End Notes

[1] The verb “to dress (stone)” is a technical term from stonemasonry. https://buffaloah.com/a/DCTNRY/d/dressing.html gives the following definition:

·       A process of providing a proper shape, size and smooth finish to the rough-surfaced broken stone which is collected from a quarry.

·       The stone found in nature has to be quarried from its thick beds. After excavating large pieces of rock, it is necessary to break them into smaller sizes so that they can be used in buildings. This process is done by either hand tools or machinery.

·       There are many types of tools used for the dressing of stones such as pitching tools, mason’s hammer, club hammer, scabbling hammer, spacing hammer, drafting chisel, point chisel, punch chisel, claw chisel, soft stone chisels scabbling pick, puncheon, and ax.

·       A dressed stone is fit for use in a particular situation in a building.

The operation of stone dressing is generally carried out at the site of quarry so as to reduce the transportation cost.

[2] A1-B2.

The LC HAAB-month is Hulohl/Kumk’u, whose patron is commonly thought of as being a snake. Unfortunately, it’s not clear exactly what this snake represents. A reptile-head is the patron of both Saksihoom/Sak as well as Hulohl/Kumk’u. But both could be either a turtle or a snake. There is an occasional reptile-head patron of Saksihoom/Sak with a PET-like (= WITZ’?) or LEM-like element in the forehead, but it’s an insignificant number and so neither PET nor LEM can be used as a distinguishing characteristic of the patron of Saksihoom/Sak. Similarly, there is an occasional reptile patron of Hulohl/Kumk’u with a quincunx infixed in the forehead, but this is also an insignificant number, and so also cannot be used as a distinguishing characteristic for the patron of Hulohl/Kumk’u.

MHD has BIH? as the infixed patron. This is probably based on the fact that some Hulohl/Kumk’u patrons have a quincunx infixed in the forehead of a reptile. There is however no sign of a quincunx in the Looper drawing. The head doesn’t even look particularly reptile-like. Close examination of the 3D model doesn’t help, though there may be a possibility of a quincunx.

[3] B3.

Both the “hand with a scroll” and the “hand with a scroll” + li are known logograms for MIH = “0”, see 25EMC.pdfp3.r1.#8&9.

But the bottom half of B3a seems to be a “boulder outline” rather than a “flint outline” glyph/element (i.e., more a “main sign” than a “rotatable sign”). The bottom half of A4a and A5a are much more the expected “flint outline” / li element. Dorota Bojkowska has reservations about (interpreting it as) the variant of MIH with li on the bottom – there could be something else going on here which we don’t understand.

MHD reads mi-li è mihil for B3a, A4a, and A5a, where mihil is perhaps just another form of the word for “zero". This at least acknowledges that the li has a function, rather than just being a “visual” variant of MIH/mi.

[4] A5.

Mark Van Stone says that the K’IN logogram is a monkey head (Dorota Bojkowska agrees). K’INICH (as a head-glyph) has a very Roman nose, and there isn’t one here. Also, see K&L.p64.pdfp64.#2 which shows a full-figure monkey glyph for K’IN. K&L.p64.pdfp64.#2.1&.2&.3 all have a headband, and could be monkey heads. Sim: actually, K&L.p64.pdfp64.#2.2 looks like a human head to me, and K&L.p64.pdfp64.#2.3 seems more like a reptile (turtle?) than a monkey head. This doesn’t weaken the idea that A5b is a monkey head, it just fails to strengthen it.

[5] B5-A6. 4-Ajaw 8-Kumk’u is of course the CR of the date of creation of the universe as known to the Classic Maya.

LC = 0.0.0.0.0; 8 September 3114 BC.

Note that this is written by the Classic Maya as 13.0.0.0.0. Modern computer programs for working with the Maya calendar expect that first digit to be 0.

[6] B6. This exact phrase, spelled very similarly (almost all the same glyphs, different physical orientation), is to be found on QRG Stela F B16b:

There are subtle points in both the transliteration and the translation.

Transliteration/transcription:

·       B6a (top) – JEL:

o   The two crossed bands JEL should not be considered to be a variant of the multiple crossed bands JAL. It is not read as WIIN, as each of the two crossed elements of WIIN consists of sticks bound together, whereas the internal structure of the two crossed bands in JEL is much simpler – more just a spine running down the middle (or a little to one side). Moreover, there’s a “face” sticking out of the crossed elements in WIIN, and none in JEL.

o   The la could be viewed as an end phonetic complement for JEL but more probably is an attempt to write jehlaj as the passive of jel.

o   See CMGG for more information on distinguishing JAL, JEL, and WIIN.

·       B6a (bottom): The la infixed in the ja is not very clear in the drawings by Hunter and Schele, but is clear in the drawing by Looper, and also in the photo of the cast in the San Diego Museum of Man.

·       Conclusion: JEL-la-ja è jehlaj.

·       B6b (top): k’o.

·       B6b (middle): ba.

·       B6b (bottom): ● the row of five dots under the ba are mere decoration, and not meant to be read.

·       Conclusion: k’o-ba è k’ob.

Translation:

·       EB (2009):

o   For JEL:[la]ja è jehlaj, see EB.p84.pdfp89.#5: jel- tv. to change; to adorn; [giving (among others) this glyph-block (B6) as a reference].

o   For k’o-ba è k’ob, see EB.p117.pdfp122.#2: k’ob n. hearth, hearth stone; syllabogram spelling only, sole reference is to PAL TC D6. [Sim:

§  There’s a typo kob instead of k’ob.

§  The phrase on PAL TC C6b-D6a is jehlajiiy k’ob.]

o   For k’o-jo-ba è k’ojob, see EB.p117.pdfp122.#4: k’ojob n. heath, hearth stone [Sim:

§  There’s a typo kojob instead of k’ojob.

§  This inscription (QRG Stela C) is not included in the references for the EB-entries.]

o   Sim: EB (2009) is one source which translates k’ob and k’ojob identically, i.e., equates the two and translates both as “hearth”, “hearth stone”.

Callaway-PhD.p122.pdfp122.l-2 (2011): The day name is followed by the popular jehlaj k’ojob statement (B6), indicating that a change of k’ojob has occurred (Figure III.45). As discussed in Appendix V of this dissertation, the term k’ojob seems to denote an altar or pedestal on which a god effigy or an incensario may stand. The k’ojob could be related to the three altar/throne stones that are subsequently erected by the gods. è “It was changed”. [Sim:

Callaway translates jehlaj as “it was changed”.

Callaway renders it only in the singular, but perhaps the plural “they were changed” is more appropriate, as this is the opening statement, before the individual stones are mentioned.

Callaway equates k’ob with k’ojob and assigns it the meaning of altar/pedestal.]

·       Stuart-TOoD.pdfp236-240.para2.i+4 (2011) also treats k’ob and k’ojob as being the same, and translates it as “face-image”, with jel = “to change”: In the first we find a small X-like element, which we know from Mayan syntax represents the core or “root” of a verb. There is some evidence, not completely secure as yet, that this X sign reads jel, a word in Mayan languages that might sound familiar from earlier discussions in chapter 3, meaning “to switch” or “change over.” // What changed? That is what we see in the next glyph, the subject of the verb. Here we have a sequence of two syllables, k’o and ba. In a parallel case, the same glyph looks to be spelled k’o-jo-ba, suggesting that the Quiriguá glyph is a shortened form of the word k’oj ba, perhaps pronounced and spelled sometimes as k’o-ba. The best reading for this word, I believe, is based on the root k’oj, meaning “image, mask.” In Yukatek Mayan, the equivalent is k’ohbail, “image, form, portrait,” and in Ch’ol Mayan the equivalent is k’ojbäjil, with a somewhat related meaning of “head, face.” Both of these are in turn related to the widespread Mayan word k’oj, meaning “mask.” The idea of these obviously related concepts centers on the key notion that one’s head or face is what conveys one’s image and identity. The larger glyphic phrase therefore may well mean something like this: jehlaj k’oj baah, the face-image changed.

·       Stuart-ANVotSk.p2.para1 (2020) expresses doubt that the noun in question is related to “hearth”, but instead believes that it’s related to the root k’oj = “mask”/“image”: This sign is perhaps best known in the spellings k’o-ba or k’o-jo-ba that appear as part of the so-called “era expression,” a standardized sequence of terms usually associated with the supposed start date of the Long Count, 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahau 8 Cumku (Figure 3).  There has long been a temptation to see these pointing to the root k’ob found in the Yucatecan word for “hearth,” k’óoben, but such an analysis seems unlikely, as it is cognate to an original root k’uub found in Eastern Mayan languages (see Kaufman and Justeson 2003: 438). As we will see, its range of contexts and the occasional inclusion of jo suggest a more likely connection to the root k’oj or k’oh and related words for “mask, image,” as in the spellings first noted by Schele.

[7] A7. Dorota Bojkowska: Despite the ja being attached to both K’AL and TUUN, this is read k’ahlaj-tuun, not k’ahl-tuun-aj.

[8] A7. Both Callaway-PhD.p113.pdfp113.l+4 (2011) and VanStone-MC-A2012.t0:04:54 (2011) translate K’AL as “bind” or “tie”.

·       Van Stone: “three stones were tied”

·       Callaway: “thrice was bound”

This was for a long time the accepted translation. A more recent proposal is to translate it as “(to) present” (lost reference).

[9] B7. Callaway-PhD transliterates this verb as TZ’AP, i.e., as a logogram. However, it’s a syllabogram spelling, with the second syllabogram infixed in the first: tz’a[pa].

[10] B7. u- is also the 3^rd person plural ergative pronoun (see L&D.p17.pdfp17 “3RD PLURAL”), so we can translate “they” rather than “he”.

[11] A9a (bottom). This is just ya with the right scroll absent. The same appears in A11a (bottom), A12a (bottom), B13a (bottom), and B14a (bottom).

[12] A9.

Callaway-PhD.p111.pdfp111 (2011) transliterates this “5” as JO’, but this has now been superseded by HO’.

In theory, we have a choice between Ho’ Chan Naah = “Five Sky House” and Naah Ho’ Chan = “First Five Sky”. Looper-LW.p158.pdfp171.col1.para2.l-4 (“First Five Sky”) and MHD indicate that it’s the latter.

·       A search in MHD on “blengl contains Ho’ Chan Nah” yields 0 hits.

·       A search in MHD on “blengl contains Nah Ho’ Chan” yields 45 hits.

Of the 45 hits for Nah Ho’ Chan, a visual examination and (rough) count reveal the following statistics (ignoring the na end phonetic complement of CHAN):

We see that 25 (=21+4) of the 31 (=5+21+4+1) clear glyphs, i.e., the overwhelming majority, have Naah as the first glyph, particularly even horizontally (21 instances), i.e., on the left. When it occurs first vertically, i.e., on the top, it could still be read later, as a “reduced variant” sticking out the top. This earlier occurrence horizontally is a very strong indication that NAAH comes first, despite the fact that it might not come first in a few other glyph-blocks with this combination of glyphs. In other words, that the reading order is Naah Ho’ Chan.

[13] B9.

·       This is “BT”, the “bone throne” glyph, also found at B11a (bottom) and A13a (bottom) – not to be confused with TZ’AM, the “cushion throne” glyph. Although both are sometimes listed as “throne”, there’s a clear distinction. This can be seen from the iconographic origin of the respective glyphs: the former shows bones bound together while the latter shows a jaguar-pelt covered cushion.

·       “BT” is on the list of undeciphered glyphs in K&L.p45.pdfp45.r9.c6.

In the video VanStone-MC-A2012, Mark Van Stone explains that the monument describes the planting of three stones, by three individuals in three places. The three stones have the same naming convention: <<something>:“BT”>.<TUUN:ni>.

They are at the following glyph-blocks:

[14] B9b (bottom). The AJ is unexplained, as the other two stones have the expected ni.

MHD gives <HIX:?>.<TUUN.AJ> è hix ?? tuunaj = “this Hix ?? Tuun” / “Hix ?? Tuun person”, indicating that there is some uncertainty about what the function of the AJ is.

[15] B10.

·       Dorota Bojkowska: It would be nice if the CHAK was actually a YAX, in which case a possible reading might be Yax Chit (Juun Witz’) Naah Kan. However:

o   The dot at each end of the oval-ish glyph, as seen in the drawing, is a determining characteristic for CHAK rather than YAX. Examining the 3D model indicates that the right dot is definitely present and the left dot probably (though it, uncharacteristically, is not at the very end, but a bit to the right of the end).

o   There’s a considerable amount of cross-hatching inside the glyph at B10a (top), suggesting IHK’ rather than CHIT.

o   The teeth are the only aspect of B10b (bottom) which suggest KAN/CHAN. Every other element suggests some other word, so if a KAN/CHAN is present, then perhaps it’s conflated with something else.

All this argues against a reading of Yax Chit Naah Kan.

·       MHD, indeed, reads YAX not CHAK, despite the dots. However, it doesn’t go on to read Yax Chit Naah Kan, and instead reads IHK’ at B10a (top), resulting in Ihk’ Naah Yax <something>.

[16] A11. <u{h}:ti:ya>.<KAB?/LAKAM?:?:ma>

·       A11b (top):

o   The drawings by Hunter and Tokovinine suggest KAB much more than the drawings by Looper and Van Stone.

o   Callaway-PhD.p111.pdfp111 has KAB.

o   Dorota Bojkowska: the top could be LAKAM as this would explain the ma at the bottom.

o   VanStone-MC-A2012.t0:07:25 says that the location name has something to do with banners or flags, so he’s probably reading LAKAM.

o   MHD reads KAB (no question mark).

·       A11b (middle = main sign):

o   Callaway-PhD.p111.pdfp111 has “EARSPOOL?”.

o   Dorota Bojkowska: the main sign could be KAAJ (as in the secondary EG of Yaxchilan).

o   Tokovinine-PaIiCMN.p74.pdfp83.para1.l+3 repeats that KAAJ is a good reading.

o   MHD reads KAJ? (with a question mark).

·       A11b (bottom): MHD reads ji? (with a question mark). [Sim: this is probably influenced by the KAAJ, as three non-touching dots on the bottom wouldn’t normally be read as ji.]

·       Tokovinine-PaIiCMN.p44.pdfp53.para3.l+3 reads KAB KAAJ, but warns of uncertainty.

Sim: reading A11b (top) as LAKAM is influenced by the possibility that the three circles at A11b (bottom) are ma while not reading A11b (top) as LAKAM leaves the three circles at A11b (bottom) unexplained.

[17] B11.

·       MHD reads KAN instead of CHAN. While this is a perfectly normal variant (used particularly for the EG of the “Snake Kingdom” which was later associated with CLK), I’m unsure why MHD chooses that reading here.

·       This is one of the “bone throne” stones. See end note under B9 for further information.

[18] A12. At VanStone-MC-A2012.t0:08:10 Van Stone uses the old translation of “tie up” for K’AL.

[19] A12. Sergei Vepretskii (personal communication, 2023): the absence of the u- is not explainable in the current stage of knowledge. Albert Davletshin also sees this as an issue. If treated as a verb, then there is an underspelled u and -aw for u-k’al-tuun-aw or u-k’alaw-tuun “he presented the stone”, and the “agent” NAAH ITZAM-KOKAAJ follows quite naturally. But if treated as a noun “It was the stone presenting”, then there is a missing u- for “the stone presenting of …”.

[20] B12. Sergei Vepretskii (personal communication, 2023): there is indeed an implicit “by” here.

[21] B12. The usual uncertainty with Kokaaj and Itzam and Itzamnaah, etc.

·       Sergei Vepretskii (personal communication, 2023):

o   The ji is actually a phonetic complement for KOKAAJ, so one should read the other one as just ITZAM. The “knot” at the top is the ITZAM, the head is part of KOKAAJ. Tokovinine-TPoPDB reads NAAH-ITZAM-KOKAAJ, and this order is perhaps better, because the ji phonetic complement then comes at the end.

o   NAAH in this context means “first”, so this is “The First Itzam-Kokaaj”.

o   The correct order for reading this is Itzam-Kokaaj.

·       At VanStone-MC-A2012.t0:08:20 Van Stone reads this as Itzamnaaj.

·       Callaway transliterates this as just ITZAMNAJ.

[22] A13. This is “BT” ( “bone throne”), not TZ'AM ( “cushion throne”). It’s on the list of undeciphered glyphs K&L.p45.pdfp45.r9.c6. Also found at B9 and B11.

[23] B13. At VanStone-MC-A2012.t0:09:30-09:38 Mark Van Stone says this means “at the edge of the sky”. [Sim: I.e., it’s a description rather than part of the name of the location. But perhaps the distinction is more in the minds of a modern audience than essential to the makers of the inscription.]

[24] A14. Sim: this glyph is also the EG of SBL, read as TZIM? (the question mark indicating the tentative nature of this reading). But here it refers to three hearthstones at the time of creation of the latest universe. In its use as the EG of SBL it might refer also to the three hearthstones at the time of creation, but it might also just be a toponym / spot in the city/polity of SBL itself.

[25] A14.

·       VanStone-MC-A2012.t0:09:37-09:48: The “New Three-Stone Place”.

·       Looper-LW.p158.pdfp171.col2.para1.l+1 gives “First Three-Stone Place”

[26] B14.

The “3”-part (= 3 dots) of the “13” is partly eroded, but this inscription describes the start of the (13th) baktun, so “13” is reconstructed here. Note the unusual orientation of the TZUTZ – the “jewel” is normally on the right and vertical, here it’s on the top and horizontal. The hand with the pointing finger also normally has the finger pointing to the right (here up) and it’s normally a right hand (here a left hand).

[27] A15.

This is clearly a mammal head, but is not the animal head variant of KAB. Instead, it’s the rat-head variant of ji (hence the AK’AB on the bottom right). The KAB is suggested from the scroll in the forehead.

VanStone-MC-A2012.t0:10:00 confirms that A15 is ukabjiiy, but doesn’t go into details of KAB or -jiiy.

[28] B15. Looper-LW.p158.pdfp171.col2.l+1: Their dedication is overseen by an entity called “Six Sky ajaw,” which Freidel, Schele, and Parker (1993: 73–74) identify with the “Maize God.” In my view, there is insufficient evidence to support this identification.

[29] C1-D2. The LC HAAB-month is Yaxk’in, whose patron K’IN matches the patron infixed in the ISIG.

[30] C6-D6. Calendrical calculations:

LC = 9.1.0.0.0; 27 August 455 AD. The LC matches the CR.

[31] D7. “Tutum” is the first part of the name of the agent, not the name of the stone. See EB.p172.pdfp177.#5.

[32] D8. There was once an informal suggestion by Albert Davletshin to read this as “TOL”.

[33] D9.

·       D9a: probably tza. The bottom part is probably just part of the tza (the “gear wheel”). In fact, the little scroll in the middle might just be part of tza, as there are examples of tza with just a small “left feeler” inside. It’s not tza[bu] because there are no combinations tza-bu in MHD, and this is Late Classic anyway, when bu and mu were more regularly distinguished (and the feeler without any dots is more mu than bu).

·       D9b (top): Tokovinine-TPoPDB (Tokovinine’s Placename Database) has CHAK, while MHD has ki? (i.e., MHD.1B2 with a question mark). To use Tokovinine-TPoPDB, go to Place Names Main Table and filter using “Provenience = Quirigua” and “Object = Stela C”, and look in the Transcription column (last entry, 1449).

·       D9b (bottom): MHD is unable to read this and has just MHD.000.

New idea: note the similarity between D9a and PMT Panel 1 I1a.

·       The element at the top of D9a might be a very flattened and eroded form of tzu.

·       The element at the bottom of D9a might be the “gear wheel” bottom of tza.

·       The major difference is that the top part of tza (the “bowtie”/“butterfly” element) is present in PMT Panel 1 I1a but missing in D9a.

·       So could D9a be tzutz?

·       Furthermore, D9b (bottom) might be an eroded jo, which has an arc of dots in some variants.

·       And the element at D9b (top) might be ma (the “bowtie”/“butterfly” variant).

·       Far-fetched: tzu-tza-jo-ma è tzutzoom = “it will be completed”.

o   The ma in this position is particularly unlikely.

o   When ma is written in this position, it’s usually the three dot variant.

The argument against this is that the tz’unun = “hummingbird” which follows then doesn’t seem to make sense.

[34] C11b (top). This should be 16, not 17. See next end note.

[35] D11-C12. Calendrical calculations:

 +  =

LC = 9.18.5.0.0; 11 September 795 AD.

The previous CR + DN does not match the current CR (6-Ajaw 13-K’ayab). However, if we use a DN of 16.5.0.0:

 +  =

LC = 9.17.5.0.0; 25 December 775 AD.

… then the previous CR + DN matches the current CR.

VanStone-MC-A2012:t0:00:20 gives the date of raising this stela as 775 AD. That matches the 13-K’ayab of the inscription and suggests that the DN should have been 16.5.0.0. The drawing definitely shows 17 rather than 16 (i.e., two dots and one filler not one dot and two fillers). Examining the 3D model easily confirms that a 17 has been carved. So it would seem that the error was made by the “Obsidians” who made the calendrical calculations or by the designer/carver of the monument. Given the simple difference between 16 and 17, it was probably the latter.

Further corroborating evidence that the CR’s LC should be 9.17.5.0.0 is that (the east side of) QRG Stela A – a “companion” monument to QRG Stela C – explicitly recounts the raising of that 6-Ajaw Stone (i.e., Stela A) on the same hotun period ending of 9.17.5.0.0.

[36] D13.

The reading of TIL for the name/title of this ruler is known from many other QRG inscriptions. The interesting point here is that no YOPAAT is explicitly written.

[37] D13. MHD also acknowledges the absence of Yopaat in the glyphic text. It’s “restored” in the translation, from context.

[38] D10-D14. It isn’t explicit stated here, but this scattering ritual is in connection with the raising of this stela itself (Stela C).

[39] E1-F1. The two glyphic texts at the base of the north and south sides are physically separate from those of the east and west sides. The 8-lat at I1 shows that the two basal texts are connected to one another, separated, as they are, by only eight days. So in theory, these basal events could relate either to the events recounted in mythical time on the east side, or to events recounted in the later part of the Late Classic. As a working hypothesis, let’s assume that the 1-Eb 5-Yax is associated with the latter.

Calendrical calculations:

Putting in 9.*.*.*.* and 1-Eb 5-Yax into the Bonn calendar program gives:

LC = 9.17.4.10.12; 30 July 775 AD seems to be the most suitable date, as it’s relatively close to the date of the scattering ritual recounted at D10-D14 (LC = 9.17.5.0.0). To be precise, it’s DN = 7.8 = 20 x 7 + 8 = 148 days (about 5 months) before:

     9.17.4.10.12

   +         7. 8

   --------------

     9.17.5. 0. 0

This date seems extremely appropriate, given the meaning of T’OJ (see next end note).

[40] G1. The reading T’OJ – with the meaning “to peck”, “to dress” – is proposed in GrubeEtAl-PaNS. See CMGG for further information.

[41] H1. Sergei Vepretskii (personal communication, 2023): A stela can take its name from the date of its dedication. D10-D14 does not explicitly say there was a stone dedication, but it was very common to do this, in conjunction with an incense scattering ritual. So there is reason to believe that on that date of 6-Ajaw 13-K’ayab, the stela was dedicated.

This fits the chronology of the narrative perfectly. The preparation of the stela (= the “pecking” / “dressing” of the stone) was on LC = 9.17.4.10.12; 30 July 775 AD, for a planned dedication date of the hotun period ending of LC = 9.17.5.0.0; 25 December 775 AD, about 6 months later, which has a CR of 6-Ajaw 13-K’ayab. They already had the 6-Ajaw date for the dedication in mind, which is why the stone could be called that when preparing and carving the stela, even before the 6-Ajaw date of its actual dedication had been reached.

[42] J1. Calendrical calculations:

 +  =

LC = LC = 9.17.4.11.0; 7 August 775 AD.

The previous CR + DN matches the current CR.

[43] K1.

The “main sign” on the bottom right:

·       MHD transliterates it as MHD.SN7 = syllabogram ho (indeed, MHD.SN7.1 appears to be this very glyph from QRG Stela C K1).

o   This is the “Thick-Lipped Head” glyph, which TOK.p25.pdfp25.r1.c1 gives as jo.

o   BeliaevEtAl-NGA.p357.pdfp7.fn1 (2018) says that there is a forthcoming paper by Davletshin where the reading as ho will be put forward. This paper hasn’t yet been published, but a reasonable number of epigraphers have adopted ho as the reading (including, as it would appear, MHD).

o   However, MHD then doesn’t know what to do with it, in terms of how to transcribe the glyph-block (i.e., what Classic Maya word is intended at this point). It therefore gives no translation (other than that it’s the possessed form of something, from the initial u-).

·       GrubeEtAl-PaNS reads it as a head variant of ta.

o   This is probably based on the horizontal “2-bump line” at middle height, making it the head variant of the abstract syllabogram ta, one of whose defining characteristics is a 2- or 3-bump horizontal line at middle height.

o   It then goes further to transcribe and give a tentative (general) translation for the glyph-block. u:<tu.ta> è utut/utuut/ututal = “the something of”, with the something = tut/tuut/tutal being associated with offerings, and the u- possessive being understood as indicating that the noun or noun phrase after utut/utuut is the recipient of the offering. So utut/utuut/ututal <X> = “the gift/offering to <X>”. Though not the most direct and common meaning of the possessive, it seems entirely reasonable for this to be an idiomatic translation – “<X>’s gift” in English is also inherently ambiguous and can mean either “the gift that <X> is giving to someone else” or “the gift that <X> receives”.

o   It proposes this reading on the basis of three (very clear) occurrences of u-tu-ta-li in PAL (the Temple of the Inscriptions), several occurrences in the Dresden Codex, and one in K1196. These occur in a context associated with offerings and abundance (or lack of).

·       Sources of other possible meanings of tut:

o   The translating of tut to “visit” is from K&H.p95.pdfp97.#1: tut- = “to visit, pass by” and no noun entry.

o   EB.p172.pdfp177.#3: tut- = “to cover, to renovate”, also a verb.

o   EB.p172.pdfp177.#4: tutal = “noun of unknown meaning”.

o   Kaufman has three entries related to tut, but none of them are related to “gift” or “giving”.

So none of these are the source of GrubeEtAl-PaNS’s tut = “gift”. Instead, it seems that the paper infers this meaning out of the wide variety of contexts cited (PAL and the Dresden Codex), where such a meaning makes sense.

[44] L1. The Hero Twins: Juun Ajaw (and) Yax Balun.

L1b (bottom right) can be transliterated BOLON (older reading for “9”) or BALUN (newer reading for “9”). This is why Yax Bolon and Yax Balun can both be found in academic papers. The same applies for Bolon (Y)okte’ K’uh and Balun (Y)okte’ K’uh though the former seems to be much more common than the latter.

This TTT’s reading is taken from VanStone-AMSC.t0:01:14. MHD does not commit to any reading for the two head glyphs, transliterating only “??” for these glyphs on QRG Stela C. They are glossed (in MHD) as “God S” and “God CH” respectively.

They’re shown as a pair on ceramics, for example in K1892. There they’re shown in the iconography standing on either side of the Maize God, who rises from a split turtle shell. They’re not referred to in the text, but each of the figures is tagged with glyphs:

·       The left figure is glossed in the MHD TTT of K1892 as Juun ?? “God-S”.

·       The middle figure is glossed in the MHD TTT of K1892 as Juun Ixiim.

·       The right figure is glossed in the MHD TTT of K1892 as Yax ?? “God-CH”.

I.e., K1892 also has both gods, and they’re also transcribed as Juun ?? and Yax ?? and glossed in the translation as “God S” and “God CH” respectively in MHD. It is hence a conscious decision and not an oversight on the part of MHD not to read the “God-S” and “God-CH” glyphs as Ajaw and Balun.

Information on God-S and God-CH is hard to come by. One list of Schellhas gods I have access to goes only up to God-P. Later works (e.g., AK-YT2021-lecture19.t0:04:38) reorganize and rationalize the list further, in the light of newer knowledge. Most of these don’t list God-S or God-CH. Chuchiak&Krempel-TMD is one work which discusses God-S and God-CH.

Juun Ajaw and Yax Balun are viewed as the Classic Maya equivalents of the Hero Twins of the Codical / Colonial Period – Hun Ahau/Ahpu and Yax Balam (of the Popol Vuh). Chuchiak&Krempel-TMD gives the association between the gods as identified by their “letter names” (according to the system devised by Schellhas) and their Codical names:

It seems that while MHD is willing to accept the association between the Hero Twins and God-S and God-CH, it won’t go as far as to read their names as Juun Ajaw and Yax Balun. Instead, MHD is content to transliterate “Juun ??” and “Yax ??” for their respective names.

As for Van Stone’s assertion that “[QRG Stela C] is the only inscription on monuments with the two names shown together”, this is more or less confirmed by extensive investigation in MHD.

To find inscriptions where God-S and God-CH occur together, do the following searches on MHD:

·       A. “blengl contains God S” yields 10 hits – this is MHD.PJ2.

·       B. “blengl contains God CH” yields 8 hits – this is MHD.PY9c.

From the hits in “A” and “B”, look at which objabbr’s are on both hit lists – there are exactly 6 of them (4 on Kerr vases, 2 on monuments):

·       COLK1222

·       COLK1377

·       COLK1892

·       COLK7821

·       MRLSt01

·       QRGStC

So there appears to be (at least) one other monumental inscription where the Hero Twins occur together, namely Moral-Reforma Stela 1 F4-E5. This of course would have been extremely difficult to discover before MHD went live.

VanStone-AMSC.t0:02:55 also shows four ceramic vessels with the Hero Twins. One is unlabelled, but the other three are: K732, K1183, and K1222. Apparently, the only overlap with the list from MHD is K1222.

Summary of where God-S (MHD.PJ2) and God-CH (MHD.PY9c) appear together on ceramic vessels:

·       The unlabelled vessel (in the video) turns out to be K1892, given the description “Resurrection Plate. The Maize God (Hun Nal Ye) is resurrected by his sons Hun Ahaj and Yax Balam” in mayavase.com. Their names appear at I1 and J respectively.

·       In mayavase.com, K732 is given the description Hero Twins presenting offering to Itzamná”. It doesn’t appear in the MHD search because K732 itself is not in MHD. (And even if it were, it’s unclear if the glyphs of the names of the Hero Twins appears on the vessel, even though they are definitely shown in the iconography).

·       In mayavase.com, K1004 is given the description “Twins bringing jewels for resurrection”. They are both represented in the iconography, but only the name of God-CH is present in the glyphic text as PY9c (according to MHD’s transliteration). The name of God-S is also present in the glyphic text but not as PJ2 (but instead as ZA1a – the “upright la-face”, according to MHD’s transliteration).

·       In mayavase.com, K1183 is given the description “Twins in jade bead costume look at father[‘]s head in cache vessel in front of Itzamná”. They are both certainly represented in the iconography, but only the name of God-CH is present in the glyphic text (according to MHD’s transliteration).

·       In mayavase.com, K1222 is given the description “In a Supernatural Palace the Hero Twins bring offerings of bundled cloth to a ruler who impersonates the Maize God”. Juun Ajaw is written at D1 and Yax Balun at E1, as well as being depicted in the iconography.

·       In mayavase.com, K1377 is given the description “Palace. Double throne scene of sacrifice with patron of Pax, underworld creatures and a mourning woman”. According to MHD, the names of the Hero Twins are directly above the slim standing figure with an orange body. The glyphs are, however, quite difficult to make out.

·       In mayavase.com, K7821 is given the description “In the first panel, a Twin kneels before Itzamná”. MHD indicates that the names of both Hero Twins are at P2 and O3.

Chinchilla-PPaAMG discusses the connection between the Classic Maya God-S and the Colonial period god Hunahpu (with a very peripheral mention of God-CH). It explains that MHD.PJ2 is the glyph found in connection with a preceding “1” when God-S is spoken about. However, it (in particular) warns against just blindly reading MHD.PJ2 as AJAW (and hence also warns against assuming that the name of God-S is Juun Ajaw). The inclination to do so is great, as MHD.PJ2 is an anthropomorphic head with a darkened spot on the cheek, while one of the common and well-established variants of AJAW – MHD. PJ1 – is also an anthropomorphic head with a darkened spot on the cheek. The phonetic similarity between (the first part of) Juun Ajaw and Hunahpu lends support to this inclination, as does the parallels in iconography of God-S (and God-CH) on ceramic vessels vs. the role of Hunahpu (and Yax Balam) in the Popol Vuh of the Colonial period.

However, the difference is that MHD.PJ1 / AJAW is always found with a “headband” (Chinchilla-PPaAMG.p7.pdfp7.fig6) whereas MHD.PJ2 / God-S never is (Chinchilla-PPaAMG.p6.pdfp6.fig5).

Chinchilla-PPaAMG.p6.pdfp6.col1.para1.l+2 explains that K1004 provides the one and only instance where God-S in the iconography is tagged with the “index finger” variant of “1” (JUUN) on the left and the “right-side-up la-face” on the right (AJAW). This is hence an indication that (at least one of the names of) God-S was JUUN AJAW. This, however, doesn’t automatically mean that MHD.PJ2 is to also be read as AJAW – that question remains open. This (along with the presence and absence of the headband in MHD.PJ2 and MHD.PJ2, respectively) is probably the reason that MHD declines to read MHD.PJ2 as AJAW and instead writes just “??” and glosses it with “God S”.

At VanStone-AMSC.t0:01:43, Van Stone also says that he’s unable to connect the date associated with the Hero Twins to the text of the rest of the monument.

MHD assigns these “basal” events of the south and north side the “contemporary” dates of 9.17.4.10.12 and 9.17.4.11.0 respectively. But it wasn’t initially clear to me why the latter date (being such a “minor” winal period ending) would be commemorated with a ritual offering to two mythical figures (who played no other role in the mythical and contemporary parts of the narratives of this monument). I hence wondered whether the working hypothesis of taking a “contemporary” date at E1-F1 was wrong – perhaps we should consider something closer to 0.0.0.0.0?

However, the decipherment in GrubeEtAl-PaNS of the glyph at G1 as T’OJ = “to dress (stone)” made everything fall into place. The date of the dressing of the stone was just “the date of the dressing of the stone” – an arbitrary moment when the stone had been dressed. Eight days later – which was a period ending (albeit not a particular major one) – they made a ritual offering to the Hero Twins. This may have been in celebration of the dressing of the stone (perhaps there was some connection between stonemasonry and the Hero Twins) or might have been quite independent of it. After that, they carved Stela C from the dressed block and, five months later, on a hotun period ending, they raised Stela C with a scattering ritual.