![]()
Matthews = Montgomery = Schele Looper
PSD Lintel 2 A8 PSD Lintel 2 D1 QRG Stela E B16b/D16b
mi.<xi:NAL?> <mi.xi>:<NAL/WINKIL>
![]()
YAX Lintel 1 A4 YAX Lintel 3 D3 YAX Lintel 5 A2 YAX Lintel 7 C3 YAX Stela 11 A14
mi<xi:WINKIL> mi<xi: WINKIL> mi<*xi:WINKIL:la> *mi<*xi:*WINKIL> <mi:xi>.<WINKIL>
· Tokovinine-DPotMB.p2.l+3 (2002): 'Mixnal' (the Classic Maya god of death and sacrifice).
· The Mathews and Schele drawings have a different glyph-block labelling convention – D1-D2 in the Schele drawing are A8-A9 in the Mathews drawing (and columns B and C are swapped, but this is not relevant for Mix Winkil).
· Traditionally read as Mixnal, it should now be read as Mix Winkil, as the reading of WINKIL (“NAL” with a “rotated face” in the top left element) has gradually been accepted.
o There remain a significant number of drawings where it looks like Mixnal – that is to say, the glyph on the top right looks like a very clear NAL (e.g., PSD Lintel 2 A78/D1, YAX Stela 11 A14).
o The working assumption, however, is that there are no instances of Mixnal and that all the apparent NAL’s are eroded or misinterpreted WINKIL’s, i.e., that the “rotated face” is either too eroded to be seen, or was visible but not drawn as such by the artist of the time, because there wasn’t yet the awareness of the distinction between NAL and WINKIL (in their “reduced” variants).
· In many/most of the PSD and YAX inscriptions, Mix Winkil follows Chan “Uhman” (specifically, PSD Lintel 2, YAX Lintel 1, YAX Lintel 5, and YAX Stela 11). In almost all of these instances, it forms part of the extended name/title of a ruler, but in QRG Stela E, it seems to refer to the god himself.
· The “substitution” of the “flower” variant of mi for the “hand-squid” variant is perhaps one of the important clues for assigning the reading of mi to the latter (knowing that the name is probably Mix Winkil). It would have been even more convincing if the “flower” variant of mi had occurred in a YAX inscription for the extended name/title of Yaxuun Bahlam IV, but even at a different site, in reference to a different personage, this can be reasonably considered to be a “substitution”. This is because, as in all cases, it’s the name of a god being part of the ruler’s name. It’s highly unlikely that there would have been two different gods, one called Mix Winkil and the other called <something-else>-x Winkil.