Summary of events in Man of Tikal monument from 406:
8.18.7.3.5 August 3, 403 Funeral of king Nun Yax Ahiin
tended by K'uk' Mo
8.18.10.1.1 June 4, 406 Ritual tended by Siyaj Chan
K'awiil
8.18.10.1.10 June 13, 406 Ritual tended by K'uk' Mo
8.18.10.8.12 November 2, 406 Man of Tikal monument erection
tended by unknown
The apparent purpose of the monument is to commemorate the recently passed king, also probably the king before him, and of course promote both key players K'uk' Mo and Siyaj Chan K'awiil who were vying for power during the interregnum.
Summary of events in Tikal Stela 39 from 416:
8.19.0.0.0 March 22, 416 Katun ending ceremony tended
by K'uk' Mo
Tikal Stela 39 is a kind of follow-up to Man of Tikal, promoting K'uk' Mo and his legitimacy to rule Tikal, which eventually became a failed bid.
Summary of events in the Marcador monument from 416:
8.16.17.9.0 May 2, 374 Siyaj K'ak's ascension to Root
Tree House
8.17.1.4.12 January 13, 378 Funeral of king Chak Tok
Ich'aak tended by Siyaj K'ak'
together with spirit of
Spearthrowing Owl
8.18.17.14.9 January 21, 414 Siyaj K'ak's ascension to
Spearthrowing Owl Ho' Noom
Witz Kalomte
8.19.0.0.0 March 22, 416 Marcador monument erection
tended by unknown
Katun ending ceremony tended
by Siyaj K'ak'
The Marcador monument celebrates Siyaj K'ak's recently adopted new title and reminds people about how he presided over king's funeral almost 40 years earlier, already then legitimized by his original royal position and supernatural connections.
Monday, September 22, 2014
Summary: Tikal Stela 31
The following is a summary of events listed in Tikal Stela 31 from 445:
8.7.0.0.0 September 3, 179 Katun ending ceremony tended
by unknown
8.14.0.0.0 August 29, 317 Katun ending ceremony tended
by Baby Jaguar
8.16.3.10.2 August 5, 360 Chak Tok Ich'aak's ascension
to king of Tikal
8.17.0.0.0 October 18, 376 Katun ending ceremony tended
by king Chak Tok Ich'aak
8.17.1.4.12 January 13, 378 Funeral of king Chak Tok
Ich'aak tended by Siyaj K'ak'
8.17.2.0.15 October 23, 378 Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension to
Root Tree House tended by
Siyaj K'ak'
8.17.2.16.17 September 10, 379 Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension to
king of Tikal tended by Siyaj
K'ak'
8.18.0.0.0 July 5, 396 Katun ending ceremony tended
by king Nun Yax Ahiin
8.18.7.3.0 July 29, 403 King Nun Yax Ahiin dies
8.18.10.0.0 May 14, 406 Half-Katun ending tended by
Siyaj Chan K'awiil
8.18.15.11.0 November 24, 411 Siyaj Chan K'awiil's ascension
to king of Tikal
8.19.10.0.0 January 29, 426 Half-Katun ending ceremony
tended by king Siyaj Chan
K'awiil
9.0.0.0.0 December 8, 435 Baktun ending ceremony tended
by king Siyaj Chan K'awiil
together with Siyaj K'ak' and
spirit of Baby Jaguar
9.0.3.9.18 June 8, 439 Funeral of Siyaj K'ak'
9.0.10.0.0 October 16, 445 Half-Katun ending ceremony
tended by king Siyaj Chan
K'awiil
The focus is, naturally, on king Siyaj Chan K'awiil who established the stela to celebrate the most recent half-katun ending and promote himself. Secondarily, the focus is on his father and grandfathers, and a couple of more distant forefathers (or -mothers) who were connected to the king via period ending anniversaries. Overall, the singular purpose of the monument is to enforce the legitimacy of the king and the rule of his family. As a public monument established by a hereditary dictatorship, there is nothing unexpected in that.
We can see that the stela is not a history book. It sees relevance only in three kind of events: period endings, royal ascensions and royal funerals. Most important in all events is who presided over them and was thus in charge in Tikal. The only exception to this is the short remark on the death of king's father in 403, apparently because his funeral was presided over by a person whose memory was counterproductive to the reigning king's legitimacy.
For the reigning king, the stela lists his ascension and three period endings. For his father king Nun Yax Ahiin, the stela lists dual ascension and one period ending that he presided over, and his death. For his maternal grandfather king Chak Tok Ich'aak, the stela lists his ascension, one period ending that he presided over and his funeral. For his paternal grandfather Siyaj K'ak'/Spearthrowing Owl, the stela lists one funeral and two ascensions that he presided over, one period ending that he joined together with his grandson and finally his funeral.
For earlier bygone relatives, the stela lists two period endings whose anniversaries coincided with period endings the reigning king tended.
Anything else that took place in Tikal during the respective years is left without mention. That does not mean nothing relevant happened; it only means that from the point of view of royal legitimacy those events served no purpose.
8.7.0.0.0 September 3, 179 Katun ending ceremony tended
by unknown
8.14.0.0.0 August 29, 317 Katun ending ceremony tended
by Baby Jaguar
8.16.3.10.2 August 5, 360 Chak Tok Ich'aak's ascension
to king of Tikal
8.17.0.0.0 October 18, 376 Katun ending ceremony tended
by king Chak Tok Ich'aak
8.17.1.4.12 January 13, 378 Funeral of king Chak Tok
Ich'aak tended by Siyaj K'ak'
8.17.2.0.15 October 23, 378 Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension to
Root Tree House tended by
Siyaj K'ak'
8.17.2.16.17 September 10, 379 Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension to
king of Tikal tended by Siyaj
K'ak'
8.18.0.0.0 July 5, 396 Katun ending ceremony tended
by king Nun Yax Ahiin
8.18.7.3.0 July 29, 403 King Nun Yax Ahiin dies
8.18.10.0.0 May 14, 406 Half-Katun ending tended by
Siyaj Chan K'awiil
8.18.15.11.0 November 24, 411 Siyaj Chan K'awiil's ascension
to king of Tikal
8.19.10.0.0 January 29, 426 Half-Katun ending ceremony
tended by king Siyaj Chan
K'awiil
9.0.0.0.0 December 8, 435 Baktun ending ceremony tended
by king Siyaj Chan K'awiil
together with Siyaj K'ak' and
spirit of Baby Jaguar
9.0.3.9.18 June 8, 439 Funeral of Siyaj K'ak'
9.0.10.0.0 October 16, 445 Half-Katun ending ceremony
tended by king Siyaj Chan
K'awiil
The focus is, naturally, on king Siyaj Chan K'awiil who established the stela to celebrate the most recent half-katun ending and promote himself. Secondarily, the focus is on his father and grandfathers, and a couple of more distant forefathers (or -mothers) who were connected to the king via period ending anniversaries. Overall, the singular purpose of the monument is to enforce the legitimacy of the king and the rule of his family. As a public monument established by a hereditary dictatorship, there is nothing unexpected in that.
We can see that the stela is not a history book. It sees relevance only in three kind of events: period endings, royal ascensions and royal funerals. Most important in all events is who presided over them and was thus in charge in Tikal. The only exception to this is the short remark on the death of king's father in 403, apparently because his funeral was presided over by a person whose memory was counterproductive to the reigning king's legitimacy.
For the reigning king, the stela lists his ascension and three period endings. For his father king Nun Yax Ahiin, the stela lists dual ascension and one period ending that he presided over, and his death. For his maternal grandfather king Chak Tok Ich'aak, the stela lists his ascension, one period ending that he presided over and his funeral. For his paternal grandfather Siyaj K'ak'/Spearthrowing Owl, the stela lists one funeral and two ascensions that he presided over, one period ending that he joined together with his grandson and finally his funeral.
For earlier bygone relatives, the stela lists two period endings whose anniversaries coincided with period endings the reigning king tended.
Anything else that took place in Tikal during the respective years is left without mention. That does not mean nothing relevant happened; it only means that from the point of view of royal legitimacy those events served no purpose.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
PART 8/8: YAX K'UK' MO
Looking towards a Mayan town of Copán 300 km away we have a possibility to identify this individual who was the unknown protagonist of Tikal Stela 39.
Copán king Yax K'uk' Mo was an outsider who invaded the city in 427 and established a new ruling dynasty. His excavated remains indicate he was over 55 years old when he died some 10 years later. His remains also indicate he spent his childhood in the Peten valley. Only short fragments about him survive in local inscriptions.
For reasons unknown, Yax K'uk' Mo had both the motivation and resources to take over the city as well as the authority to secure the kingship for him and his descendants. This as such is extraordinary. A middle aged man, he must have earlier held a strong position somewhere else before arriving to Copán with his loyal and committed entourage.
To estimate how willingly he was on the move, we need to take a look at Copán's location. It was at the south-easternmost edge of Maya area, far from the central Peten valley. For an apparently powerful high ranking Peten resident to relocate there and bring over enough men and resources to turn it into his own domain, the motivation must have been high and alternatives few. We are probably close to truth if we assume that he and his followers formed a powerful group that had become unwelcome at their original home and forced to restart their lives someplace else, even in a remote area far from the heart of their civilization.
What little information remains of Yax K'uk' Mo's life before Copán, we can see more evidence that he held a high position earlier. According to Copán Stela 15, he oversaw a Katun ending of 8.19.0.0.0 (March 22, 416) in an unknown location, ten years before his arrival to Copán, a task reserved for the highest ranking royals. According to Copán Altar Q, on 8.19.10.10.17 (September 3, 426), half a year before his arrival to Copán, he was engaged in an event that coincided with the 66th Tzolkin anniversary of Tikal king Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension. Altar Q goes on to say that three days later he had an ascension event in a location known as Root Tree House which is the same location where Nun Yax Ahiin was declared king of Tikal decades before in 379.
Overall, it looks probable that he was an important member in Tikal administration and its royal household. That being said, it is reasonable to assume that he was the same individual as the Lord of the Tree K'uk' Mo mentioned in the The Man of Tikal monument. K'uk' Mo oversaw Tikal king Nun Yax Ahiin's funerary stone binding in 403 and another ceremony in 406. It is good to keep in mind that the stone binding of 403 was inexplicably left without mention in Tikal Stela 31, just as the Katun ending of 416.
If we continue assuming that K'uk' Mo of Man of Tikal and Yax K'uk' Mo of Copán were the same person, then it is quite fitting that the unknown protagonist of Stela 39 who oversaw the Katun ending 8.19.0.0.0 in Tikal was him as well. From Copán we had later information on Yax K'uk' Mo that he oversaw that same Katun ending in an unknown location. Man of Tikal monument already has K'uk' Mo directly engaged in the highest royal duties so overseeing a Katun ending would be right there in the same mix.
Thus, we have an answer where his power and authority came from, and quite probably also what later caused his departure from Tikal. Like we concluded, Stela 39 states its unnamed protagonist to be the son of king Chak Tok Ich'aak. We have already assumed that the throne was secured to Nun Yax Ahiin through a marriage to Chak Tok Ich'aak's daughter, making Yax K'uk' Mo his brother-in-law and an uncle of the future king Siyaj Chan K'awiil. That would reasonably explain Yax K'uk' Mo's role as a sort of de facto regent during the years following Nun Yax Ahiin's early death, when his son was still too young to reign.
We can assume that this setup was not an entirely happy one. To start with, K'uk' Mo was not made the king when his father died. Instead, in a local game of thrones, the succession apparently went to his sister and her husband Nun Yax Ahiin. Back in 378 K'uk' Mo must have been very young and without merit, unable to get support when powerful Siyaj K'ak' arranged his son on the throne through a marriage to the royal family. It is also possible that K'uk' Mo's mother was a lesser wife, while his half-sister was from a higher ranking marriage, appearing a more lucrative option to continue the royal bloodline.
To understand how things eventually came to head in Tikal, we need to look closer what actually happened in 8.19.10.11.0 (September 6, 426), when Yax K'uk' Mo was said to have entered the Root Tree House. The Lord of the Night on that day was G4, as was usual for royal ascensions in Tikal. The Root Tree House had been the scene of Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension decades earlier. Three days earlier Yax K'uk' Mo is said to have "taken K'awiil", meaning he assumed royal responsibilities, on the day of Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension 66th Tzolkin anniversary.
Then, half a year later in 8.19.11.0.13 (February 6, 427), Yax K'uk' Mo resurfaces in Copán and has another ascension ceremony there, also on G4. What does all this mean?
Now, if someone ascended as the king in a location where Tikal kings ascended, that would most likely mean that also he was ascending as the king of Tikal. This is further supported by the fact that the three-day ascension ceremony started on the anniversary of Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension, possibly in a defiant statement of how things should have gone years before.
Overall, it looks as though Yax K'uk' Mo had decided to take over Tikal from his nephew and declared himself as the king of Tikal.
Not yet a teenager, Nun Yax Ahiin's young son Siyaj Chan K'awiil entered public life by overseeing a half-Katun ending in 406. After a wait of eight years and under his uncle's de facto rule, he was made the nominal king in 411. It was however K'uk' Mo who oversaw the Katun ending in 416, which makes us suspect that by then situation had gradually become more tense and the king himself was not residing in Tikal any more, or was otherwise prevented to perform his duties.
Things came to head in January 426 with Siyaj Chan K'awiil "wrapping the headband" (H8) during a half-Katun ending ceremony and thus trying to reassert his kingship. This probably took place outside Tikal, since Stela 31 does not mention the location of the event, something meticulously recorded for every other period ending in the stela.
Whichever way things went from there, we eventually have K'uk' Mo and his followers leaving Tikal and appearing at the remote edge of Maya area in Copán in February 427, taking over the city and enabling K'uk' Mo to continue his rule there, far diminished from his stature in Tikal but nevertheless able to start a long-lasting local dynasty. For him and his entourage, defeated but still standing, his kingship was legitimate and only continued in Copán what had started in Tikal.
Following his defeat, his memory was erased from Tikal and nearby cities under its influence. His monuments were destroyed and his name was removed from the archives. Siyaj Chan K'awiil and his descendants continued to rule in Tikal until the 9th century.
Copán king Yax K'uk' Mo was an outsider who invaded the city in 427 and established a new ruling dynasty. His excavated remains indicate he was over 55 years old when he died some 10 years later. His remains also indicate he spent his childhood in the Peten valley. Only short fragments about him survive in local inscriptions.
For reasons unknown, Yax K'uk' Mo had both the motivation and resources to take over the city as well as the authority to secure the kingship for him and his descendants. This as such is extraordinary. A middle aged man, he must have earlier held a strong position somewhere else before arriving to Copán with his loyal and committed entourage.
To estimate how willingly he was on the move, we need to take a look at Copán's location. It was at the south-easternmost edge of Maya area, far from the central Peten valley. For an apparently powerful high ranking Peten resident to relocate there and bring over enough men and resources to turn it into his own domain, the motivation must have been high and alternatives few. We are probably close to truth if we assume that he and his followers formed a powerful group that had become unwelcome at their original home and forced to restart their lives someplace else, even in a remote area far from the heart of their civilization.
What little information remains of Yax K'uk' Mo's life before Copán, we can see more evidence that he held a high position earlier. According to Copán Stela 15, he oversaw a Katun ending of 8.19.0.0.0 (March 22, 416) in an unknown location, ten years before his arrival to Copán, a task reserved for the highest ranking royals. According to Copán Altar Q, on 8.19.10.10.17 (September 3, 426), half a year before his arrival to Copán, he was engaged in an event that coincided with the 66th Tzolkin anniversary of Tikal king Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension. Altar Q goes on to say that three days later he had an ascension event in a location known as Root Tree House which is the same location where Nun Yax Ahiin was declared king of Tikal decades before in 379.
Overall, it looks probable that he was an important member in Tikal administration and its royal household. That being said, it is reasonable to assume that he was the same individual as the Lord of the Tree K'uk' Mo mentioned in the The Man of Tikal monument. K'uk' Mo oversaw Tikal king Nun Yax Ahiin's funerary stone binding in 403 and another ceremony in 406. It is good to keep in mind that the stone binding of 403 was inexplicably left without mention in Tikal Stela 31, just as the Katun ending of 416.
If we continue assuming that K'uk' Mo of Man of Tikal and Yax K'uk' Mo of Copán were the same person, then it is quite fitting that the unknown protagonist of Stela 39 who oversaw the Katun ending 8.19.0.0.0 in Tikal was him as well. From Copán we had later information on Yax K'uk' Mo that he oversaw that same Katun ending in an unknown location. Man of Tikal monument already has K'uk' Mo directly engaged in the highest royal duties so overseeing a Katun ending would be right there in the same mix.
Thus, we have an answer where his power and authority came from, and quite probably also what later caused his departure from Tikal. Like we concluded, Stela 39 states its unnamed protagonist to be the son of king Chak Tok Ich'aak. We have already assumed that the throne was secured to Nun Yax Ahiin through a marriage to Chak Tok Ich'aak's daughter, making Yax K'uk' Mo his brother-in-law and an uncle of the future king Siyaj Chan K'awiil. That would reasonably explain Yax K'uk' Mo's role as a sort of de facto regent during the years following Nun Yax Ahiin's early death, when his son was still too young to reign.
We can assume that this setup was not an entirely happy one. To start with, K'uk' Mo was not made the king when his father died. Instead, in a local game of thrones, the succession apparently went to his sister and her husband Nun Yax Ahiin. Back in 378 K'uk' Mo must have been very young and without merit, unable to get support when powerful Siyaj K'ak' arranged his son on the throne through a marriage to the royal family. It is also possible that K'uk' Mo's mother was a lesser wife, while his half-sister was from a higher ranking marriage, appearing a more lucrative option to continue the royal bloodline.
To understand how things eventually came to head in Tikal, we need to look closer what actually happened in 8.19.10.11.0 (September 6, 426), when Yax K'uk' Mo was said to have entered the Root Tree House. The Lord of the Night on that day was G4, as was usual for royal ascensions in Tikal. The Root Tree House had been the scene of Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension decades earlier. Three days earlier Yax K'uk' Mo is said to have "taken K'awiil", meaning he assumed royal responsibilities, on the day of Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension 66th Tzolkin anniversary.
Then, half a year later in 8.19.11.0.13 (February 6, 427), Yax K'uk' Mo resurfaces in Copán and has another ascension ceremony there, also on G4. What does all this mean?
Now, if someone ascended as the king in a location where Tikal kings ascended, that would most likely mean that also he was ascending as the king of Tikal. This is further supported by the fact that the three-day ascension ceremony started on the anniversary of Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension, possibly in a defiant statement of how things should have gone years before.
Overall, it looks as though Yax K'uk' Mo had decided to take over Tikal from his nephew and declared himself as the king of Tikal.
Not yet a teenager, Nun Yax Ahiin's young son Siyaj Chan K'awiil entered public life by overseeing a half-Katun ending in 406. After a wait of eight years and under his uncle's de facto rule, he was made the nominal king in 411. It was however K'uk' Mo who oversaw the Katun ending in 416, which makes us suspect that by then situation had gradually become more tense and the king himself was not residing in Tikal any more, or was otherwise prevented to perform his duties.
Things came to head in January 426 with Siyaj Chan K'awiil "wrapping the headband" (H8) during a half-Katun ending ceremony and thus trying to reassert his kingship. This probably took place outside Tikal, since Stela 31 does not mention the location of the event, something meticulously recorded for every other period ending in the stela.
Whichever way things went from there, we eventually have K'uk' Mo and his followers leaving Tikal and appearing at the remote edge of Maya area in Copán in February 427, taking over the city and enabling K'uk' Mo to continue his rule there, far diminished from his stature in Tikal but nevertheless able to start a long-lasting local dynasty. For him and his entourage, defeated but still standing, his kingship was legitimate and only continued in Copán what had started in Tikal.
Following his defeat, his memory was erased from Tikal and nearby cities under its influence. His monuments were destroyed and his name was removed from the archives. Siyaj Chan K'awiil and his descendants continued to rule in Tikal until the 9th century.
PART 7/8: TIKAL STELA 39
We still have Tikal Stela 39 left to examine. Depending on the interpretation, it is either from 376 or 416. The stela is cut in half, and only the lower half surviving. Also the text at the back of the stela has only the ending left.
At the start of the remaining text there are the names of king Chak Tok Ich'aak (B1-B2) and Lady B'alam Way Yaxuun (B3-A4). In front of Lady B'alam's name there is a phrase indicating she is listed here as someone's mother, b'ahja huntan (A3).
The word order strongly implies, supported by visual inspection of what remains, that the partly eroded glyph at the very start of the surviving text at A1 is yune, meaning "child of father", written thus before the name of the father and right after the name of his son, the protagonist whose name and identity are lost. This likely is a standard parental statement (A1-A4) of an unknown person who was the son of king Chak Tok Ich'aak and his wife, Lady B'alam Way Yaxuun (yune Nahbnal K'inich Chak Tok Ich'aak Yax Ehb' Xook b'ahja huntan Ix B'alam Way Yaxuun).
Following the parental statement is a phrase related to Chak Tok Ich'aak's predecessor and likely father king Muwa'an Jol whose glyph appears at B5. Next to nothing is known about him, but according to what seems to be written here, years had gilded his era with special glory.
Glyphs B4-B5 read t’aab’iiy u ch’ahb’ y’ak’abil Muwa'an Jol or "he raised the creation and darkness of Muwa'an Jol". This peculiar Mayan term is best understood through its opposite: defeated people were said to be without creation and darkness. To be able to raise "creation and darkness" was thus a statement of success and victory. The person who raised the creation and darkness apparently was the unknown protagonist. The partly eroded glyph at A6 looks to complete how the raising exactly was achieved, quite probably reading [ye]te b'ak?, "with captives". The unknown protagonist apparently had waged war and returned with a healthy number of captives, thus restoring the victorious days of his grandfather. This is well in line with the stela's front picture showing the headless protagonist treading a tied captive at his feet.
Notable is how the same "with captives" appears to be in the Man of Tikal monument (F8) in a damaged sentence which has Lord of the Tree K'uk' Mo as its protagonist.
At B6-A7 the text states completion of a Katun ending that looks to be 8.19.0.0.0 but is often claimed to actually be a much earlier one 8.17.0.0.0. While the damaged glyph at A7 appears to fit the later Katun ending better, an earlier reading is not impossible. However, the text in general looks far too polished to be from 376. We can compare the high quality of glyphs to the clearly less impressive Tikal Stela 4 from 396. Furthermore, the phrase u-tzutzuw "he completed" at B6 never appears in any 4th century text, and even if we date the stela to 416, it would still be the first ever appearance of this grammatically advanced expression which became common soon thereafter. We tend to date the stela then to 416.
Now, if Chak Tok Ich'aak's son was indeed overseeing a Katun ending in Tikal 38 years after his father's death, the victorious headless figure in stela's front face, trumping a captive, would also be made in the son's image. The fact that Chak Tok Ich'aak's glyph is hanging from the stone blade of the portrayed character rather indicates his ancestry than identity, just like Spearthrower Owl's glyph appears in the ornament held by king Siyaj Ch'an K'awiil in a later Stela 31 reminding people of his powerful grandfather.
Identifying Chak Tok Ich'aak's glyph as an indicator of ancestry makes us suspect that similar two stelas from nearby towns also portray the same unknown Mayan royal. Uxbenka Stela 11, cut from the middle with only the lower part surviving, portrays a now headless man holding an ornament decorated by Chak Tok Ich'aak's glyph. Another Stela 1 from Uolantun has a frontal figure with Chak Tok Ich'aak's glyph hanging from his waist, the stone damaged so that the part portraying the individual's head is missing. The inscriptions in both stelas are badly eroded, but date 8.18.13.5.11 (August 17, 409) can still be read in the Uolantun stela, further giving credence to the later date of 416 for Stela 39.
Comparing these three stelas we see how they have all been deliberately destroyed so that the man displayed on the main surface has lost his head, becoming faceless and anonymous. Damage like this can easiest be explained so that it was meant to make the figure unrecognizable. In all three cases the portrait's direct identifiers must have been in its upper body, most probably in the headpiece as was the usual custom, for instance in Tikal Stelas 31 and 40. Out of respect, no damage was done to Chak Tok Ich'aak's glyph which remains fully intact in each stela, further emphasizing the conclusion that the portrayed person was not him, but related to him.
It seems then that, in and around 416, a descendant of Chak Tok Ich'aak had become a major figure in Tikal and its sphere of influence, possibly falling short of the title of king who according to later texts was Siyaj Chan K'awiil, but still powerful enough to take over royal duties. As such his role appears similar to that of Siyaj K'ak's in Tikal and Uaxlactun from around late 370s to 390s.
At the start of the remaining text there are the names of king Chak Tok Ich'aak (B1-B2) and Lady B'alam Way Yaxuun (B3-A4). In front of Lady B'alam's name there is a phrase indicating she is listed here as someone's mother, b'ahja huntan (A3).
The word order strongly implies, supported by visual inspection of what remains, that the partly eroded glyph at the very start of the surviving text at A1 is yune, meaning "child of father", written thus before the name of the father and right after the name of his son, the protagonist whose name and identity are lost. This likely is a standard parental statement (A1-A4) of an unknown person who was the son of king Chak Tok Ich'aak and his wife, Lady B'alam Way Yaxuun (yune Nahbnal K'inich Chak Tok Ich'aak Yax Ehb' Xook b'ahja huntan Ix B'alam Way Yaxuun).
Following the parental statement is a phrase related to Chak Tok Ich'aak's predecessor and likely father king Muwa'an Jol whose glyph appears at B5. Next to nothing is known about him, but according to what seems to be written here, years had gilded his era with special glory.
Glyphs B4-B5 read t’aab’iiy u ch’ahb’ y’ak’abil Muwa'an Jol or "he raised the creation and darkness of Muwa'an Jol". This peculiar Mayan term is best understood through its opposite: defeated people were said to be without creation and darkness. To be able to raise "creation and darkness" was thus a statement of success and victory. The person who raised the creation and darkness apparently was the unknown protagonist. The partly eroded glyph at A6 looks to complete how the raising exactly was achieved, quite probably reading [ye]te b'ak?, "with captives". The unknown protagonist apparently had waged war and returned with a healthy number of captives, thus restoring the victorious days of his grandfather. This is well in line with the stela's front picture showing the headless protagonist treading a tied captive at his feet.
Notable is how the same "with captives" appears to be in the Man of Tikal monument (F8) in a damaged sentence which has Lord of the Tree K'uk' Mo as its protagonist.
At B6-A7 the text states completion of a Katun ending that looks to be 8.19.0.0.0 but is often claimed to actually be a much earlier one 8.17.0.0.0. While the damaged glyph at A7 appears to fit the later Katun ending better, an earlier reading is not impossible. However, the text in general looks far too polished to be from 376. We can compare the high quality of glyphs to the clearly less impressive Tikal Stela 4 from 396. Furthermore, the phrase u-tzutzuw "he completed" at B6 never appears in any 4th century text, and even if we date the stela to 416, it would still be the first ever appearance of this grammatically advanced expression which became common soon thereafter. We tend to date the stela then to 416.
Now, if Chak Tok Ich'aak's son was indeed overseeing a Katun ending in Tikal 38 years after his father's death, the victorious headless figure in stela's front face, trumping a captive, would also be made in the son's image. The fact that Chak Tok Ich'aak's glyph is hanging from the stone blade of the portrayed character rather indicates his ancestry than identity, just like Spearthrower Owl's glyph appears in the ornament held by king Siyaj Ch'an K'awiil in a later Stela 31 reminding people of his powerful grandfather.
Identifying Chak Tok Ich'aak's glyph as an indicator of ancestry makes us suspect that similar two stelas from nearby towns also portray the same unknown Mayan royal. Uxbenka Stela 11, cut from the middle with only the lower part surviving, portrays a now headless man holding an ornament decorated by Chak Tok Ich'aak's glyph. Another Stela 1 from Uolantun has a frontal figure with Chak Tok Ich'aak's glyph hanging from his waist, the stone damaged so that the part portraying the individual's head is missing. The inscriptions in both stelas are badly eroded, but date 8.18.13.5.11 (August 17, 409) can still be read in the Uolantun stela, further giving credence to the later date of 416 for Stela 39.
Comparing these three stelas we see how they have all been deliberately destroyed so that the man displayed on the main surface has lost his head, becoming faceless and anonymous. Damage like this can easiest be explained so that it was meant to make the figure unrecognizable. In all three cases the portrait's direct identifiers must have been in its upper body, most probably in the headpiece as was the usual custom, for instance in Tikal Stelas 31 and 40. Out of respect, no damage was done to Chak Tok Ich'aak's glyph which remains fully intact in each stela, further emphasizing the conclusion that the portrayed person was not him, but related to him.
It seems then that, in and around 416, a descendant of Chak Tok Ich'aak had become a major figure in Tikal and its sphere of influence, possibly falling short of the title of king who according to later texts was Siyaj Chan K'awiil, but still powerful enough to take over royal duties. As such his role appears similar to that of Siyaj K'ak's in Tikal and Uaxlactun from around late 370s to 390s.
PART 6/8: MAN OF TIKAL MONUMENT
We can now move to the third main inscription at hand, the Man of Tikal monument. It represents a seated male figure with a damaged text at the back. Let us first have a look at the opening lines which date the statue, identify the person and record an event related to him. The date is given as follows:
A1 1 Eb 1 Eb 1 Eb
B1 G1 G1 Lord of the Night G1
A2 6C 6C Moon Semester 6C
B2 10 Yax 10 Yax 10 Yax
C1 MISSING
D1 MISSING
"[On the day] 1 Eb 10 Yax, when Lord of the Night was G1 and Moon Semester was 6C (8.18.10.8.12) [MISSING]."
This sets the date for the statue's dedication as November 2, 406. No rationale is given for the date and the statue, unless it was written in the missing two glyphs.
The text continues:
C2 u-BAH-ja u b'ah-ja the image
D2 u-KIN-ni u k'in the sun
C3 [TAJ?]YAL tayal Tayal
D3 CHAN-K’INICH chan k’inich Chan K’inich
C4 YAX AHIIN Yax Ahiin Yax Ahiin
D4 Huxlahun-MISSING Huxlahun Tzuk? Thirteen Provinces?
C5 K’UH-MUTAL AJAW k'uh[ul] Mutal ajaw holy King of Tikal
"[This is] the image of the Sun, Tayal Chan K'inich Yax Ahiin, [He of the?] Thirteen [Provinces?], the holy King of Tikal."
The statue is said to represent king Nun Yax Ahiin of Tikal. At D4 only the left side of the glyph survives, but having "province" on the right side is possible in the light of a similar "of Thirteen Provinces" or "of the Thirteenth Province" title used for a later Tikal lord Nuun Ujol Chaak.
The next paragraph goes as follows, giving our first actual event recorded in the statue:
D5 7 7 7
C6 5 5 5
D6 3 3 3
C7 yu-k'a-yi CHAN k’a’[a]y u-chan extinguished is his
heaven
D7 10 CHIKCHAN 10 Chikchan 10 Chikchan
C8 k'al-ja TUN k'al-ja tun stone is bound
D8 u-TZ'AK-b'u?-ji utz’akbuji[l] the counted (one)
E3 ya-ta-ji? yataj accompanied (by)
F3 MISSING title?
E4 K'UK' K'uk' K'uk'
F4 MO Mo Mo
"3.5.7 [days earlier] extinguished is his heaven, [on the day] 10 Chikchan (8.18.7.3.5) the stone binding is completed in the company of [title?] K'uk' Mo."
Dated August 3, 403, the first event appears to be the stone-binding ceremony for the death of king Nun Yax Ahiin, conducted by a person named as K'uk' Mo. Whether he was the same person as Yax K'uk' Mo in the Mayan city of Copán some 20 years later, that we need to analyze more a little later.
Notable is that this very important stone binding is not recorded in Tikal Stela 31, which only utmost briefly and inexplicably bluntly states that the then king's father Nun Yax Ahiin "died".
In ceremonial sense, the stone binding event was probably the same which was held for the previous king Chak Tok Ich'aak on January 13, 378. Both took place during the last G2 Lord of the Night before the New Moon, hardly a coincident.
We can assume that king's physical death and his funerary stone binding took place within a short distance of time. Based on that, we can compare the text of Man of Tikal to that of Stela 31.
Stela 31 says that Nun Yax Ahiin died 1.5.2.5 days since something referred to as the "ku-yu-TE". If we count this amount of days backwards from the date of his stone binding event 8.18.7.3.5, we get to the date 8.17.2.1.0 (October 28, 378). The distance of 1.5.2.5 days would then be counted from a date before that.
We earlier noted that the ku-yu-TE/yu-ku-TE term appears to relate to an ascension. Nun Yax Ahiin has two ascension events in Stela 31. The first is his ascension to the Root Tree House (E5-E8) which took place on "8 Men", an incomplete date which is either 8.17.2.0.15 (October 23, 378) or 8.17.2.13.15 (July 10, 379). The second ascension is to the actual rulership (F8-E15), taking place on 8.17.2.16.17 (September 10, 379). Both ascensions were supervised by Siyaj K'ak'.
In most publications, "ku-yu-TE" is counted from 8.17.2.16.17. But that would make Nun Yax Ahiin's death date as 8.18.8.1.2 (June 15, 404) which is almost a year later than his own funeral.
On the other hand, 8.17.2.1.0 is only five days after the first "8 Men" candidate 8.17.2.0.15. This would indicate that "ku-yu-TE" was not counted from the actual ascension event which took place in 379, but from Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension to the Root Tree House, regarded here as the basis for his royal reign. This interpretation is further supported by the appearance of "TE" in both expressions, meaning "tree".
It is also worth noting that Stela 31 refers to the Root Tree House ascension literally as an ascension (t‘ab‘aay, E5), while the later ascension to the rulership is expressed in a complicated manner: "he receives 28 jewels (?), it is his burden" (E12-E13). An earlier Stela 4 makes it clear that 8.17.2.16.17 was his actual ascension event, but in Stela 31 the text is more muddled.
Complicating things, the author of Stela 31 had also mis-copied the date of the actual ascension event ("10 Kaban" instead of "5 Kaban", at F8). If he tried to calculate a distance from that date, it would be outright impossible, making it further likely that he used the Root Tree House ascension as the base date.
Assuming the above is correct, king Nun Yax Ahiin's date of death was 8.18.7.3.0 (July 29, 403) and his stone binding ceremony took place five days later, probably delayed to match the last G2 Lord of the Night before the New Moon, just as Chak Tok Ich'aak's, his predecessor's, stone binding 24 years earlier.
Interestingly, the date of Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension to Root Tree House was little over nine months after the funeral of Chak Tok Ich'aak. Perhaps Nun Yax Ahiin's unknown mother was impregnated only after king's death, in a hurry to produce the next king upon old one's unexpected demise, and the boy was rushed to the king making procedures as soon as he was born.
Let us take a look at the remaining text of Man of Tikal monument.
The next two events starting at E3 prove far more difficult to understand. The first one of them, starting from the date is as follows:
E3 7.11 7.11 7.11
F3 6 Imix 6 Imix 6 Imix
E4 MISSING
F4 MUTAL Mutal Tikal
E5 KALOMTE Kalomte Kalomte
F5 SYI-ja JUL Siyaj jul Siyaj spears/perforates
E6 tu CH'EN tu ch'en in the cave/city
F6 AJAW MUTAL ajaw Mutal Tikal King
[HIX BIRD] [HIX BIRD] (White) Jaguar Bird
E7 u?-chu?-ka?-wa uchukuw? he captures/seizes?
F7 KALOMTE MUTAL Kalomte Mutal Kalomte Tikal
Tikal is mentioned in the text 3 times. Before attempting to sort out the text in more detail, the identity of "Tikal Kalomte Siyaj" needs some closer scrutiny.
Was he the same person as Kalomte Siyaj K'ak'? There is no "K'ak'" after "Siyaj" here, otherwise always attached to his name in surviving sources. The title also directly connects to Tikal, something that any title of Siyaj K'ak' never did, except in the much later and only partly readable Uaxactun Stela 5 (Siyaj K'ak' Mutal ajaw(?), "the Tikal lord Siyaj K'ak'"). Noteworthy is also that a similar title "Kalomte and king of Tikal" was given to king Nun Yax Ahiin in Stela 31 (O3-P3), making it sound like "Tikal Kalomte" was a title reserved for the king.
Counted 7.11 backwards from the statue's establishment, the event date is 8.18.10.1.1 (June 4, 406), just three weeks after the half-Katun ending 8.18.10.0.0 (May 14, 406). According to Stela 31, the person to oversee this ending was some Siyaj Chan K'inich, written there without a title or any other information about his identity as if the name was self-explanatory (F23). We are probably correct if we assume that Siyaj Chan K'inich was a pre-regnal name for king Siyaj Chan K'awiil himself, whose ascension event is listed in Stela 31 right after the period ending ceremony. Apparently the name "Siyaj" was taken from his paternal grandfather and "Chan K'inich" from his father.
Based on this, it looks then that in spring 406 the future king Siyaj Chan K'awiil was becoming old enough to take part in royal duties (although far from today's adult and probably not even a teenager yet), and he was the person named in the text as "Tikal Kalomte Siyaj".
The clear spear glyph right after Siyaj's name is probably also related to him becoming an adult. Here it looks to mean that he was perforating in order to offer his own blood as a sacrifice. Perforation took place in some special "cave", possibly the same location which was in Stela 39 referred to as the "cave of the First Tikal city" (A8-B8), the location of the Katun ending ceremony ten years later.
We can also count that the date of the first event 8.18.10.1.1 was 4 Tzolkin years and one day after the reconstructed date of Nun Yax Ahiin's death (8.18.7.3.0).
Noting that the title Kalomte Tikal appears twice here, we can assume that the section has two different sentences. The second event in the Man of Tikal monument would then probably read as follows:
"7.11 [days earlier, on day] 6 Imix, [MISSING] Tikal Kalomte Siyaj perforates in the cave; Tikal King White Jaguar Bird captures(?) Tikal Kalomte."
White Jaguar Bird was a purely legendary Tikal king, existing well before the official list of kings. His role in the perforation ritual is unclear, but apparently supernatural. The verb at E7 is difficult to read, but is probably uchukuw, "captures" (T87.515a:1.130). We can only guess that the royal perforation somehow made White Jaguar Bird manifest himself, and maybe enter and empower the perforating person.
The third and final event is fragmented, and appears to go as follows:
E8 2 Oc 2 Oc 2 Oc
F8 ye'?te B'AK ye'?te b'ak with captives?
G1 MISSING
H1 MISSING
G2 K'uk' K'uk' K'uk'
H2 MISSING (Mo?)
G3 ya-AJAW TE’ yajaw te’ Lord of the Tree
H3 MISSING
The event is dated simply as 2 Oc. There is only one suitable date between the previous event and the establishment of the statue, and that is 8.18.10.1.10 (June 13, 406), nine days after the preceding event. It apparently was conducted by K'uk' Mo, who appears to be mentioned at the end of the text, equipped with a royal title Lord of the Tree.
Interesting here is how the text includes a reference to captives, presumably in a sentence that praises its protagonist K'uk' Mo for bringing them to Tikal for sacrifice or some other purpose. We appear to have the same ye'te b'ak, "with captives", in Tikal Stela 39 (A6), which we'll examine in closer detail a bit later.
Figure 6.1. Two probable variants of the "with captives" expression. a) Man of Tikal monument F8 (ye'te b'ak, T33:512.78.1045). b) Tikal Stela 39 at A6 (?te b'ak, T?.78.1045).
If the earlier event was a memorial for the previous king's death, then what was the purpose of the last event?
The statue's hip is decorated by a large glyph of king Chak Tok Ich'aak, however with no mention of the king himself in the remaining text. On the other hip, there has been another similar sized glyph which is largely damaged; only its lower left corner remains without offering clear clues to the glyph's reading.
We earlier noted how the stone binding ceremonies for both Nun Yax Ahiin and Chak Tok Ich'aak took place when Lord of the Night was G2 and the moon one or two nights short of being new. There clearly was desire to link the two kings to each other. Since we noted that the 8.18.10.1.1 event conducted by king's son seems to commemorate his death, would the 8.18.10.1.10 event then be a similar commemoration to Chak Tok Ich'aak's death?
Counting backwards, we can see that the last event took place 22 days before the 40th Tzolkin anniversary of Chak Tok Ich'aak's stone binding ceremony. Relying on the logic of the previous event, we could now speculate that 8.18.10.1.10 was one day after the 40th Tzolkin anniversary of his death. Chak Tok Ich'aak would then have perished on 8.17.1.3.9 (December 21, 377) and his stone binding ceremony held 23 days later, delayed to have it exactly 24.5 Tzolkin years after his ascension, on the last G2 before the New Moon. Thus, when Siyaj K'ak' participated in an unknown ceremony in another Mayan town of el Peru (or at least his name is mentioned in an eroded local stela in some capacity) on 8.17.1.4.4 (January 5, 378), the king was probably dead already and Siyaj K'ak' regarded as the highest authority.
Overall, Man of Tikal appears to record the 4th and 40th Tzolkin death anniversaries of the last two kings of Tikal.
We still lack explanation for the date of the statue itself. The rationale may have existed at C1-D1, but the glyphs have been lost when the statue was broken. It is possible that there was a third person commemorated by the statue, and the damaged glyph on the statue's hip identified him.
It is interesting that the statue was erected exactly 121 Tzolkin years after the date set in the so-called Leyden Plate, regarded as one of the oldest known Mayan artifacts with a date on it. Leyden Plate records an unknown event on 8.14.3.1.12 (September 14, 320). Whether Leyden Plate was made in Tikal or not, is debatable, but often suspected as likely. In its short text, there seems to be a location at A1-10, very similar to the location name in Tikal Stela 31 at D6, followed by three glyphs which appear to be related to the death of an individual. One possible reading of the last glyphs is "sleeps the young heaven, extinguished is the great one".
A1 1 Eb 1 Eb 1 Eb
B1 G1 G1 Lord of the Night G1
A2 6C 6C Moon Semester 6C
B2 10 Yax 10 Yax 10 Yax
C1 MISSING
D1 MISSING
"[On the day] 1 Eb 10 Yax, when Lord of the Night was G1 and Moon Semester was 6C (8.18.10.8.12) [MISSING]."
This sets the date for the statue's dedication as November 2, 406. No rationale is given for the date and the statue, unless it was written in the missing two glyphs.
The text continues:
C2 u-BAH-ja u b'ah-ja the image
D2 u-KIN-ni u k'in the sun
C3 [TAJ?]YAL tayal Tayal
D3 CHAN-K’INICH chan k’inich Chan K’inich
C4 YAX AHIIN Yax Ahiin Yax Ahiin
D4 Huxlahun-MISSING Huxlahun Tzuk? Thirteen Provinces?
C5 K’UH-MUTAL AJAW k'uh[ul] Mutal ajaw holy King of Tikal
"[This is] the image of the Sun, Tayal Chan K'inich Yax Ahiin, [He of the?] Thirteen [Provinces?], the holy King of Tikal."
The statue is said to represent king Nun Yax Ahiin of Tikal. At D4 only the left side of the glyph survives, but having "province" on the right side is possible in the light of a similar "of Thirteen Provinces" or "of the Thirteenth Province" title used for a later Tikal lord Nuun Ujol Chaak.
The next paragraph goes as follows, giving our first actual event recorded in the statue:
D5 7 7 7
C6 5 5 5
D6 3 3 3
C7 yu-k'a-yi CHAN k’a’[a]y u-chan extinguished is his
heaven
D7 10 CHIKCHAN 10 Chikchan 10 Chikchan
C8 k'al-ja TUN k'al-ja tun stone is bound
D8 u-TZ'AK-b'u?-ji utz’akbuji[l] the counted (one)
E3 ya-ta-ji? yataj accompanied (by)
F3 MISSING title?
E4 K'UK' K'uk' K'uk'
F4 MO Mo Mo
"3.5.7 [days earlier] extinguished is his heaven, [on the day] 10 Chikchan (8.18.7.3.5) the stone binding is completed in the company of [title?] K'uk' Mo."
Dated August 3, 403, the first event appears to be the stone-binding ceremony for the death of king Nun Yax Ahiin, conducted by a person named as K'uk' Mo. Whether he was the same person as Yax K'uk' Mo in the Mayan city of Copán some 20 years later, that we need to analyze more a little later.
Notable is that this very important stone binding is not recorded in Tikal Stela 31, which only utmost briefly and inexplicably bluntly states that the then king's father Nun Yax Ahiin "died".
In ceremonial sense, the stone binding event was probably the same which was held for the previous king Chak Tok Ich'aak on January 13, 378. Both took place during the last G2 Lord of the Night before the New Moon, hardly a coincident.
We can assume that king's physical death and his funerary stone binding took place within a short distance of time. Based on that, we can compare the text of Man of Tikal to that of Stela 31.
Stela 31 says that Nun Yax Ahiin died 1.5.2.5 days since something referred to as the "ku-yu-TE". If we count this amount of days backwards from the date of his stone binding event 8.18.7.3.5, we get to the date 8.17.2.1.0 (October 28, 378). The distance of 1.5.2.5 days would then be counted from a date before that.
We earlier noted that the ku-yu-TE/yu-ku-TE term appears to relate to an ascension. Nun Yax Ahiin has two ascension events in Stela 31. The first is his ascension to the Root Tree House (E5-E8) which took place on "8 Men", an incomplete date which is either 8.17.2.0.15 (October 23, 378) or 8.17.2.13.15 (July 10, 379). The second ascension is to the actual rulership (F8-E15), taking place on 8.17.2.16.17 (September 10, 379). Both ascensions were supervised by Siyaj K'ak'.
In most publications, "ku-yu-TE" is counted from 8.17.2.16.17. But that would make Nun Yax Ahiin's death date as 8.18.8.1.2 (June 15, 404) which is almost a year later than his own funeral.
On the other hand, 8.17.2.1.0 is only five days after the first "8 Men" candidate 8.17.2.0.15. This would indicate that "ku-yu-TE" was not counted from the actual ascension event which took place in 379, but from Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension to the Root Tree House, regarded here as the basis for his royal reign. This interpretation is further supported by the appearance of "TE" in both expressions, meaning "tree".
It is also worth noting that Stela 31 refers to the Root Tree House ascension literally as an ascension (t‘ab‘aay, E5), while the later ascension to the rulership is expressed in a complicated manner: "he receives 28 jewels (?), it is his burden" (E12-E13). An earlier Stela 4 makes it clear that 8.17.2.16.17 was his actual ascension event, but in Stela 31 the text is more muddled.
Complicating things, the author of Stela 31 had also mis-copied the date of the actual ascension event ("10 Kaban" instead of "5 Kaban", at F8). If he tried to calculate a distance from that date, it would be outright impossible, making it further likely that he used the Root Tree House ascension as the base date.
Assuming the above is correct, king Nun Yax Ahiin's date of death was 8.18.7.3.0 (July 29, 403) and his stone binding ceremony took place five days later, probably delayed to match the last G2 Lord of the Night before the New Moon, just as Chak Tok Ich'aak's, his predecessor's, stone binding 24 years earlier.
Interestingly, the date of Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension to Root Tree House was little over nine months after the funeral of Chak Tok Ich'aak. Perhaps Nun Yax Ahiin's unknown mother was impregnated only after king's death, in a hurry to produce the next king upon old one's unexpected demise, and the boy was rushed to the king making procedures as soon as he was born.
Let us take a look at the remaining text of Man of Tikal monument.
The next two events starting at E3 prove far more difficult to understand. The first one of them, starting from the date is as follows:
E3 7.11 7.11 7.11
F3 6 Imix 6 Imix 6 Imix
E4 MISSING
F4 MUTAL Mutal Tikal
E5 KALOMTE Kalomte Kalomte
F5 SYI-ja JUL Siyaj jul Siyaj spears/perforates
E6 tu CH'EN tu ch'en in the cave/city
F6 AJAW MUTAL ajaw Mutal Tikal King
[HIX BIRD] [HIX BIRD] (White) Jaguar Bird
E7 u?-chu?-ka?-wa uchukuw? he captures/seizes?
F7 KALOMTE MUTAL Kalomte Mutal Kalomte Tikal
Tikal is mentioned in the text 3 times. Before attempting to sort out the text in more detail, the identity of "Tikal Kalomte Siyaj" needs some closer scrutiny.
Was he the same person as Kalomte Siyaj K'ak'? There is no "K'ak'" after "Siyaj" here, otherwise always attached to his name in surviving sources. The title also directly connects to Tikal, something that any title of Siyaj K'ak' never did, except in the much later and only partly readable Uaxactun Stela 5 (Siyaj K'ak' Mutal ajaw(?), "the Tikal lord Siyaj K'ak'"). Noteworthy is also that a similar title "Kalomte and king of Tikal" was given to king Nun Yax Ahiin in Stela 31 (O3-P3), making it sound like "Tikal Kalomte" was a title reserved for the king.
Counted 7.11 backwards from the statue's establishment, the event date is 8.18.10.1.1 (June 4, 406), just three weeks after the half-Katun ending 8.18.10.0.0 (May 14, 406). According to Stela 31, the person to oversee this ending was some Siyaj Chan K'inich, written there without a title or any other information about his identity as if the name was self-explanatory (F23). We are probably correct if we assume that Siyaj Chan K'inich was a pre-regnal name for king Siyaj Chan K'awiil himself, whose ascension event is listed in Stela 31 right after the period ending ceremony. Apparently the name "Siyaj" was taken from his paternal grandfather and "Chan K'inich" from his father.
Based on this, it looks then that in spring 406 the future king Siyaj Chan K'awiil was becoming old enough to take part in royal duties (although far from today's adult and probably not even a teenager yet), and he was the person named in the text as "Tikal Kalomte Siyaj".
The clear spear glyph right after Siyaj's name is probably also related to him becoming an adult. Here it looks to mean that he was perforating in order to offer his own blood as a sacrifice. Perforation took place in some special "cave", possibly the same location which was in Stela 39 referred to as the "cave of the First Tikal city" (A8-B8), the location of the Katun ending ceremony ten years later.
We can also count that the date of the first event 8.18.10.1.1 was 4 Tzolkin years and one day after the reconstructed date of Nun Yax Ahiin's death (8.18.7.3.0).
Noting that the title Kalomte Tikal appears twice here, we can assume that the section has two different sentences. The second event in the Man of Tikal monument would then probably read as follows:
"7.11 [days earlier, on day] 6 Imix, [MISSING] Tikal Kalomte Siyaj perforates in the cave; Tikal King White Jaguar Bird captures(?) Tikal Kalomte."
White Jaguar Bird was a purely legendary Tikal king, existing well before the official list of kings. His role in the perforation ritual is unclear, but apparently supernatural. The verb at E7 is difficult to read, but is probably uchukuw, "captures" (T87.515a:1.130). We can only guess that the royal perforation somehow made White Jaguar Bird manifest himself, and maybe enter and empower the perforating person.
The third and final event is fragmented, and appears to go as follows:
E8 2 Oc 2 Oc 2 Oc
F8 ye'?te B'AK ye'?te b'ak with captives?
G1 MISSING
H1 MISSING
G2 K'uk' K'uk' K'uk'
H2 MISSING (Mo?)
G3 ya-AJAW TE’ yajaw te’ Lord of the Tree
H3 MISSING
The event is dated simply as 2 Oc. There is only one suitable date between the previous event and the establishment of the statue, and that is 8.18.10.1.10 (June 13, 406), nine days after the preceding event. It apparently was conducted by K'uk' Mo, who appears to be mentioned at the end of the text, equipped with a royal title Lord of the Tree.
Interesting here is how the text includes a reference to captives, presumably in a sentence that praises its protagonist K'uk' Mo for bringing them to Tikal for sacrifice or some other purpose. We appear to have the same ye'te b'ak, "with captives", in Tikal Stela 39 (A6), which we'll examine in closer detail a bit later.
If the earlier event was a memorial for the previous king's death, then what was the purpose of the last event?
The statue's hip is decorated by a large glyph of king Chak Tok Ich'aak, however with no mention of the king himself in the remaining text. On the other hip, there has been another similar sized glyph which is largely damaged; only its lower left corner remains without offering clear clues to the glyph's reading.
We earlier noted how the stone binding ceremonies for both Nun Yax Ahiin and Chak Tok Ich'aak took place when Lord of the Night was G2 and the moon one or two nights short of being new. There clearly was desire to link the two kings to each other. Since we noted that the 8.18.10.1.1 event conducted by king's son seems to commemorate his death, would the 8.18.10.1.10 event then be a similar commemoration to Chak Tok Ich'aak's death?
Counting backwards, we can see that the last event took place 22 days before the 40th Tzolkin anniversary of Chak Tok Ich'aak's stone binding ceremony. Relying on the logic of the previous event, we could now speculate that 8.18.10.1.10 was one day after the 40th Tzolkin anniversary of his death. Chak Tok Ich'aak would then have perished on 8.17.1.3.9 (December 21, 377) and his stone binding ceremony held 23 days later, delayed to have it exactly 24.5 Tzolkin years after his ascension, on the last G2 before the New Moon. Thus, when Siyaj K'ak' participated in an unknown ceremony in another Mayan town of el Peru (or at least his name is mentioned in an eroded local stela in some capacity) on 8.17.1.4.4 (January 5, 378), the king was probably dead already and Siyaj K'ak' regarded as the highest authority.
Overall, Man of Tikal appears to record the 4th and 40th Tzolkin death anniversaries of the last two kings of Tikal.
We still lack explanation for the date of the statue itself. The rationale may have existed at C1-D1, but the glyphs have been lost when the statue was broken. It is possible that there was a third person commemorated by the statue, and the damaged glyph on the statue's hip identified him.
It is interesting that the statue was erected exactly 121 Tzolkin years after the date set in the so-called Leyden Plate, regarded as one of the oldest known Mayan artifacts with a date on it. Leyden Plate records an unknown event on 8.14.3.1.12 (September 14, 320). Whether Leyden Plate was made in Tikal or not, is debatable, but often suspected as likely. In its short text, there seems to be a location at A1-10, very similar to the location name in Tikal Stela 31 at D6, followed by three glyphs which appear to be related to the death of an individual. One possible reading of the last glyphs is "sleeps the young heaven, extinguished is the great one".
PART 5/8: NUN YAX AHIIN
We can now return to Stela 31 and see what it tells of the years before and after 378. First we need to assess the damaged parts of the stela a bit more.
In Stela 31, the glyps at G5-G6 probably are the ending of the ascension event which starts at E28. Reading uhtiy UNKNOWN-nal chan ch'en, where the unknown glyph seems to be a Jaguar variant of Rain God Chak, they simply state the location of an event preceding it, now lost. Since the god head at H5 is the same as the one held by the king in his arm in stela's imposing front figure, crowned there with the "king of Tikal" glyph, glyphs at G5-G6 can easily be seen as the location of his ascension, therefore ending the anonymous ascension event 8.18.15.11.0 (November 24, 411) which starts at E28-F28, right before the stone has been broken and the actual description of the ascension ceremony lost.
Figure 5.1. a) The crowned god head held by Siyaj Chan K'awiil in the front of Tikal Stela 31. b) The god head in a place name of an unknown event in Tikal Stela 31 at H5, topped here with the three-leaf syllable "NAL" (T86) indicating it is a location.
Interestingly, this otherwise robust interpretation leaves the Katun ending of 416 without mention in the stela, even if lesser half-Katun endings before (406) and after (426) it are listed and it took place during the current king's reign. We already noticed how the stone binding ceremony of king's father in 403 is also left without mention.
This possibly hints at an unclear political situation in Tikal before Siyaj Chan K'awil "wrapped the headband" on his 15th year of reign in 426 (H8) and established his authority beyond mere nominal rule. Whoever was in charge of 416 Katun ending - and probably also the missing stonebinding for Yax Nun Ahiin in 403 - was simply left without mention, along with the events he oversaw, his memory removed from the pages of history. This gives room for some interesting analysis about Tikal Stela 39, but more about that a little later.
Towards the beginning of the text, we have another part cut off mid-event. The start of the chronologically first event is at A26-B26 right before the stone has been broken. Katun ending dedication utz'akbuji[l] u kabjiy clearly survives the damage. When the text again continues with glyphs at C5-C7 in the beginning of the second paragraph, it says something had taken place in a location related to the legendary "Chi-Throne" (C7). The concrete nature of "Chi-Throne" is shrouded in history, but it is often associated with ur-events taking place deep in history, listed at the start of chronological narratives. Glyphs C5-C7 are thus probably the ending of the period ending event that starts at A26-B26. So, it looks like Stela 31 records just one Katun ending before the one overseen by Ix Unen K'awiil Bahlam ("Baby Jaguar") in 317, listed right after the first one (D7-D11).
The order of glyphs at C5-C7 appears to resemble the final part of the later Baktun ending event of 435 in the last paragraph (H20-G24). Whereas the glyphs at C5-C7 mention the legendary "Waterlily Jaguar" titled as Kalomte followed by a location, the glyphs at H20-G24 conclude with the name of Spearthrowing Owl titled as Kalomte, also followed by a location. The Baktun ending was possibly a re-staging of the earlier legendary event which started the original narrative, with king Siyaj Chan K'awiil performing a period ending ceremony in the company of ancestor's spirit and the powerful Kalomte, just like his forefather long time ago. Noteworthy in this light is how the "water-lilied" or foliated yax glyph of C5 has been placed over Siyaj Chan K'awiil glyph in his headdress, linking the king to a participant of the legendary event.
Although no date survives for the first Katun ending ceremony, the possible link to the Baktun ending gives us a good chance of proposing one. Noteworthy in the text is how the Tzolkin date is emphasized for each Katun and half-Katun ending. Having a closer look makes it seem that the two legendary or semi-legendary Katun endings and the contemporary ones were connected to each other due to respective Tzolkin anniversaries.
We can look for an example outside Tikal. Stela K of Pusilhá celebrates a Katun ending of 9.12.0.0.0 (June 26, 672), linking it to an earlier legendary one that took place in 8.6.0.0.0 (December 17, 159). No straightforward explanation for their connection is given. However, they both had the Tzolkin date 10 Ajaw, making the latter the 720th Tzolkin anniversary of the first. We also see a similar connection in Tikal Stela 31, where the currently celebrated half-Katun of 9.0.10.0.0 (October 16, 445) was the 180th Tzolkin anniversary of the second-mentioned Katun ending tended by Baby Jaguar (8.14.0.0.0).
Thus, it looks feasible to assume that the great Baktun ending of 9.0.0.0.0 was a similar Tzolkin anniversary of the first listed legendary period ending that took place at the all-important Chi-Throne place. If we go backwards checking which Katun ending had the same Tzolkin date 8 Ajaw, it takes us back to 8.7.0.0.0 (September 3, 179). Assuming we are correct here, the Baktun ending was the 360th Tzolkin anniversary of the 8.7.0.0.0 ending, just as the half-Katun ending following it was the 180th Tzolkin anniversary of the 8.14.0.0.0 ending. This way, the presence of both early Katun endings in the text is well explained.
Having a better understanding now what is and what is not included in Stela 31, we can take a closer look at Tikal king Nun Yax Ahiin, the father of Siyaj Chan K'awiil. Very little is known about him, and he seems to have died at a young age.
At G20-F21, the king is said to have died when 1.5.2.5 days passed since something spelled out as ku-yu-TE had taken place, quite likely the same word which is spelled as yu-ku-TE at D25, where it appears in reference to the funerary event of the earlier king Chak Tok Ich'aak.
Lacking further usage of the term in other sources, but without more elaboration, the phrase ku-yu-TE/yu-ku-TE is usually regarded as the distance from the deceased royal's ascension to the thrown. Since Nun Yax Ahiin ascended on the throne on 8.17.2.16.17 (September 10, 379), that would date his death at 8.18.8.1.2 (June 15, 404). We get back to examining the correctness of this date a bit later.
Stela 31 says at both F19 and I2 that Nun Yax Ahiin was a "one-Katun king" or "Katun king". This term seems to refer to the number of Katun endings that the individual had experienced during his entire lifetime. For example, the Yaxchilan king Bird Jaguar IV was said to have been a three-Katun king; he was born 709 and ruled during 752-768 until his death, thus living through three Katun endings of 711, 731 and 751.
The Katun ending we know Nun Yax Ahiin lived to see was the one in 396 which he oversaw in the capacity of the king, as stated in Stela 31 (F13-F18) and Stela 4. We could thus conclude that Nun Yax Ahiin was born no earlier than October 19, 376 (8.17.0.0.1) and lived no longer than March 21, 416 (8.18.19.17.19). Since his ascension took place September 10, 379, he was basically just a toddler back then and other people exercised the real power on his behalf.
To assess if Nun Yax Ahiin really was no older than an infant at the time of his ascension, we can have a look at the births and deaths of his descendants. The birthday of his son Siyaj Chan K'awiil is unknown, but he's known to have died in 9.1.0.8.0 (February 1, 456). According to somewhat eroded Tikal Stela 40, Siyaj Chan K'awiil's son K'an Chitam was born either 8.18.18.12.2 (November 30, 414) or 8.18.19.12.1 (November 24, 415). If we just throw a guess that Siyaj Chan K'awiil was born in 396, his father Nun Yax Ahiin was then no more than 20 years old, and Siyaj Chan K'awiil himself was 18/19 years old when his own son was born, later dying at the age of 60.
Good questions are why and how was Nun Yax Ahiin made the king if he was just a small boy. There is no evidence that he was a member of the royal family, unless distantly related - but extant sources don't claim even remote blood relation.
A significant factor is the involvement of Siyaj K'ak'. In Stela 31, almost 70 years after Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension, Tikal royalty still publicly praised Siyaj K'ak's central role in making him the king. This was politically secure and understandable since, like we earlier concluded, Siyaj K'ak' was the original Mayan name for Spearthrowing Owl, who is given as Nun Yax Ahiin's father in two occasions in Stela 31 (K4-L4, M3-N3). Thus, Siyaj K'ak' was the paternal grandfather of the then king Siyaj Chan K'awiil. In a most unsurprising move, upon assuming the real power, Siyaj K'ak' apparently made his own son the nominal king and ruled on his behalf in the background. After Chak Tok Ich'aak's death (or possibly even before that) and through unknown events, Siyaj K'ak' must have become the highest authority in the city state and wielded the power to arrange the situation to his liking, finding the new king no farther than from his own household.
Noteworthy is that even if the boy king was unrelated to the earlier royal family, there is no sign in later sources that the old dynasty was regarded as broken or a new dynasty established. There is no sign that the memory of the deceased king Chak Tok Ich'aak was suppressed or tarnished; quite contrary, the late king is treated with utmost respect in the inscriptions that remain, and his old palace was turned into a place of worship.
We can compare Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension to the events in the early 6th century when Tikal was ruled by an enigmatic "Lady of Tikal", a young girl, probably the daughter of the earlier king Chak Tok Ich'aak II. Although vested with many royal honours, she was never regarded as the "real" monarch which was a position reserved for men only. Therefore two of her escorts were listed as official rulers in the dynastic count on her behalf. Apparently marrying to the female line was regarded sufficient to become king if no suitable male heir existed.
We can suspect that something very similar took place in 378. Siyaj K'ak' married his young son off to the young daughter of the dead king, resorting to an acceptable way of continuing the dynasty while keeping the real power in his own hands.
Pointing to this conclusion is also the royal title of Nun Yax Ahiin's wife "Lady K'inich". The mother of Nun Yax Ahiin's son and successor Siyaj Chan K’awiil, was given the rare "GI title" in Stela 31 (A24-B24), repeated also in Marcador monument at G8. GI title is known to have been worn only by a handful of other women: the earlier mentioned "Lady of Tikal", another royal Tikal spouse Lady Tzutz Nik(?) and Lady Sak K’uk’ of Palenque. As in the case with Nun Yax Ahiin's wife, no indisputable information survives of their backgrounds, but they all seem to have had their hand in matrilineal descent of royal dynasties. Let us take a closer look.
In the most apparent looking case, Lady of Tikal seems to have continued the royal dynasty on the matrilineal line and enabled her escorts' authority thru' herself. No other reason could easily justify why a six-year-old girl had presence in the state hierarchy. Noteworthy is also that she did not ascend on the throne because the male line was extinct: her surviving brother or half-brother Wak Chan K'awiil became the king years later.
Lady Tzutz Nik was the wife of Tikal king K'an Chitam who was the son of king Siyaj Chan K'awiil II. She did not belong to the Tikal royal family before her marriage and the dynasty continued uninterrupted on the male line. Her GI title was thus unrelated to succession in Tikal. Instead, she seems to have created a connection to the ruling house of the near-by Naranjo. A royal title specific to Naranjo, sak chuwen, appears in Tikal Stela 3 related to K'an Chitam and later resurfaces in connection to his son Chak Tok Ich'aak II, possibly indicating a dynastic claim to Naranjo rulership which the Tikal kings had started to regard as their own by marrying a Naranjo Lady Tzutz Nik.
The family relations of Lady Sak K’uk’ of Palenque remain murky, but she seems to have played a key role in continuing the local dynasty as the mother of king K’inich Janahb Pakal I.
In the light of these three ladies, it looks possible that when the same GI title was granted to the wife of Nun Yax Ahiin, it indicated she was regarded as the legitimate heir to Chak Tok Ich'aak, her father, and was thus able to make her spouse the king, just as happened later in the case of Lady of Tikal. This would also give a hassle-free explanation why the dynastic count never broke and why there appears to have been no hostility towards the former king. Everything remained in the family.
Another small detail in stela 31 points to this conclusion as well. Every royal name mentioned in the text before Nun Yax Ahiin shares a pointy jaguar's ear (C5, D8, D13). The same jaguar ear is also rendered in his wife's name (A25), connecting her with all who had gone before her.
Figure 5.2. Jaguar-eared individuals in Stela 31. a) "Waterlily Jaguar" at C5. b) Ix Bahlam Unen K'awiil ("Baby Jaguar") at D8. c) Part of Chak Tok Ich'aak's nominal sequence at D13. c) Part of Nun Yax Ahiin's wife's nominal sequence at A25.
A very visible rendering of Lady K'inich's glyph is also added to the belt of the imposing front figure of his son, parallel with the glyph of legendary Baby Jaguar, both female figures possibly having played a role in continuing the royal house through matrilineal descent.
Overall, it looks feasible that, at a very young age, Nun Yax Ahiin was married to the deceased king's surviving little daughter, neither having a say about the arrangement. In older age, they had at least one son together, the future king Siyaj Chan K'awiil, sharing the name of his paternal grandfather Siyaj K'ak'. Chak Tok Ich'aak may or may not have been survived by sons as well, but quite probably not anyone adult, making it effortless for Siyaj K'ak' to become the regent and arrange his own son to marry to the royal house and be made king. As was with the case of Lady of Tikal, political necessities seemed to justify dynasties to continue through female line even if the male line was also available. There indeed are indicators that in the early 5th century, after the untimely death of Nun Yax Ahiin, a son of Chak Tok Ich'aak, perhaps from another wife of his, became a prominent figure in Tikal but was eventually overcome by his nephew king Siyaj Chan K'awiil and forced to leave Tikal. More about that later.
We don't know how old Chak Tok Ich'aak was at the time of his death, but we seem to be able to reconstruct he had a small daughter and possibly a small son. Having ruled already for 18 years by then, it seems he was a small boy himself at the time of his ascension in 360. Nun Yax Ahiin was also an infant when he was made a king, and his own son no man yet when he died. Tikal seemed to have had a period of almost 70 years when boy-kings sat on the throne and various strongmen exercised the power on their behalf.
When reading Mayan texts, we need to remember that all that survives is just a fraction of everything which was written down. And what remains is almost all public propaganda, telling things as the ruling class wanted the general population to understand and remember things. Main signs of internal trouble appear in sources mostly as void, and what was written for the public seldom bears any memory of infighting. The losing side just disappeared.
We need to return to the significance of two important stone-bindings missing from the narrative of Stela 31. For a reason or another, but certainly for some reason, they were not events that people were to be reminded of.
Like we earlier saw, there is no mention of the stone binding for the death of king Nun Yax Ahiin, the reigning king's father, only an abrupt remark that he died (E22). This definitely was not out of disrespect to the king, since he's given plenty of space and praise in the monument elsewhere. There is also no mention of the stone binding for the 8.19.0.0.0 Katun ending (416), which took place during the king's own reign. Both half-Katun endings before and after it are nevertheless mentioned. Omitting these two stone bindings might not be because they did not take place, but rather because the person who conducted them was erased from the archives and none of his undertakings were put on stone; the events were simply skipped over not to remind anyone of the outcast.
Overall, reading between the lines, we can see that something was off in Tikal after the death of Nun Yax Ahiin in 403. At the time of the death of his father, Siyaj Chan K'awiil was probably very young, and was not made the king but years later in 411; even then he does not seem to have been able to exercise real power before 426, when stela 31 defiantly states he "wrapped the headband" (H8) during the Katun ending ceremony, a common ascension related term.
In Stela 31, the glyps at G5-G6 probably are the ending of the ascension event which starts at E28. Reading uhtiy UNKNOWN-nal chan ch'en, where the unknown glyph seems to be a Jaguar variant of Rain God Chak, they simply state the location of an event preceding it, now lost. Since the god head at H5 is the same as the one held by the king in his arm in stela's imposing front figure, crowned there with the "king of Tikal" glyph, glyphs at G5-G6 can easily be seen as the location of his ascension, therefore ending the anonymous ascension event 8.18.15.11.0 (November 24, 411) which starts at E28-F28, right before the stone has been broken and the actual description of the ascension ceremony lost.
Interestingly, this otherwise robust interpretation leaves the Katun ending of 416 without mention in the stela, even if lesser half-Katun endings before (406) and after (426) it are listed and it took place during the current king's reign. We already noticed how the stone binding ceremony of king's father in 403 is also left without mention.
This possibly hints at an unclear political situation in Tikal before Siyaj Chan K'awil "wrapped the headband" on his 15th year of reign in 426 (H8) and established his authority beyond mere nominal rule. Whoever was in charge of 416 Katun ending - and probably also the missing stonebinding for Yax Nun Ahiin in 403 - was simply left without mention, along with the events he oversaw, his memory removed from the pages of history. This gives room for some interesting analysis about Tikal Stela 39, but more about that a little later.
Towards the beginning of the text, we have another part cut off mid-event. The start of the chronologically first event is at A26-B26 right before the stone has been broken. Katun ending dedication utz'akbuji[l] u kabjiy clearly survives the damage. When the text again continues with glyphs at C5-C7 in the beginning of the second paragraph, it says something had taken place in a location related to the legendary "Chi-Throne" (C7). The concrete nature of "Chi-Throne" is shrouded in history, but it is often associated with ur-events taking place deep in history, listed at the start of chronological narratives. Glyphs C5-C7 are thus probably the ending of the period ending event that starts at A26-B26. So, it looks like Stela 31 records just one Katun ending before the one overseen by Ix Unen K'awiil Bahlam ("Baby Jaguar") in 317, listed right after the first one (D7-D11).
The order of glyphs at C5-C7 appears to resemble the final part of the later Baktun ending event of 435 in the last paragraph (H20-G24). Whereas the glyphs at C5-C7 mention the legendary "Waterlily Jaguar" titled as Kalomte followed by a location, the glyphs at H20-G24 conclude with the name of Spearthrowing Owl titled as Kalomte, also followed by a location. The Baktun ending was possibly a re-staging of the earlier legendary event which started the original narrative, with king Siyaj Chan K'awiil performing a period ending ceremony in the company of ancestor's spirit and the powerful Kalomte, just like his forefather long time ago. Noteworthy in this light is how the "water-lilied" or foliated yax glyph of C5 has been placed over Siyaj Chan K'awiil glyph in his headdress, linking the king to a participant of the legendary event.
Although no date survives for the first Katun ending ceremony, the possible link to the Baktun ending gives us a good chance of proposing one. Noteworthy in the text is how the Tzolkin date is emphasized for each Katun and half-Katun ending. Having a closer look makes it seem that the two legendary or semi-legendary Katun endings and the contemporary ones were connected to each other due to respective Tzolkin anniversaries.
We can look for an example outside Tikal. Stela K of Pusilhá celebrates a Katun ending of 9.12.0.0.0 (June 26, 672), linking it to an earlier legendary one that took place in 8.6.0.0.0 (December 17, 159). No straightforward explanation for their connection is given. However, they both had the Tzolkin date 10 Ajaw, making the latter the 720th Tzolkin anniversary of the first. We also see a similar connection in Tikal Stela 31, where the currently celebrated half-Katun of 9.0.10.0.0 (October 16, 445) was the 180th Tzolkin anniversary of the second-mentioned Katun ending tended by Baby Jaguar (8.14.0.0.0).
Thus, it looks feasible to assume that the great Baktun ending of 9.0.0.0.0 was a similar Tzolkin anniversary of the first listed legendary period ending that took place at the all-important Chi-Throne place. If we go backwards checking which Katun ending had the same Tzolkin date 8 Ajaw, it takes us back to 8.7.0.0.0 (September 3, 179). Assuming we are correct here, the Baktun ending was the 360th Tzolkin anniversary of the 8.7.0.0.0 ending, just as the half-Katun ending following it was the 180th Tzolkin anniversary of the 8.14.0.0.0 ending. This way, the presence of both early Katun endings in the text is well explained.
Having a better understanding now what is and what is not included in Stela 31, we can take a closer look at Tikal king Nun Yax Ahiin, the father of Siyaj Chan K'awiil. Very little is known about him, and he seems to have died at a young age.
At G20-F21, the king is said to have died when 1.5.2.5 days passed since something spelled out as ku-yu-TE had taken place, quite likely the same word which is spelled as yu-ku-TE at D25, where it appears in reference to the funerary event of the earlier king Chak Tok Ich'aak.
Lacking further usage of the term in other sources, but without more elaboration, the phrase ku-yu-TE/yu-ku-TE is usually regarded as the distance from the deceased royal's ascension to the thrown. Since Nun Yax Ahiin ascended on the throne on 8.17.2.16.17 (September 10, 379), that would date his death at 8.18.8.1.2 (June 15, 404). We get back to examining the correctness of this date a bit later.
Stela 31 says at both F19 and I2 that Nun Yax Ahiin was a "one-Katun king" or "Katun king". This term seems to refer to the number of Katun endings that the individual had experienced during his entire lifetime. For example, the Yaxchilan king Bird Jaguar IV was said to have been a three-Katun king; he was born 709 and ruled during 752-768 until his death, thus living through three Katun endings of 711, 731 and 751.
The Katun ending we know Nun Yax Ahiin lived to see was the one in 396 which he oversaw in the capacity of the king, as stated in Stela 31 (F13-F18) and Stela 4. We could thus conclude that Nun Yax Ahiin was born no earlier than October 19, 376 (8.17.0.0.1) and lived no longer than March 21, 416 (8.18.19.17.19). Since his ascension took place September 10, 379, he was basically just a toddler back then and other people exercised the real power on his behalf.
To assess if Nun Yax Ahiin really was no older than an infant at the time of his ascension, we can have a look at the births and deaths of his descendants. The birthday of his son Siyaj Chan K'awiil is unknown, but he's known to have died in 9.1.0.8.0 (February 1, 456). According to somewhat eroded Tikal Stela 40, Siyaj Chan K'awiil's son K'an Chitam was born either 8.18.18.12.2 (November 30, 414) or 8.18.19.12.1 (November 24, 415). If we just throw a guess that Siyaj Chan K'awiil was born in 396, his father Nun Yax Ahiin was then no more than 20 years old, and Siyaj Chan K'awiil himself was 18/19 years old when his own son was born, later dying at the age of 60.
Good questions are why and how was Nun Yax Ahiin made the king if he was just a small boy. There is no evidence that he was a member of the royal family, unless distantly related - but extant sources don't claim even remote blood relation.
A significant factor is the involvement of Siyaj K'ak'. In Stela 31, almost 70 years after Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension, Tikal royalty still publicly praised Siyaj K'ak's central role in making him the king. This was politically secure and understandable since, like we earlier concluded, Siyaj K'ak' was the original Mayan name for Spearthrowing Owl, who is given as Nun Yax Ahiin's father in two occasions in Stela 31 (K4-L4, M3-N3). Thus, Siyaj K'ak' was the paternal grandfather of the then king Siyaj Chan K'awiil. In a most unsurprising move, upon assuming the real power, Siyaj K'ak' apparently made his own son the nominal king and ruled on his behalf in the background. After Chak Tok Ich'aak's death (or possibly even before that) and through unknown events, Siyaj K'ak' must have become the highest authority in the city state and wielded the power to arrange the situation to his liking, finding the new king no farther than from his own household.
Noteworthy is that even if the boy king was unrelated to the earlier royal family, there is no sign in later sources that the old dynasty was regarded as broken or a new dynasty established. There is no sign that the memory of the deceased king Chak Tok Ich'aak was suppressed or tarnished; quite contrary, the late king is treated with utmost respect in the inscriptions that remain, and his old palace was turned into a place of worship.
We can compare Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension to the events in the early 6th century when Tikal was ruled by an enigmatic "Lady of Tikal", a young girl, probably the daughter of the earlier king Chak Tok Ich'aak II. Although vested with many royal honours, she was never regarded as the "real" monarch which was a position reserved for men only. Therefore two of her escorts were listed as official rulers in the dynastic count on her behalf. Apparently marrying to the female line was regarded sufficient to become king if no suitable male heir existed.
We can suspect that something very similar took place in 378. Siyaj K'ak' married his young son off to the young daughter of the dead king, resorting to an acceptable way of continuing the dynasty while keeping the real power in his own hands.
Pointing to this conclusion is also the royal title of Nun Yax Ahiin's wife "Lady K'inich". The mother of Nun Yax Ahiin's son and successor Siyaj Chan K’awiil, was given the rare "GI title" in Stela 31 (A24-B24), repeated also in Marcador monument at G8. GI title is known to have been worn only by a handful of other women: the earlier mentioned "Lady of Tikal", another royal Tikal spouse Lady Tzutz Nik(?) and Lady Sak K’uk’ of Palenque. As in the case with Nun Yax Ahiin's wife, no indisputable information survives of their backgrounds, but they all seem to have had their hand in matrilineal descent of royal dynasties. Let us take a closer look.
In the most apparent looking case, Lady of Tikal seems to have continued the royal dynasty on the matrilineal line and enabled her escorts' authority thru' herself. No other reason could easily justify why a six-year-old girl had presence in the state hierarchy. Noteworthy is also that she did not ascend on the throne because the male line was extinct: her surviving brother or half-brother Wak Chan K'awiil became the king years later.
Lady Tzutz Nik was the wife of Tikal king K'an Chitam who was the son of king Siyaj Chan K'awiil II. She did not belong to the Tikal royal family before her marriage and the dynasty continued uninterrupted on the male line. Her GI title was thus unrelated to succession in Tikal. Instead, she seems to have created a connection to the ruling house of the near-by Naranjo. A royal title specific to Naranjo, sak chuwen, appears in Tikal Stela 3 related to K'an Chitam and later resurfaces in connection to his son Chak Tok Ich'aak II, possibly indicating a dynastic claim to Naranjo rulership which the Tikal kings had started to regard as their own by marrying a Naranjo Lady Tzutz Nik.
The family relations of Lady Sak K’uk’ of Palenque remain murky, but she seems to have played a key role in continuing the local dynasty as the mother of king K’inich Janahb Pakal I.
In the light of these three ladies, it looks possible that when the same GI title was granted to the wife of Nun Yax Ahiin, it indicated she was regarded as the legitimate heir to Chak Tok Ich'aak, her father, and was thus able to make her spouse the king, just as happened later in the case of Lady of Tikal. This would also give a hassle-free explanation why the dynastic count never broke and why there appears to have been no hostility towards the former king. Everything remained in the family.
Another small detail in stela 31 points to this conclusion as well. Every royal name mentioned in the text before Nun Yax Ahiin shares a pointy jaguar's ear (C5, D8, D13). The same jaguar ear is also rendered in his wife's name (A25), connecting her with all who had gone before her.
Figure 5.2. Jaguar-eared individuals in Stela 31. a) "Waterlily Jaguar" at C5. b) Ix Bahlam Unen K'awiil ("Baby Jaguar") at D8. c) Part of Chak Tok Ich'aak's nominal sequence at D13. c) Part of Nun Yax Ahiin's wife's nominal sequence at A25.
A very visible rendering of Lady K'inich's glyph is also added to the belt of the imposing front figure of his son, parallel with the glyph of legendary Baby Jaguar, both female figures possibly having played a role in continuing the royal house through matrilineal descent.
Overall, it looks feasible that, at a very young age, Nun Yax Ahiin was married to the deceased king's surviving little daughter, neither having a say about the arrangement. In older age, they had at least one son together, the future king Siyaj Chan K'awiil, sharing the name of his paternal grandfather Siyaj K'ak'. Chak Tok Ich'aak may or may not have been survived by sons as well, but quite probably not anyone adult, making it effortless for Siyaj K'ak' to become the regent and arrange his own son to marry to the royal house and be made king. As was with the case of Lady of Tikal, political necessities seemed to justify dynasties to continue through female line even if the male line was also available. There indeed are indicators that in the early 5th century, after the untimely death of Nun Yax Ahiin, a son of Chak Tok Ich'aak, perhaps from another wife of his, became a prominent figure in Tikal but was eventually overcome by his nephew king Siyaj Chan K'awiil and forced to leave Tikal. More about that later.
We don't know how old Chak Tok Ich'aak was at the time of his death, but we seem to be able to reconstruct he had a small daughter and possibly a small son. Having ruled already for 18 years by then, it seems he was a small boy himself at the time of his ascension in 360. Nun Yax Ahiin was also an infant when he was made a king, and his own son no man yet when he died. Tikal seemed to have had a period of almost 70 years when boy-kings sat on the throne and various strongmen exercised the power on their behalf.
When reading Mayan texts, we need to remember that all that survives is just a fraction of everything which was written down. And what remains is almost all public propaganda, telling things as the ruling class wanted the general population to understand and remember things. Main signs of internal trouble appear in sources mostly as void, and what was written for the public seldom bears any memory of infighting. The losing side just disappeared.
We need to return to the significance of two important stone-bindings missing from the narrative of Stela 31. For a reason or another, but certainly for some reason, they were not events that people were to be reminded of.
Like we earlier saw, there is no mention of the stone binding for the death of king Nun Yax Ahiin, the reigning king's father, only an abrupt remark that he died (E22). This definitely was not out of disrespect to the king, since he's given plenty of space and praise in the monument elsewhere. There is also no mention of the stone binding for the 8.19.0.0.0 Katun ending (416), which took place during the king's own reign. Both half-Katun endings before and after it are nevertheless mentioned. Omitting these two stone bindings might not be because they did not take place, but rather because the person who conducted them was erased from the archives and none of his undertakings were put on stone; the events were simply skipped over not to remind anyone of the outcast.
Overall, reading between the lines, we can see that something was off in Tikal after the death of Nun Yax Ahiin in 403. At the time of the death of his father, Siyaj Chan K'awiil was probably very young, and was not made the king but years later in 411; even then he does not seem to have been able to exercise real power before 426, when stela 31 defiantly states he "wrapped the headband" (H8) during the Katun ending ceremony, a common ascension related term.
PART 4/8: SPEARTHROWING OWL
We can easily see how it is constructed in the same way as names for Nun Yax Ahiin and his wife: a hand holding a spearthrower together with an easily recognizable element such as a warrior, an altar or an owl. Since we have seen how the writer has given Teotihuacan related names for the top ranking royals of his time, dead or alive, Spearthrowing Owl can be deducted to be nothing else than a similar Teotihuacan name for Siyaj K'ak', lifted from a Teotihuacan spirit that was claimed to have escorted the late king in his funeral. He, together with his son and his son's wife, quite probably the daughter of late king Chak Tok Ich'aak, formed a sort of triad with one having the title of the king, one having the royal legitimacy and one having the real power, emphasized here by using a uniting spear throwing hand in each one's names.
Confusion around the identity of Spearthrowing Owl can be traced to Stela 31. It uses both names Siyaj K'ak' and Spearthrowing Owl separately as if they were two distinct persons. Upon closer examination, however, we can see how all mentions of Siyaj K'ak' appear in two sections describing events of 378/9 while all mentions of Spearthrowing Owl appear in parts contemporary to writer's own time. Since the events mentioning Siyaj K'ak' took place over 60 years before the stela was planted, it is quite evident that the writer did not create the text out of living memory, but rather copied it from earlier archives. Thus Siyaj K'ak's original name, as written in the archives, reappeared in the stela, while the writer used his later name Spearthrowing Owl in all contemporary sections which he probably created specifically for the monument.
The copious nature of historical sections is evident in the glaring mistake at F8 where the author has written Nun Yax Ahiin's ascension date as 10 Kaban while it should be 5 Kaban, clearly not aware that the date he's written is not even possible. The mistake probably took place when number five was copied from one text to another and got mistaken for ten, both visually similar. Important for us is how the author failed to make a sanity check for his own text.
After Marcador was established in 416, there is no mention of Siyaj K'ak' in relation to any later event. Respectively, there is no mention of Spearthrowing Owl in relation to any earlier event, apart from the original Teotihuacan spiritual being allegedly appearing in king's funerary stone binding. Other Teotihuacan names for Tikal royals appear to have been short-lived and do not come across in later monuments, but Spearthrowing Owl stuck with Siyaj K'ak'.
We can spend some words thinking how the original pronunciation of this enigmatic name was.
The placeholder English name "Spearthrowing Owl" is based on the fact that the logographic instance of the glyph presents a spearthrowing hand together with an image of an owl. In Marcador, there are three instances of the name Spearthrowing Owl, each written differently from one another.
Figure 4.2. Three ways of writing "Spearthrowing Owl" in Marcador. a) Purely logographic at C3. b) Purely phonetic at E3-F3. c) Partly logographic, partly phonetic at E9-F9. Note how the spearthrower glyph is complemented with pronunciation helpers syllable "ma" and sound repeating double-dots.
The first instance is purely logographic at C3. The next instance at E3-F3 is purely phonetic. The third instance at E9-F9 is partly logographic, partly phonetic. Spearthrowing Owl seems to have been a new entity in Tikal, and the writer wanted to introduce him thoroughly.
Based on the picture of an owl in the name and its phonetic counterpart ku' at F3, the latter part of the name quite certainly is pronounced as Ku'h, meaning owl.
The first part of the name, a hand holding a spearthrower, appears to be more difficult to decipher. At F3 it clearly starts with ja (T181) on the left side, but is then followed by an otherwise unknown looking glyph on the right side.
Solution seems to lie in the two dots that are added to the spearthrower at E9. Like we noted, the glyph at E9 is partly logographic including the picture of a spearthrower, but also partly phonetic having syllable ma. Now, we can assume that both the dots and syllable ma are intended to help how to pronounce the spearthrower.
Double dots usually indicate that the sound value of the glyph they are attached to is repeated. The dots are missing from the purely logographic glyph at C3 and are not added to any other presentation of the spearthrower (H8, H9) in the text, so we can assume them being related to the pronunciation of the name.
As spearthrower was a Mexican import, we need to keep in mind its original Nahuatl name, ahtlatl. It means "throwing water". It can easily be misheard consisting of two similar sounds repeated one after another, which also is the common way of writing it today (atlatl). This adds credence to our suspicion that the repetition of two sounds and the Mayan name for a spearthrower are linked.
Mayan word for water is ha', pronounced basically the same as ja, a syllable which we certainly know to exist in the name. If Mayans simply thought that the Nahuatl name for spearthrower was based on the word for water repeated twice, they could just easily have done the same in their own version of the name, thus repeating ha' twice, or jaja. Syllable ma, present at both E3 and E9, was then added to the end, if not for any other reason then just to make it easier to pronounce and end in a consonant like the original Nahuatl name.
Upon inspecting the glyph at E3 again, we can see that the strange right side is not so strange after all. Like we earlier noted, the left side is T181, pronounced as ja. Now, if our conclusions about glyph at E9 are correct, the right side should have the same sound value ja. This makes it easy to see that the right side with its bigger and smaller dots separated by a double line is probably nothing but a slightly rearranged and infixed T683, pronounced also as ja. The cartouche around the T683 elements seems to match the shape of the ajaw glyph as written at F7. Apparently it has but a decorative purpose, similar to the god head on its right side accommodating the ku glyph. The same shape for ajaw also reappears in Stela 31 many times.
Figure 4.2. a) Glyph E3 in Marcador. b) Glyph T683, ja.
To put the syllables together, Spearthrowing Owl's name can be spelled as ja-ja-ma KU. Thus, we have fairly good evidence that the Mayan name of Spearthrowing Owl was pronounced as Jajam K'uh, "spearthrower owl".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)