza controlled, the alliance(s) between the two which later gave way to rivalry, economic instability, and the eventual (trade) dominance of the Ytza. It is an area that interests me at present with respect to the Classic Maya collapse and which I'm still researching and to answer the question why the collapse of Teotihuacan should have affected the Maya, and been a possible reason inter alia for the Mayan collapse, Best regards Tim Tcsgenerics 17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any recent author makes this distinction. Diehl, writing in the late 80s, referred to the Itza of Petén as "Ytza" but Maya studies have moved on considerably since then, with the great advances in the reading of Maya writing. The Itza relations between the Petén Itza and the Yucatán Itza are touched upon in the recent book The Kowoj: Identity, migration, and geopolitics in Late Postclassic Petén, Guatemala, edited by Prudence and Don Rice. A good overview of the Maya, taking recent advances into account, is The Ancient Maya, 6th edition, by Robert Sharer and Loa Traxler. You might want to try the website of Asociación Tikal, which has a great many reports on Maya studies (in Spanish). Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, thanks for the references, much appreciated. I've had a 'browse' of The Ancient Maya (Sharer & Traxler), it's a terrific book and as a reference tool for every aspect of the Maya. As I write this I've read the relevant pages on the Itza and specifically the section (p 570) on the Itza economy and over the next few days I will look at other sections (e.g. Itza State p 580). Although the semantics change (e.g. no mention of the posited Ytza from earlier papers), broadly the rise of Chichen Itza and its command of trade routes fit with my earlier reading. I'll continue to reference this valuable book...... Best regards Tcsgenerics 16:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Simon, to mention another reference to you (in case you haven't come across it) - The Maya and Teotihuacán; edited Geoffrey Braswell; University of Texas, 2003 - a really good volume of chapters dealing with the relationship between the two, Best regards Tcsgenerics 15:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tim - I should have mentioned that one to you, it's sitting on my bookshelf! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]