·     From the syntax / context of the four examples, this is apparently a toponym which was part of the NAR polity: there is one instance of aj-maxam (K635 Z), two instances of maxam coming immediately after the place name formula uhtiiy (NAR Altar 1 D7-C8 & NAR Stela 8 B8), and (perhaps) one instance of an implied ta/ti maxam (NAR Altar 1 D7-C8).

·     There was originally considerable uncertainty in the reading order of K635. This can be seen from the fact that the established glyph-block labelling does not form a natural sequence when the blocks are read in their correct order. The original labelling goes once around the rim (A-P) continues once around the base (Q-Z, A’-G’), and only then goes to the two sloping double columns on the main body of the vase (H’-I’ and J’-K’) – and the point at which Q at the base is started after ending the with P on the rim is also quite arbitrary, seeing as they didn’t realize that the sloping double columns come in between the rim and the base.

·     For many years it was thought that K635 was evidence that a very senior member of the royal house of NAR was a scribe. This was because K635 Z – Aj Maxam – is part of the glyphic text which runs around the base of the vase (i.e. parallel to the PSS around the rim). This text has glyphs which read:

o W: utz’ib

o X-Y: <name-of-scribe>

o Z: aj-maxam

o A’: yal

o B’-G’: <names-and-titles-of-mother>

o Q: yunen

o R-V: <names-and-titles-of-father> - which include K’uhul Sa’al Ajaw

For this reason, it was believed that the scribe himself was the son of a ruler of NAR.

·     This is in fact the reading given by Coe-DtMS.t0:49:19-50:30: These scribes – we now know from David Stuart’s study – were very high-ranking people. This is an inscription..., a painted inscription of a beautiful Classic Maya vase from the city of Naranjo. And here is the name of the artist – here it says utz’ihb = “his writing”. Here is the name of that particular artist, who came from a place... who called himself Aj Maxam = “He of Maxam”, which is another name for Naranjo, like “The Guy from Brooklyn or The Bronx” – he’s telling you where he’s from. This we now know means the son of ..., (and) a woman who is a queen from the site of Yaxha’ here – that’s the emblem glyph of Yaxha’. These are female priestesses?, identified by Proskouriakoff as identifying women. This is a queen who came from Yaxha’. And he is the son of the king of Naranjo. That’s his name, and there’s the Naranjo emblem glyph. This man is a prince. And he was an extremely important Maya ceramic artist in the royal court. So, the artists – we now know from the glyphs – were very, very high-ranking people.

·     However, the text around the base is actually a continuation of the text in the two sloping double columns on the body of the vase (H’-I’ and J’-K’) – i.e. the text around the base comes after these double columns, not before (in fact, it comes after K’, to be precise). Furthermore, glyph-block Z does not continue with A’, but is instead the last glyph-block of the text around the base (i.e. the text goes from K’ to A’ and then goes around the base) The glyph-block after Z (i.e. A’) actually follows the last glyph-block of one of the two sloping double columns. The actual sequence is A-P, H’-I’, J’-K’, Z, A’-G’, Q-Y; i.e. the text around the base actually ends at Y, and doesn’t go on to Z (which is actually continued from K’8). This correct reading order has now been satisfactorily established – for example, MHD accepts the traditional glyph-block labelling, but has the correct reading order (resulting in a correspondingly “jumbled” order for the glyph-block labels).

·     This means that the yal … yunen … parentage statement refers to the main protagonist, spoken about in the two sloping double columns, and not to the Aj Maxam scribe who painted the vase. This makes sense, an overwhelming number of other utz’ihbnajal statements on vases and uxul/ulux statements on stone monuments do not give the parentage statement of the artist. Instead, they give the parentage statement of the member of nobility (usually the ruler and other members of the royal family), but occasionally also non-noble members of the administration (sajals, lakams, ch’ahooms, etc).

·     Note that the above does not refute Coe’s statement – it’s still true that some nobles were scribes (there are inscriptions where the scribe is an ajaw) – just that the inscription on K635 does not form part of the evidence to support this assertion.