End Notes

[1] A1-B2. The LC HAAB-month is k’anasiiy/K’ayab, whose patron IXIIM matches the patron infixed in the ISIG.

[2] A7-B7.

Do not mistake A7b for the moon-variant of HUL. That would have a semicircle in the “bay”. Here we have a full circle, meaning this is “20”, making it 26 days since the new moon in the current lunation. The huliiy itself is in the next glyph-block (B7).

[3] A9.

This is the position in the inscription where we expect Glyph-A, so the expectation is “20” at A9a and “9” or “10” at A9b:

·       A9a: This is not a “full” crescent and only the left half, but there’s a full circle in the “bay”, so that confirms that it’s “20”.

·       A9b: The %-sign on the cheek and the bone-jaw show that this is “10”. The bone-jaw is just barely recognizable, but it’s not “9” so those are enough to confirm that it’s “10”.

[4] B4-B9. Calendrical calculations.

LC = 9.17.5.0.0; 25 December 775 AD.

SS cross-checks:

·       The variant of Glyph-G and the values of the various coefficients of the SS as calculated by the Villaseñor calendar program can be cross-checked against what appears in the inscription.

·       The variant of Glyph-X as it appears on the inscription can also be cross-checked against the coefficient and ruling god of Glyph-C.

Unfortunately, only two of the parameters match. It remains a mystery to me why these SS cross-checks so often reveal a number of discrepancies.

We know that (the west side of) QRG Stela C – a “companion monument” to QRG Stela A – also recounts the raising of that 6-Ajaw Stone (i.e., Stela C) on the hotun period ending of 9.17.5.0.0 so there is little doubt that the LC is correct. It remains a mystery why these SS cross-checks so often reveal a number of discrepancies.

[5] B10-A11. The stela is called the “6-Ajaw Stone” because it was raised on 6-Ajaw. This is what I call its “generic name”. It probably had a “specific name” as well, but that’s not given here.

[6] D1. MHD blnotes: Refers to a high order period of unknown magnitude; associated with a period ending in the ancient past (Looper 1995b:165). [Sim: this is Looper-TTSoMCMaQ]. This has been solved by a proposal by Carl Callaway (see Introductory Notes).

[7] D2. There should be one of the four expected signs (IHK’, YAX, SAK, CHAK) before the SIHOOM in a month-name. None is present, but MHD transcribes a Yaxsihoom = “Yax” (reason unknown).

[8] D3. This glyph-block comes directly after ukabjiiy, so syntax requires a proper noun – the person who ordered the action.

·       MHD has IHK’.<HUUN:NAL> è Ihk’ Huunal = “Black Huunal” (= “Black Jester God”).

o   In this reading, the NAL isn’t being written for its semantic value of “place”, but more as a rebus to write Huunal.

o   What argues against a reading of HUUN is that there is a very clear HUUN at B6b, for ti’ huun = Glyph-F, and the head at D3b does not look very much like the one at B6b (which is what we’d expect for two instances of the bird-head variant of HUUN on the same inscription).

·       Alternatively (Dorota Bojkowska): CHIT.<wi:WITZ’> è Chit Witz’ = “Ancestor Waterlily Serpent”.

o   What argues against a reading of CHIT is that there’s quite a large amount of cross-hatching in D3a. CHIT most often has no cross-hatching (but can have a very little bit, perhaps a “contamination” from IHK’). The amount of cross-hatching in D3a is more indicative of IHK’.

The problem is to decide between HUUN and WITZ’ for D3b.

Now, D3b has a very definite PET infixed. So to decide between HUUN and WITZ’ I first had to determine how important the presence of PET was, in the bird-head variant of HUUN.

Evidence in support of HUUN

I examined the instances of the (bird-)head variant of HUUN in MHD (“blcodes contains SM1” gives 108 hits, 2024-06-21). I counted in the following categories:

·       Classifying an example in one or other of the categories can often be quite unclear – is an element present, and if not, is it because the glyph is eroded? – the answer in many cases is very subjective. Nevertheless, I think such an exercise is worth doing.

·       Summary:

o   PET present (Category 5) è 8 hits:

1.       CPN Stela A C3

2.       CPN Stela H B2

3.       CPN Stela N A9

4.       NAR Stela 12 F5

5.       PAL Temple of the Inscriptions, Central Tablet N3

6.       QRG Stela A D3

7.       RAZ Tomb 2 Z

8.       YAX Lintel 46 B3

o   LEM present (Category 3 and 4) è 20 + 32 = 52 hits.

o   Indeterminate (Category 1 and 2) è 39 + 9 = 48 hits.

·       Conclusion: LEM is a very strong diagnostic for HUUN. Only a very small (but significant?) number of instances of HUUN have a PET instead of a LEM – 8 out of a total of 108 = 7.4% of all occurrences of HUUN in MHD have a PET (8 out of 60 = 13.3%, if the indeterminates are left out).

Evidence in support of WITZ’

·       I did a search in MHD on “blcodes contains <XXXY>” where <XXXY> in turn was SS1b, SS2b, SS3b, SS4b.

·       Results:

·       Summary (I ended up not adding the hits of SS1b because all of them are read as HAAB not WITZ’ because MHD does not read this “protected scroll” variant of the Waterlily Serpent as WITZ’, only Bonn does): 32 + 29 + 26 = 87.

·       Conclusion: PET is a perfectly valid diagnostic for WITZ’ – 26 out of a total of 87 = 29.8% of all occurrences of WITZ’ in MHD have a PET.

With 108 occurrences of HUUN and 87 occurrences of WITZ’ in MHD, they form two sets of the same order of magnitude (if not quite of equal size). The 29.8% of WITZ’ occurrences having a PET vs. 7.4% of HUUN occurrences having a PET seems to argue slightly in favour of a reading of WITZ’ in the case of D3b.

There remains the question of whether D3a is IHK’ or CHIT. It seems difficult to decide. If there were also a YAX present, then the existence of the deity name Yax Chit Juun Witz’ Naah Kan would argue for CHIT, but there is no YAX present here. Furthermore, with QRG rulers often having Ihk’ as part of their name/title, there is perhaps a slight preference for reading IHK’.

The final conclusion would seem to be that Ihk’ Witz’, Ihk’ Hunal, or Chit Witz’ remain possibilities, perhaps in that order of preference.

[9] D4.

MHD gives JAN?, with a question mark. It’s assigned the code MHD.XF1 and a search in MHD on “blcodes contains XF1” yields 33 hits. The equivalent Bonn glyph is 0538st with no pronunciation (i.e., Bonn doesn’t give JAN, not even with a question mark).

Looper-LW.p71.pdfp84.col1.para1.l+10: The flower occurs as well in a toponym which includes ik’ “black” and kab’ “earth”, appearing on QRG Stela A (Fig. 2.29a) and Piedras Negras Stela 3 (Fig.2.29b). At Piedras Negras the toponym adorns the legs of a throne upon which Lady K’atun Ajaw and her daughter are seated. The bench of this throne also bears the toponym as well as a scene in which a person holds a vision serpent. As these vision serpents are used in metaphorical scenes of birth on Yaxchilan Lintels 13 and 14, the Black Earth Flower Place would seem to be a place of birth and ancestor communication, similar to the Five-Flower Place. [Sim: this is probably a reference to Ho’ Janaab Witz = “Five Flower Mountain”.]

The glyph placement in each leg is the mirror image of that of the opposite leg:

The right leg has the “conventional” (left-to-right) reading order.

The left leg has the “mirrored” (right-to-left) reading order.

[10] C5. This is given by MHD as: deity with shark tooth, shell ear ornament and fins. Sim: it is used to write AL in alay = “here (is)”.

[11] D7.

·       MHD gives 4.<ch’a:<jo.la>> è chan ch’ajol = “four incense offerers?”.

·       GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p164.pdfp177 gives 4-ch’a-jo-la-la è chan ch’ajolal ó chan ch’aj-ol-al ó 4 incensar-S.ADJ-S.ADJ (grammatical parsing) = “cuatro incensador” ó “four incenser” [Sim:

o   I think a single la is preferable to a double, as two “upside-down la-faces” is very common for just la.

o   I don’t know why the translation isn’t “cuatro incensadores” rather than “cuatro incensador”.]

·       Is this related in some way to the title chan te’ ch’ahoom for the same ruler, on QRG Stela J H8?

·       How do we know that this isn’t 4-jo-ch’a-la è chan joch’al = the adjective from joch’? Perhaps because that derivation is from noun to adjective, and joch’ is a verb?

For more information on the “Four”, see next end note, under C8.

[12] C8. The XIB is from MHD. The four-word phrase Chan Te’ Ihk’ Xib = “Four Black Men” appears to be a name/title, and occurs on QRG Stela A C8, QRG Stela D B18b, QRG Stela D D22b (top), and QRG Stela F C8b-D8a, all in connection with K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat.

Along with the Chan Ch’ajol (D7), these seem to have a rather unusual syntax: why is a single individual given a title meaning “Four Men”? See end note under QRG Stela J G8-H8 for a partial explanation, offered by GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.

[13] D8.

Ihk’ Xukuup is a toponym associated with the QRG polity. The main title of the rulers of QRG (the “EG”) had a main sign with a vine/gourd rotated 90 degrees clockwise (e.g., D9 of this inscription, nicknamed “TOL”), but Ihk’ Xukuup was an additional title. See Xukuup, Ihk’ Xukuup, and “TOL” in the CMGG for more information.

[14] C9. Ihk’ Waynal Ajaw. One of the extended names/titles of K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat. It can also be found in this function on QRG Stela J D17. MHD has 8 instances of Ihk’ Way Nal, a mythical place, but QRG Stela A and QRG Stela J seem to be the only two of these where it’s part of the extended name/title of K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat.