End Notes

[1] A1-B2. The LC HAAB-month is Yaxk’in, whose patron K’IN(ICH) is not totally incompatible with the full-figure patron infixed in the ISIG. This could be the Sun God, but there are no distinct K’IN markings on his head or body. The figure appears to have a “spondylus ear”, which is not a known feature of K’IN(ICH). However, the infixed full figure has a large square eye with the square “pupil” in the top left corner, and the cruller on both sides and under the eye are known features of K’IN(ICH). From the Looper drawing, the element above the figure’s left arm (on the right, from the point of view of the viewer) does not strongly resemble a YAX, but TMHW.pdfp408.YAXKIN.fig22.36 is from a drawing of this monument and glyph-block, and there the element looks more like a YAX. However, this is not relevant, because it’s not YAXK’IN that’s being infixed, only K’IN or K’INICH. So that the element above the arm doesn’t really matter.

[2] A3-B12. The west side ISIG’s LC = 9.16.13.4.17.

The LC is given in full-figure glyphs – both the coefficients and the units are full-figure glyphs:

·       Coefficients: It’s difficult to get even tentative values as a “working hypothesis” for the coefficients of the Winikhaab, Haab, and Winal, and for Tzolk’in value of the CR (see next end note).

·       Units: The units don’t really need to be read based on their characteristics as context/position alone tells us that they’re Pik, Winikhaab, Haab, Winal, K’in. It is nevertheless an instructive and interesting exercise to see how many of them can actually be read “out of context”, based only on their distinctive characteristics.

[3] A13-B14. A full-figure Tzolk’in date: 8-Kaban.

·       Coefficient: The full-figure glyph for the coefficient of the Tzolk’in date occupies more than its conventional space of just the left half of the glyph-block – the two legs and feet extend under the day-name of right half to occupy a quarter of the right half of the glyph-block. The head has long parallel strands of hair around the ear, representing the corn husk characteristic of “8”/IXIIM.

·       Day-name: The head and shoulders are enclosed in the blood cartouche. There’s a downward scroll at the top of the head (immediately to the right of the eye). This scroll is the equivalent of the “protector” of the cross-hatched circle at the top of the more abstract KAB/Kaban.

There is also a completely independent line of reasoning which leads to reading 8-Kaban here – indeed, a line of reasoning which gives the full LC, despite this (west side’s) ISIG’s LC having even fewer clues for reading the coefficients than is the case for the east side’s ISIG’s LC. See end note under A21d-A22.

[4] A15. This is known to be one of the variants of Glyph-G₇, given as such in Gronemeyer-GGF.p9.pdfp9.fig8.e and K&L.p65.pdfp65.G7.2 = MC.p50.pdfp51.G7.2.

[5] B15. It’s clear from context that this is Glyph-F. But there’s some uncertainty as to which glyph is TI’ and which glyph is HUUN.

·       Possibility #1: TI’ above, HUUN below:

o   The TI’ might be the “abstract” (horizontally rectangular, tripartite) variant (e.g., TOK.p10.pdfp10.r2.c4/0128st).

o   The HUUN might be the head variant (e.g., MHD.SM1.1/T1030o).

·       Possibility #2: HUUN above, TI’ below:

o   The TI’ might be the (bird?-)head variant (e.g., MHD.SSD/1907st).

o   The HUUN might be the “knot” variant (e.g., MHD.1B5a.1/0060st).

I think the former is more probable than the latter because the upper beak in B15 goes all the way to the ground, as does MHD.SM1/T1030o, whereas MHD.SSD/1907st has a distinct lower beak or chin under the upper beak. Dorota Bojkowska agrees: TI’ on top, HUUN on the bottom left.

Note that there is quite a lot of glyphic information in the bottom right which seems to be in addition to the head. So whichever reading is taken, this additional glyphic information is not being taken into account and read. On the other hand, it’s interesting to compare the two Glyph-F’s of this inscription – at B15 and D15:

It seems that a lot of the extra glyphic information to the right of the HUUN in B15b can be found on the right of D15b too: the JUUN/“jewel”-like element present in the middle of B15b (part of the ear?) is absent in D15b but the scroll in the upper right of B15b and the oval-ish element in the bottom right of B15b seems to be present in the top and middle right of D15b. This means that the latter two elements are probably just decorative parts of the HUUN glyph (perhaps symbolically/iconographically significant, but nevertheless decorative, i.e., not contributing to the sound), rather than being unexplained additional glyphs. Indeed, they can be seen in quite a number of examples in the CMGG entry for the bird-head variant of HUUN.

The JUUN/“jewel”-like element present in the middle of B15b however remains unexplained. Perhaps it’s just a decorative “fancy ear”.

[6] A3-A17. Calendrical calculations.

We know from QRG Stela E (A3-B8a) and QRG Stela F (A3-A6) that K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat’s accession was on 9.14.13.4.17; (12-Kaban 5-K’ayab). We know from B17a-A18 that this ISIG’s LC is the 2^nd katun anniversary of his accession, making it 9.16.13.4.17.

For another way to get the values of the coefficients of the LC, see also end note under A21d-A22. At this point, we can just take those values as a given, and check the LC against the SS.

LC = 9.16.13.4.17; 2 June 764 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 four calculated values match those of the inscription. The two which do match nevertheless form a very slight confirmation of the correctness of the reading of the ISIG LC as 9.16.13.4.17. This in turn supports the idea that the DN = 1.13.3 at B21a is indeed a DN which links the two ISIG’s LC’s in this monument. It remains a mystery to me why these SS cross-checks so often reveal a number of discrepancies.

[Sim’s very speculative musings: A mismatch in Glyph-A might be more due to epigraphers not fully understanding the correct method of calculating the theoretical value than to “mistakes” made on the part of the calendrical experts, designers or carvers of the time of the creation of the monument. For example, the modern algorithm might take the number of days in each of the 6 lunations as 29, 30, 29, 30, 29, 30 (or 30, 29, 30, 29, 30, 29) – which might have been true in general over the whole Maya region – whereas the “local standard” might have been 29, 29, 29, 30, 30, 30 (or 30, 30, 30, 29, 29, 29).]

[7] B17a. From the point of view of a “mathematical” approach to grammar, this u- seems to be fulfilling a double function:

·       u-ch’a as the ordinal number derived from “2”, i.e., “the second (katun)”

·       u-<the whole long phrase> = “the second katun in the rulership of (K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat)”.

In a vaguely similar situation, Maya grammar requires two possessives. This is when a Yajawte’ (“Lord of the Spear”) serves the ruler of a polity. In such situations, the grammar requires u-yajawte’ – the y- possessive for the Spear being possessed by the Lord, and the additional u- possessive for the Lord of the Spear being possessed by the ruler of the polity.

The situation in the current inscription is such that one might expect a “double possessive” here too – (say) an u- for the ordinal “second” and an additional y- for the “second katun anniversary of”. However, there is no need to worry about this: this can just be translated as “his two katuns in rulership”. This removes any need for the 2 to be “second”, as it’s just plain “two”. Instead, the single u present can just fulfill the role of being the possessive marker for the two katuns of K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat.

[8] B17b.

From context, there’s no doubt that this is cha’ winikhaab ti ajawlel. There is only one small issue in the transliteration – the very last element, in the bottom right of B17b:

·       GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p138.pdfp151 reads/reconstructs it as le.

·       MHD (2024-10-13) reads/reconstructs it as the main / boulder part of AJAW (with the “BEN-po” above it)

The advantage of the GutiérrezGonzález-PhD transliteration is that there’s only an undespelled -l for lel, whereas the MHD reading requires an underspelled -lel. However, it’s hard to know if the former’s transliteration is indeed correct: it’s a partially eroded glyph at this point, and it’s difficult to say whether it is in fact a rather squarish / boulder-shaped form of le or if the middle of the element has two (lost) touching dots in the middle of the curved pillar (which would make it part of AJAW).

[9] B18b. 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 D22c, and QRG Stela F C8b-D8a, all in connection with Káhk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat.

Along with the Chan Te’ <something> Lakam (B23), 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.

[10] A19c.

The reconstructed reading of *“TOL” for the main sign of this part of the glyph-block is not obvious (based on the eroded glyphs), but is quite reasonable from the context. The main sign is perhaps a bit “flatter” (more horizontally rectangular) or more oval-ish than one might expect for “TOL”, but the “dotted spine” could well be the remnants of the (horizontal) “central stem” of the vine of “TOL”.

[11] B19.

MHD has:

·       B19a: <u:ya>.ti (little doubt here: MHD & Tokovinine-TPoPDB agree).

·       B19b:

o   MHD speculates e? (with question mark), but the animal-head variant of e usually has three non-touching dots in a triangle in the ear, not present in B19b (at least, not shown in the drawing).

o   Tokovinine-TPoPDB: ahk.

o   Dorota Bojkowska: AHK seems quite plausible.

·       B19c:

o   MHD has ji? – probably viewing it as being the rodent-head variant of ji.

o   Tokovinine-TPoPDB: ch’ooj (presumably from ch’o-ji, with hi perhaps being merged with ji).

o   Sim & Dorota Bojkowska:

§  We weren’t able to find a candidate in Kaufman-APMED for ch’ooj.

§  <BAAH:hi> seems like a possibility. There’s no K’AN infixed in the bottom right of the animal head in the drawing, but zooming in on the 3D model for that part of the inscription shows what might be the outlines of a K’AN.

·       B19d:

o   MHD: MUWAAN?.

o   Tokovinine-TPoPDB: witz'.

o   Dorota Bojkowska: the correctness of WITZ’ is hard to judge.

§  The “feathers” in the mouth suggest MUWAAN, but they could also correspond to “teeth”-like elements found in WITZ’.

§  WITZ’ has a scroll in the bottom right, which MUWAAN doesn’t have. B19d also has such a scroll, increasing the chances that it’s WITZ’ rather than MUWAAN.

§  WITZ’ almost always has a “left feeler” in the eye. From spot checks of MHD, MUWAAN generally doesn’t have a “left feeler” in the eye, even though there are a few in the examples from the CMGG. B19d doesn’t have a “left feeler” in the eye è this argues for a reading of MUWAAN rather than WITZ’.

o   MHD searches:

§  Could it be Baah Witz’? The following searches all return no hits:

§  “bllogosyll contains bah” and “bllogosyll contains witz’”.

§  “bllogosyll contains ba” and “bllogosyll contains witz’”.

§  “blmaya1 contains baah” and “blmaya1 contains witz’”.

Similarly, these searches also return no hits (SSn are variants of WITZ’):

§  “blcodes contains XE1” (ba) and “blcodes contains SSn” (n=1,2,3,4).

§  “blcodes contains AP9” (BAAH) and “blcodes contains SSn” (n=1,2,3,4).

The above argues against a reading of baah witz’.

§  Could it be Baah Muwaan? [MHD distinguishes the month name muwahn vs. the predatory bird muwan in the blengl field, see MUWAAN in the CMGG.]

§  “blcodes contains BT2” (MUWAAN) and “bllogosyll contains ba” (the latter to get both logogram and syllabogram spellings) yields 2 hits, both of which are from Bahlam – i.e., the ba is from bahlam, not baah.

The above argues against a reading of baah muwaan.

Neither Witz’ nor Muwaan fit well in connection with Baah = “chief, head” in a title anyway. These were considered as possibilities more for the sake of being able to explicitly exclude them. My conclusion out of all this is that B19c is probably not baah.

[12] B20.

·       B20a: <u{h}:ya>.ti

·       B20b: ma.<<TUUN?/KAN?>:la>:

o   MHD has TUUN? (with question mark).

o   Tokovinine-TPoPDB has KAN (no question mark, but Tokovinine doesn’t use a question mark convention anyway).

It seems more likely to be KAN than TUUN because TUUN either has ni phonetic complement (to emphasize TUUN) or li following (to write tuunil), not la following.

·       B20c:

o   MHD has AJAN:NAL (read with confidence – no question marks).

o   Tokovinine-TPoPDB has wi-tzi.

It seems more likely to be wi-tzi than AJAN-NAL because the wi is explicitly present as a separate glyph here (the tzi vs. AJAN is harder to decide, as they both share many characteristics).

·       B20d: tu.<*u:CH’EEN?:*ni> - seems quite safe to read this from context.

[13] A21a.

MHD has HA’-?-EK’ è ha’ ? ek’, so:

·       It considers the glyph at the top as a (variant of a) single, undeciphered glyph (MHD.MB5) rather than as an undeciphered glyph placed in the centre of two bent arms (MHD.MB3 plus an undeciphered glyph in between).

·       It doesn’t read the glyph at the top (MHD.MB5) as the first glyph, and sees an EK’ infixed in a HA’.

·       It views the glyph at the top (MHD.MB5) as coming between HA’ and EK’.

In the CMGG, MHD.MB5 is referred to as “ADWH” (“Aged Deity With Hand(s)”).

The reasoning behind this reading is speculated on below.

·       QRG Stela D A21a is possibly the same phrase as on QRG Stela J C8. The context is different, and they refer to different objects/persons, but they’re both from inscriptions on QRG stelae.

·       They possibly have in common HA’, EK’, and an anthropomorphic head (eroded in the case of QRG Stela D A21a, not eroded in the case of QRG Stela J C8), and perhaps the two flanking elements at the top of QRG Stela D A21a are bent arms, corresponding to the single hand of QRG Stela J C8.

·       There’s (perhaps) infixing of the EK’ in the HA’ in one and not in the other, but for the moment, we could consider QRG Stela D A21a and QRG Stela J C8 to share enough characteristics to be the same phrase.

·       We can argue that in QRG Stela J C8 the glyph at the top left is not TIL/MHD.MB4 (the variant with KAWAK flanked by two arms). That’s because it looks nothing like TIL/MHD.MB4, but is instead an anthropomorphic head with a hand.

·       This in turn makes it equivalent to an anthropomorphic head with two arms (MHD.MB5), as in the top of QRG Stela D A21a, mentioned earlier.

·       We can see from QRG Stela J C8 (and many other examples from CPN and a few from QRG) that the three elements don’t form a single logogram, because they are written as three separate logograms, and even that having EK’ coming last is reasonable.

·       Lastly, we can be reasonably sure that this anthropomorphic head plus bent arms is a single logogram and not a conflation of the anthropomorphic head (as an independent logogram) between another glyph, the two arms (MHD.MB3) – as it is in “sky raiser”. This is because, when it really is part of “sky raiser”, there’s a lot of variation in the middle element (skull, jaguar head, snake-like head, anthropomorphic head) whereas, in this context, it’s always an anthropomorphic head. Furthermore, QRG Stela J C8 even has a single hand (as a variant of the two arms).

There is a small possibility that the arms of MHD.MB5 are actually SIH, with the anthropomorphic head being what is born. But this is unlikely, and nobody has transliterated it that way. So, it’s best to leave the top of QRG Stela D A21a as a single logogram, with anthropomorphic head and arm(s) as an undeciphered glyph, i.e., as an example of MHD.MB5.

Summary of contrasts and similarities:

·       The top of QRG Stela D A21a is distinguished from MHD.MB4:

o   The former is considered a version of MHD.MB5 (=“ADWH”) – it has an anthropomorphic head between bent arms.

o   The latter is TIL – it has a KAWAK between bent arms.

·       The top of QRG Stela D A21a is distinguished from the bottom K6751 B2:

o   The former is considered a version of MHD.MB5 (=“ADWH”) – it has an anthropomorphic head between bent arms and is a single logogram.

o   K6751 B2 is the name of an early ruler of the Snake Kingdom – “Skyraiser”. The bottom of B2 is interpreted as being the two bent arms of MHD.MB3 with “EB” (the skull-glyph normally found in the day name Eb) in between.

o   Another important distinction between the two is that the anthropomorphic head between two arms of the former (MHD.MB5/“ADWH”) is found above other glyphs whereas the “EB” skull-glyph between two arms of the latter (MHD.MB3+“EB”) is found below other glyphs (specifically CHAN = “sky”).

·       Despite the dissimilarities in arrangement (composition) and actual appearance, QRG Stela D A21a and QRG Stela J C8 are considered to write the same phrase HA’ MHD.MB5/“ADWH” EK’ = “Water <something> Star”.

Other occurrences of this phrase:

·       A search in MHD on “blengl contains ha' ?? eek'” (2024-09-18) yields 17 hits.

·       Of the 17 hits, 10 actually have MHD.MB5/“ADWH” as the middle glyph (some or all of the others might have the *“ADWH” read from context).

·       These are multiple stelae in CPN, QRG, and TIK, as well as on one CPN altar, and one (incised?) vessel – i.e., almost exclusively on monuments and spread over quite a large area of the Classic Maya world.

·       It occurs as a deity name and as part of the extended name/title of rulers (deity names were often used in this way).

·       It occurs either by itself or as a longer name/title preceding the Waterlily Serpent, both in its shorter Juun Witz’ or longer Juun Witz’ Naah Kan form.

In the context of QRG Stela D, it appears to be part of the extended name/title of K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat as these extended names often incorporated the names of deities. Here it occurs in the phrase uhti … tu’ che’en (Ha’ <something> Ek’, Juun Witz’ Naah Kan) = “it happened … in the city of …”, which happens to be QRG, the city of K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat. That’s the reason I’m reading it as part of his extended name/title.

[14] B21c-B21d. Very eroded right half of a glyph-block B21.

Dorota Bojkowska: This fits very well into the DN <verb₁>-jiiy <verb₂> syntax, where verb₂ happens <time=DN> after verb₁ (the so-called -jiiy clitic). So it is entirely possible that there is a whole verb phrase at B21c-B21d. Examples of this can be found in MHD by “blsem contains distance number” and “blengl contains since”.

It’s unlikely that B21d (left) is an eroded ch’a. In A23c (left) we have a ch’a which we can read with confidence. It has a circle of touching dots under the “feelers” and so is quite different from B21d (left), where there is just a single dot under each feeler (and a semicircular element under the two feelers and dots). For this reason, the eroded phrase here (B21c-B21d) is probably not chok ch’aaj. B21d (left) could be a si, but that doesn’t lead to any obvious reconstructions. It could be tu, which would then be ti-u or ta-u = “at (the) <something> of”.

The implicit date that this verb₂ occurs on happens to be the ISIG LC of the west side. So the verb is probably related to the 40^th anniversary of K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat’s accession.

[15] A21d-A22.

After a DNIG (A21d) and a DN = 1.13.3 (B21a-B21b) which can be read with reasonable confidence, there’s half a glyph-block which is almost totally eroded (B21c-B21d). After that, there appears to be i-uhti followed by an almost totally eroded CR at A22b and A22c. The CR could be ?-*Ajaw *18-?: the la-face of Ajaw at A22b can be reconstructed, and there are probably 3 dots and 3 bars at A22c, i.e.:

·       The coefficient of the Tzok’in is totally eroded, but the day-name might be reconstructed as Ajaw.

·       The coefficient of the Haab might be reconstructed as 18, but the month-name is totally eroded.

At this point, it’s worth noting that the east side ISIG’s LC has a CR of 7-Ajaw 18-Pop (which can be read with confidence). So, as a “working hypothesis”, we can try to read (i.e., reconstruct) exactly that date – 7-Ajaw 18-Pop here, after the DN. As this CR matches that of the CR of the east side ISIG’s LC = 9.16.15.0.0, we can (also tentatively) assign this CR the same LC.

If we do that, then we can make the following (tentative) calendrical calculation – subtracting 1.13.3 from LC = 9.16.15.0.0, we get:

 +  =

LC = 9.16.13.4.17; 2 June 764 AD.

The resultant CR is 8-Kaban 5-Yaxk’in.

The next thing to observe is that this 5-Yaxk’in matches the 5-Yaxk’in which can be read with considerable confidence in the CR of the west side’s ISIG LC (A17b). It could hence be argued that this is “too much of a coincidence”, and that the DN = 1.13.3 which can be read with confidence at B21a indeed links the west side’s ISIG LC with the east side’s ISIG LC.

If that line of argument is accepted, then this determines the Tzolk’in date of 8-Kaban at A13-B14, as well as all the coefficients of the LC from A3-B12. The fact that LC = 9.16.13.4.17 does not contradict the possible values for the PIK, WINIKHAAB, and K’IN coefficients (as carved on the inscription) lends further support to accepting this “linking role” for the DN = 1.13.3, between the two ISIG LC’s.

The above is reasoning based on “internal” factors (i.e., using only information available in this inscription itself). For a different argument based on “external” factors (i.e., using information available in other inscriptions), see end note under A17.

[16] B22.

MHD has <<i.<AJAW[ja]>>:<u.<BAAH:hi>>>.<<?>:<ch’o:ko>>:

·       B22a: i.<AJAW:ja> è i ajawaj = “then he became lord”

·       B22b: u.<BAAH:hi> è ubaahil = “the image of”

·       B22c: <eroded> è ?

·       B22d: ch’o:ko è ch’ok = “youth”

Notes:

·       Looper-LW.p27.pdfp40.c1.l+6: A second reference to an active, living monument may appear in a partially eroded passage on the west face of Stela D (Fig. I.27b). Here the text records an event associated with the dedication date of the monument as ajawaj, or “it is made ajaw,” a phrase related to expressions for royal accession. [Looper-LW.p232.pdfp245.endnote30: The verb ajawaj is a passive form derived from the noun ajaw “lord.” In Maya inscriptions, this verb is usually given the positional suffix -yan rather than the passive. See Palenque Temple of the Inscriptions, west panel, H2.] Next may be the glyph for “his image” (ub’ahil), followed by a series of illegible signs. The final glyph of the clause is tunil “stone object.” This passage, then, may suggest that for the period-ending ceremony a stone monument (presumably Stela D) was itself made ajaw.

Sim: Looper-LW was published in 2003. MHD went live in 2022. Given the large gap in time and the increased insights and changing ideas in the intervening years, it’s difficult to know if MHD still supports this idea of the personification of the stela and its being made ajaw. As Classic Maya doesn’t distinguish third person singular pronouns – in the ergative case, u- could be he, she, or it; and in the absolutive case, the subject pronoun doesn’t manifest at all – it’s difficult to tell if the stone or the human ruler is the intended referent. The fact that Looper-LW translates an “it” while MHD translates a “he” suggests that MHD no longer supports the Looper-LW interpretation.

Examination of the 3D model and unpublished photos also does not yield any additional information.

[17] A23d.

It’s difficult to know what to read here. Both MHD and GutiérrezGonzález-PhD read u-?-? è u-? = “?” but it’s unclear to me whether it’s the element on the left or the top right which is considered to be the u. Syntactically, I would expect the former, but visually, it might be the latter.

Semantically and syntactically, either uhti or i-uhti would fit, but it’s hard to force such a reading. In particular, the element on the bottom right definitely doesn’t look like the eroded outline of ti.

QRG Stela I D6b is an uneroded glyph-block which can be quite confidently read i.<u:ti> è iuhti, because it comes directly between an (indisputable) DNIG+DN and a CR. It has an outline and subcomponents which are somewhat similar to A23d. This shows that it’s possible to have a very vertically rectangular (i.e., very much taller than wide) tripartite syllabogram i and a (muluk-)u with three dots on the right of the larger internal arc. It’s therefore useful to compare it to A23d. But the unlikelihood of the last glyph of A23d being a ti still means that we can probably exclude a reading of iuhti.

Examination of the 3D model (with two different angles of incident light) and unpublished photos also does not yield any additional information.

[18] B23a-B23b (excluding B23c-B23d).

·       B23a:

o   MHD reads CHAN-?-ku?-NAL but I don’t know why ku is being proposed. There seems to be the eroded outline of a bone-jaw, but this doesn’t help me to arrive at a possible ku.

o   Because te’ is occasionally present in a Tzolk’in date between the coefficient and the day-name) I’m tempted to read B23a as 4.<TE’:<day-name>>.

o   When an unpublished photo of QRG Stela D is subjected to adjustments in the light in Photoshop, it can be seen that the top of this is actually very eroded or broken off. This means that the three dots along the top are not necessarily so clearly on the “outside” of the glyph. In fact, it could even be two dots on the inside, making this possibly TE’. If that is the case, then we have 4.<TE’:?>. And if so, then the question arises if this might be Chan Te’ Ihk’ Xib (as recorded on B18 and D22). Indeed the skull (bone-jaw present) below the possible TE’ could be xi. There is no explicit IHK’, so this might have to be inferred from context. Or perhaps the name is just Chan Te’ Xib, without the Ihk’. Unfortunately, I’m not aware of any known instances of just Chan Te’ Xib at QRG or at any other site. Also, it isn’t HE’EW, because there are no crossbones in or above the eye.

o   Examination of a detail from the 3D model doesn’t really throw much additional light on the situation (if you’ll pardon the pun). There appear to be three dots on the outside of the glyph, once again lessening the chances that it’s TE’.

·       B23b: only LAKAM, no BAHLAM:

o   The ma could be equally an end phonetic complement for either LAKAM or BAHLAM.

o   The element in the top right of B23b, at the end of the long curved “trunk” of LAKAM, is more likely to just be the “leaf” at the tip (very common in LAKAM) than the ear of BAHLAM. Similarly, the elements in the bottom left (to the right of the long curved “trunk” could just as well be (eroded) “leaves” coming off the “trunk” (also very common in LAKAM) rather than an eye, nose, and mouth of BAHLAM. Dorota Bojkowska: there is no BAHLAM here.

o   On the other hand, LAKAM = “tax collector” seems like too minor a title to include in the extended name/title of any ruler of a polity, even less so in the case of as important a ruler as K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat, especially after 40 years of rule. Another meaning of lakam is “great”, but Dorota Bojkowska agrees that it’s slightly odd to have the meaning “great” at the end.

o   Examination of a detail from the 3D shows that it’s LAKAM and not BAHLAM.

·       Dorota Bojkowska:

o   This is part of the extended name/title of K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat.

o   The top right is not TE’, because the dots are on the outside whereas the dots of TE’ are always within the glyph. Also there are 3 dots, whereas TE’ usually only has 2 dots.

o   A search in MHD with “bllogosyll contains WITZ” and “bllogosyll contains LAKAM” does not yield any hits, and even then, it would be more likely to be lakam witz than witz lakam.

[19] B24.

·       MHD transliterates <WINAK?:<k’i:ta>>:<<K’AHK’.<K’IN?>>:<TE’.?>> (no question mark on k’i or K’AHK’). However, except for the WINAK è winak = “20”, the rest of the glyph-block is not transcribed nor translated.

·       A search in MHD on “blhyphen contains k’i-ta” yields 7 hits:

o   One of the seven has K’AHK’ as part of the name, but there it’s before k’i-ta, whereas here it’s after (but instances of inversion of K’AHK’ and the rest of the name are known).

o   Four of the others are from Structure 1B1 and are the same name: 20-k’i-ta.

§  The “20” is quite confidently read, because ja has 3 dots in the bay, whereas “20” has a full (and larger) circle in the bay, and three of the four hits have a single circle (sometimes not very large) in the bay.

·       I feel this is sufficient evidence to read <20:<k’i:ta>> here. [As of 2024-10-13, “objabbr contains QRGStD” produces a hit where D24b has bllogosyll has the value “k’i ta” and blhyphen has the value “k’i-ta” but the queries “bllogosyll contains k’i ta” and “blhyphen contains k’i-ta” returns no hits. For some period in 2023, the latter query returned 4 hits.]

[20] C1-D2. The LC HAAB-month is K’anjalaw/Pop, whose patron BAHLAM matches the patron infixed in the ISIG. I don’t know why MHD reads this as HIX. With HIX, one expects three non-touching dots in a triangular formation (triangle pointing down). I’ve gone for BAHLAM, but the principle is that it’s a jaguar and there’s a match.

[21] C3-D12. The east side ISIG’s LC = 9.16.15.0.0.

·       Both the coefficients and the units of this LC are given in full-figure glyphs. As with the west side’s ISIG’s LC, it’s important to read the coefficients, but it’s also an instructive and interesting exercise to see how many of the units can actually be read “out of context”, based only on their distinctive characteristics. In contrast to the west side, the coefficients here are relatively easy to read.

·       In the entire LC, the full-figure glyph of the coefficient seems to be struggling with that of the unit – in some cases, extremely violent struggle, in other cases, slightly less.

Using the ISIG’s CR to help work out the LC (the ISIG CR is of course split in two by the SS):

As a working hypothesis for the CR values, we posit:

·       Tzolk’in of the ISIG’s LC as being 7-Ajaw:

o   The “7” on account of the “right feeler” in the eye with “cruller” underneath, slightly inside from the top left.

o   The Ajaw on account of it being the head of a young man.

·       The Haab of the ISIG’s LC as being 18-K’anjalaw/Pop (very clear).

Restricting the search to 9.*.*.*.* and looking for 7-Ajaw 18-Pop:

The only LC which has 0 winals and 0 k’ins and 15 haabs (i.e., is a period ending) is LC = 9.16.15.0.0, enabling us to “read” the “9” and confirming the “16” (despite the absence of very distinct bone-jaw). This in turn helps to confirm our working hypothesis of the ISIG’s CR as being 7-Ajaw 18-Pop. On the one hand, the “rough fit” of the resulting coefficients of the LC help to confirm the reading of the Tzolk’in, and on the other hand, that reading of the Tzolk’in helps to confirm the reading of the coefficients. This is not “circular reasoning”, as the various parts of the calendar are redundant and so tightly interlocked that it “wouldn’t work out” if the working hypothesis was incorrect.

In a similar way, we can have a working hypothesis that the extremely eroded and largely unreadable CR at A22b and A22c is in fact the same date (7-Ajaw 18-Pop), because the eroded outlines make that seem plausible. With such a hypothesis, if we then subtract the preceding (very clear and undoubted) DN = 1.13.3, we get to possible values for the preceding CR (and LC). These then fit reasonably well with what’s found on the inscription itself, further helping to confirm the working hypothesis. Here too, the various parts of the calendar are redundant and so tightly interlocked that it “wouldn’t work out” if the working hypothesis was incorrect. See end note under A22 for more information.

[22] C13-D14. A full-figure Tzolk’in date: 7-Ajaw.

·       Coefficient: The full-figure glyph for the coefficient of the Tzolk’in occupies more than its conventional space of just the left half of the glyph-block – the leg and foot extend under the day-name of right half to occupy about 1/8 of the right half of the glyph-block, with the sole and toes of one of the feet in the bottom right of D14. The “7” is the “left feeler” in the eye (towards the top, middle of C13), with a cruller. The full-figure has one hand in the top right of D13, and another hand in the bottom left of C14 (with an arm directly above it). These hands resemble the claw of a bird.

·       Day-name: The AJAW is the head and shoulders enclosed in a blood cartouche.

[23] D15. It’s clear from context that this is Glyph-F.

·       The TI’ is probably the (bird?-)head variant (e.g., MHD.SSD/1907st), taking up slightly less than the left half of the glyph-block.

·       The HUUN is probably the (god?-)head variant (e.g., MHD.SM1.1/T1030o), taking up slightly more than the right half of the glyph-block.

See also end note under B15 for a very different form of Glyph-F / ti’ huun.

[24] C16a.

Glyph-DE is expected at this spot. The expected value (see next end note) is “1 day into the current lunation”. This is a circumlocution for that, or indeed, even the day before the new moon appears.

·       Looper-LW.p221.pdfp234&p223.pdfp236 give: “center of the centipede”.

·       Looper-LW.p236.pdfp249.fn21: The record of the dark moon appears at C16, citing the moon’s location as tan “in the center of” the centipede which represents the maw of the underworld.

·       MHD gives: tan-na-chapat è tahn chapaat = “dark of the moon ‘middle of the centipede’ ”.

If the imagery is such that from one full moon to the next is a centipede, then “the center of the centipede” would, indeed, be when the moon is as close to a new moon as possible. This matches quite well the value of 1 for Glyph-DE for the LC given directly after the ISIG (see next end note).

[25] C3-C17. Calendrical calculations:

LC = 9.16.15.0.0; 15 February 766 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 four calculated values match those of the inscription. Not that much confirmation is needed in this case, because there was a raising of a stela and an incense scattering ritual recounted in connection with this date. These were very common rituals associated with period endings, which is a much stronger indication of the correctness of the LC = 9.16.15.0.0 reading.

[26] D17b-C18a. K’an Naah Chan Yopaat. It might seem unusual to have a stela actually named as a “manifestation” of a god (in this case Yopaat), but perhaps that ties in well with the fact that Glyph-B at C18b reads k’uhul k’aba’ rather than the normal ch’ok k’aba’.

[27] D18a. The stela is called the “7-Ajaw Stone” because it was raised on 7-Ajaw.

[28] C20a-C20b. There’s no explicit DNIG written, so it’s hard to know if this is meant to be a DN = 13(.0.0.0.0.0.0.0), i.e., a time difference of 13 kinchiltuns, or LC = 13(.0.0.0.0.0.0.0), i.e., a period ending of that “extra high calendar unit”. And if the latter, then it’s also unclear to me whether the “13” is meant to be what we would nowadays represent with “0” (in the same way as 13.0.0.0.0 is meant to represent what we would nowadays represent with 0.0.0.0.0, for the “date of creation of the current universe” on 4-Ajaw 8-Kumk’u, in 3114 BC).

It’s hence difficult to check if the CR of 7-Ajaw 3-Pop given in the inscription “matches” with the expected value based on calendrical calculations. Carl Callaway has a proposal which solves this (see Introductory Notes).

[29] D20a.

·       Could this be dialectical variation for yilajiiy? Note that there is no a explicitly written in D20a.

·       The verb form yilajiiy è yiljiiy can be written in many different ways:

o   yi-li-a-ji-ya è yilajiiy è yiljiiy (QRG Stela E C14a)

o   yi-ILA-ji-ya / ILA-la-ji-ya / ILA-ya è yilajiiy è yiljiiy (many examples, also from outside of QRG).

They can be found by doing an MHD search on “blmaya1 contains yilajiy”. All can be yiljiiy because of the rule for the suppression of the middle vowel in trisyllabic words resulting from inflectional endings. This means that there’s no difference in the final form yiljiiy, irrespective of how they’re spelled in glyphs.

[30] C21a.

·       MHD reads SIBIK? = “ink”/“soot” with a question mark (and also gives an alternative of SABAK).

·       The NAAH is the head variant, where the “axe-blade” has a full human-head attached.

·       The same name/title occurs at QRG Stela F B13a with the same glyph for SIBIK but rather different variants of the glyphs for NAAH and AJAW.

[31] D21a. Yax Ik’ Xiw Ajan = “First Wind <something> Ajan” – Ajan being the name of the Foliated Maize God (FMG).

·       This transliteration is from MHD – only the (infixed) IK’ has a question mark. The xi and the AJAN appear to be read with confidence.

·       MHD gives: YAX-IK’?-xi-AJAN è Yax Ik’ Xiw Ajan, with an underspelled -w in Xiw. I haven’t yet been able to track down a meaning for xiw.

[32] C22a. This is the same CR as that of the ISIG’s LC and it’s the same date: LC = 9.16.15.0.0; 15 February 766 AD.

[33] C22b (bottom).

I don’t know what is intended to the right of the IL/ILA. MHD transliterates only ILA/HE1 ji/1M1.

[34] D22c. See also end note under B18b.

The “order of writing” (transliteration) here is <4:IHK’>.<TE’:XIB>, but the “order of reading” (transcription) is Chan Te’ Ihk’ Xib = “Four Black Men”. We know this because TE’ is a numeral classifier (which comes after the numeral and before the entire noun phrase) and furthermore because we have this order more explicitly at B18b and in the inscriptions of other QRG monuments.