End Notes

[1] GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p96.pdfp109.fn30 [English from Google Translate]: The emblem glyph of Copán consists of three glyphic elements: T756.T528.T177. There have been some proposals for its translation from a transliteration xu-ku-PIH/xu-ku-pi that would be transcribed xukpi' or Xukpi (see Schele, Grube, and Fahsen 1994; see Montgomery 2002). Looper (2003:135) points out that it could be read not only as xukpi but also xukup by a direct derivation from the word motmot (Momotus momota), which is not a bat but a flycatcher bird. This work does not follow these proposals, so the glyph of the bat (T756) that is observed in the main sign of the emblem glyph of Copán is not transliterated or transcribed or translated, but is handled as COPÁN (without translation and in capital letters). Whenever there is a reference to this bat glyph preceded by the logogram IK' in the first part (or transliteration), the traditional name of Copán will be used under the “black COPAN” formula.

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

[3] A4.

The drawing shows a definite “12”, but the calendrical calculation requires a “13” (see end note under B5-B7). This is not a mistake on the part of the modern-day epigrapher-artist – the 3D model also shows a “12”.

[4] A6. This is an unusual form of infixed Glyph-G.

In A6b, the middle component (vertically speaking), cannot be just a plain HUUN of Glyph-F = TI’-HUUN-li. If it were, then there would be no Glyph-G present in an SS with a Glyph-F. This is highly unlikely. This in turn suggests that the middle component (horizontally speaking) of the three subcomponents forming the middle of A6b has to be an infixed Glyph-G. This then excludes the possibility of the TIL/TILIW proposed by GutiérrezGonzález-PhD (which would also mean that there’s no Glyph-G).

The Tolles photograph shows that this possible infixed Glyph-G might have a lower half which is slightly wider than the upper half. That in turn suggests that it could be Glyph-G₈. Furthermore, many forms of the “floppy pear” variant of Glyph-G₈ also have a bold left wall, ceiling, and right wall (which can be seen in the K&L and Looper drawings). Unfortunately, calendrical calculations require Glyph-G₇ (see end note under B5-B7). There doesn’t seem to be a way of “forcing” a reading of Glyph-G₇ here.

[5] B6.

·       B6a:

o   7:*20:<HUL:li>.

o   MHD also doesn’t know what the very-eroded element between the “7” and the HUL in B6a is. It’s compatible with being syllabogram hu (the upturned iguana head). However, MHD doesn’t have any instances of “blhyphen contains hu-hul”, so it doesn’t seem to be an initial phonetic complement for the HUL. Is it possibly a “full crescent” variant of K’AL/WINIK = “20”, making it 27 days into the current lunation? This is much larger than the value of the coefficient of Glyph-DE expected for this LC (9, see end note under B7).

o   The element on the bottom right of B6a looks like a syllabogram ja, but is actually just the moon part of the hand-pointing-at-the-moon variant of HUL.

o   GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p146.pdfp159 has “[Glifo D]” for this eroded glyph, but this doesn’t make sense, as “7” and HUL-li-ja together is Glyph-DE. A transliteration of HUL-li-ja shows that the moon glyph on the bottom right of B6a has been misread as syllabogram ja rather than part of the HUL logogram.

·       B6b:

o   <3.JGU[ja]>:K’AL:li.

o   The end phonetic complement of li for the K’AL is not common, but known from other inscriptions, e.g., QRG Stela J B13.

[6] A7a.

This is an unusual form of Glyph-X, with a CHAN conflated with (or infixed within) the MIIN. GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p146.pdfp159 transliterates only as “Glifo X”. The MHD photo and 3D model reveal that this part is quite eroded. Normally we expect a CH’ICH’ at the bottom for 3+JGU and an upside-down CH’ICH’ at the top for 4+JGU.

MHD reads the CHAN with confidence (i.e., no question mark). A search in MHD on “bllogosyll contains min” and “blsem contains Glyph X” yields 25 hits, these being all the MIIN-based instances of Glyph-X in the database. QRG Stela E A7a (E7a by the MHD system of glyph-block labelling) is the only instance with a CHAN.

If this were part of a name/title, then it would simply be a “sky-related variant” of the “SNB” (=“Square-Nosed Beastie”). But it’s difficult to know what that means in the context of Glyph-X.

[7] B7b.

Both MHD and GutiérrezGonzález-PhD transliterate a syllabogram ya for the bottom element of B7b. Dorota Bojkowska: reading the bird-head variant of a and K’AN is ok, the si is very clear, and ya is acceptable, and from context we expect a HAAB date here. [Sim: could it be an eroded form of the “thin, rectangular parrot-head” variant of a? The three subcomponents look too equally sized to be that (that variant of a has the beak much longer than the head).

[8] B5-B7.Calendrical calculations:

The best-matching LC for CR = 12-K’aban 5-K’ayab is LC = 9.14.13.4.17; 29 December 724 AD. In the ISIG’s LC, the coefficient of the Haab unit is “13”, not “12” as appears in the drawing (see end note under A4). It would appear to be a mistake of either the designer or the carver (perhaps the same person) or the person responsible for the calendrical calculations.

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.

Two or three out of five is not brilliant, but not a total disaster. Still, it remains a mystery to me why these SS cross-checks so often reveal a number of discrepancies.

I also often wonder how the roles were divided up in Classic Maya times, from the moment a ruler decided to commission the creation of a monument (with an inscription) to the final result. Who decided the actual iconography and which events would be recounted? Who determined the layout – the relative positions of iconography vs. text? Who chose the exact words of the text? Who decided if a word should be written as a logogram or as syllabograms (for words where either was possible)? Who decided if initial or final phonetic completements should be present (for logograms where this was possible)? Who decided the actual variants of the logograms and syllabograms to be used? Was the person who played the role of the designer different from the person who actually carved the monument – i.e., was the former a member of the literati and the latter an artisan, or were they one and the same person? These questions become particularly relevant when there is an obvious mistake like the “12” instead of “13” in the coefficient of the HAAB unit of the ISIG’s LC at A4 – where in the whole process did this mistake slip in? Was it at the very start when the ”Obsidians” were making their calendrical calculations? Or at the very end, when the scribe was carving the actual number? If the former, then did the carver actually just blindly carve what the "Obsidian" had calculated, because he (the carver) knew nothing about calendrical calculations? Didn’t the ruler who commissioned the monument have the necessary knowledge to detect such mistakes?

[9] B8b. Ch’ahoom.

This can be read from context, even though it’s quite badly eroded.

[10] A9a. Ukabjiiy.

This can be read from context, even though the two cross-hatched circles and the scroll protectors of KAB are not present in the mammal head (at least, not in the drawing), and there is no obvious ji conflated with ya.

[11] B9a. There is some uncertainty in the reading of this word. See entry for Xukuup in CMGG.

[12] B9b-A10a. There is a major problem with the DN:

From the drawing, DN = 6.1.13 or 6.3.13, under the normal convention for DN’s (and that of generally how to combine glyphs in a glyph-block). The uncertainty between “1” and “3” for the element to the left of WINAL is simply whether there are three dots or one dot and two fillers. However, neither value of DN added to the ISIG’s LC’s CR will produce the next CR of 4-Ajaw 13-Yax. Instead, 6.13.3 (i.e., swapping the K’IN and WINAL coefficients) is the value required, see next end note.

[13] B10.

The most obvious LC for CR = 4-Ajaw 13-Yax is the period ending LC = 9.15.0.0.0; 18 August 731 AD (as this is when rituals are performed).

However, the three mutually dependent aspects do not fit together:

1.       ISIG’s LC’s CR₁ = 9.14.13.4.17; 29 December 724 AD; 12-Kaban 5-K’ayab.

2.       DN = 6.1.13 or 6.3.13.

3.       CR₂ = LC = 9.15.0.0.0; 18 August 731 AD; 4-Ajaw 13-Yax.

Neither DN = 6.1.13 nor 6.3.13 work:

  9.14.13. 4.17       9.14.13. 4.17

+       6. 1.13     +       6. 3.13

  -------------       -------------

  9.14.19. 5.10       9.14.19. 8.10

DN = 6.13.3 is the only value which works:

  9.14.13. 4.17

+       6.13. 3

  -------------

  9.15. 0. 0. 0

Summary:

·       The clear values for coefficients and Tzolk’in day-name or Haab month-names means that not that much can be done to amend either coefficients or day-names/month-names. (CR’s are harder to adjust anyway, because of a lot of mutual dependencies.)

·       Instead, small adjustments made to the reading of the ISIG-LC and DN are sufficient to make all calendrical calculations work, namely:

o   One coefficient of the ISIG-LC needs to be amended: 9.14.12.4.17 → 9.14.13.4.17

o   The K’IN and WINAL coefficients of the DN need to be swapped: 6.3.13 → 6.13.3:

§  The switching of the K’IN and WINAL coefficients from the “regular convention” is an amendment which often needs to be made. This perhaps indicates that it may be the convention itself – formulated as a general rule (in modern times) – which is the problem, rather than that there is an actual problem with the DN of the inscription. (This is despite the fact that the convention “makes sense”, in terms of how Maya glyphs usually behave.)

§  MHD makes the same amendment in the reading.

§  GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p148.pdfp161 also makes the same amendment.

·       The amending of one coefficient and the swapping of the K’IN and WINAL coefficients will be required several times in this inscription.

[14] A11.

·       MHD: i ti' ja ajaw 20? ti'? ta è i ?? aajaaw ?? = “and then ?? lord ??”.

·       GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p146.pdfp159:??-ti’-ja-ja-ta è ? ti’ jajat? = “_ la orilla ??” (_ the shore/bank ??).

Neither MHD nor GutiérrezGonzález-PhD can make anything sensible of this.

[15] B9b-A11b. It’s unclear what the event on this date actually was, but Stela I C2-D4a explicitly says that a stela was raised by K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat on LC = 9.15.0.0.0.

[16] B11.

The drawing shows a definite DN = 1.14.6 (under the conventional rules of DN-syntax) but the calendrical calculation requires DN = 6.6.14. This means that here too, the K’IN and WINAL coefficients need to be swapped and the HAAB coefficient needs to be amended (see end note under A12b-B12a and A14b-B14a).

[17] A12b.

The day-name could be a MEN, but the presence of what might be a jaw permits a reading of KIMI as well. KIMI is the one which produces a match with the previous CR + DN (see end note under A12b-B12a). Both MHD and GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p146,pdfp159 also read KIMI.

[18] A12b-B12a. Calendrical calculations:

 +  =

LC = 9.15.6.14.6; 29 April 738 AD.

The previous CR + DN matches the current CR, if the DN is amended to 6.14.6 and the current day-name is read as KIMI. This requires the changing of the HAAB-coefficient and the swapping of the K’IN and WINAL coefficients (see also end notes under A13b-B13 and A14b-B14a).

[19] B12b.

It’s not totally clear to me how to interpret the ji here – we can make the ch’ak baah either:

·       “verbal”: uch’akbaahjiiy = “since he head-chopped”, with an underspelled -iy,

or

·       “nominal”: uch’akbaah = “the head chopping of”, with ji just another form of hi, after the collapse of the j/h distinction in the late Late Classic.

I think the latter is to be preferred, because the former would require a subject (e.g., K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat) to come directly after the verb (and there’s none present, unless one wants to read just the implied pronoun “he”). The latter makes it just a “possessed noun” = “the head-chopping of”, with the victim being the “possessor”, Waxaklajuun Ubaah K’awiil (which does indeed come next in the text). On the other hand, with such a reading, I would have expected <CHAK:ka>.<BAAH:ji> rather than <<CHAK:ka>.BAAH>:ji>, i.e., the ji should complement only the BAAH (as an “end phonetic complement”), rather than complementing both the <CHAK:ka> and the BAAH. This latter argues more that it’s a verbal inflection on chak baah.

Finally, comparing this glyph-block with QRG Stela J H3 confuses the issue even more. There (unlike here on QRG Stela E B12b), there is no u present, but there is a ya. That makes it much more likely to be a verbal suffix -jiiy (and the ja then not just an end phonetic complement of BAAH, after a merger of -h and -j). We hence can’t use QRG Stela J H3 to influence our parsing of QRG Stela E B12b. See also end note under QRG Stela J H3 for more information.

[20] A13b-B13. The drawing shows a definite DN = 1.1.15.16 (under the conventional rules of DN-syntax), but the calendrical calculation requires DN = 1.4.16.15. This requires the changing of the HAAB-coefficient and the swapping of the K’IN and WINAL coefficients (see also end notes under A12b-B12a and A14b-B14a).

[21] A14b-B14a. Calendrical calculations:

The most obvious LC for CR = 11-Imix 19-Muwaan is LC = 9.16.11.13.1; 24 November 762 AD.

 +  =

LC = 9.16.11.13.1; 24 November 762 AD.

The previous CR + DN matches the current CR, if the DN is amended to 1.4.16.15. This requires the changing of the HAAB-coefficient and the swapping of the K’IN and WINAL coefficients (see also end notes under A12b-B12a and A13b-B13).

[22] B14b-A15.

MHD reads <CH’AM?.wa>:PIIT?:*AJAW <K’IN.ni>:<??.BAHLAM.?> and tentatively translates it as: The Lord of the Litter? takes it, “Sunraiser Jaguar” (MHD writes PIT rather than PIIT).

·       B14b

o   This reads the bottom element (“PIIT?”) as (already) part of the subject of the transitive verb CH’AM, continued with “Sunraiser Jaguar” in A15, and with a pronoun object (which is hence not manifested). This yields a translation of:

§  He grasps it, Piit Ajaw (=“The Lord of the Litter”), “Sunraiser Jaguar”.

o   An alternative would be to consider this bottom element as part of an explicitly named object, with the subject – “Sunraiser Jaguar” – starting only at A15. This yields a translation of:

§  He grasps Piit Ajaw (=“The Lord of the Litter”), “Sunraiser Jaguar”.

o   There is also the additional issue of the uncertainty of whether the “ben-ich”/“AJAW” element is an intrinsic part of the PIIT (if it is PIIT) or whether it should be read independently.

o   Dorota Bojkowska feels that the PIIT is part of the object, and the subject only starts at K’IN. This makes more sense than that PIIT is part of the subject’s (extended) personal name. Also, an explicit object seems to make more sense.

o   Despite the absence of an u- before the root of the verb, this is not the antipassive, as that would normally be written with -wi rather than -wa. As this is not the antipassive, the possibility of an object for the verb can’t be excluded, even if it’s just “it” as the (non-manifesting) third person singular object pronoun, without an explicit noun object.

·       A15:

o   The translation “Sunraiser Jaguar” comes from MHD. The ‘Jaguar’ part seems reasonable, as the glyph has a distinct jaguar tooth, mammal ear, and darkness property marker. The motivation for ‘Sunraiser’ is the two arms on the side of the jaguar head “raising” the “sun” (=K’IN.ni) above them.

o   GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p146.pdfp159 gives: CH’AM?-?? K’IN-ni TILIW?[B’ALAM] è k’in tiliw? b’a[h]lam = “Recibió _ K’in Tiliw B’ahlam(?)” (= “He received it, K’in Tiliw Bahlam?”).

o   Sim: It might seem reasonable to read this as BAHLAM infixed in TIL. The association of burning with the sun also seems reasonable Til Bahlam K’in = “Burn Jaguar Sun” (= “The Sun Which Burns the Jaguar”?). See however end note under QRG Stela D A21a for a small discussion where “Skyraiser” is peripherally mentioned. Its relevance to “Sunraiser” here is hard to determine, but they share the common feature of two bent arms lifting something above them – a K’IN (sun) glyph in QRG Stela E and a CHAN (sky) glyph in K6751 B2.

[23] B15a. The drawing shows <<xu[ku]>:ya:wa>:AJAW>. The same title occurs at B20a.

·       Both MHD and GutiérrezGonzález-PhD transliterate similarly, with transcription xukuy ajaw = “(the) Xukuy? Lord”.

·       Looper-LW.p135.pdfp148.para1.l+3: This entity, nicknamed K’in B’alam, is termed an ajaw of a site provisionally read as “Xkuy.” Elsewhere in the text of Stela E [Sim: at B20a] the same title appears, together with a toponym composed of a numeral six, a “shell-in-hand” sign, and nal (Fig. 4.18b). The “Xkuy Ajaw” is mentioned [t]here as an observer of the period ending.

·       Martin-AMP.p398.pdfp422.r6.c4 writes Xkuy instead of Xukuy. (Sim: this is perhaps borrowed from a modern Mayan language, as (initial) xk- is not a valid combination of sounds in Classic Maya).

·       Neither Xkuy nor Xukuy are mentioned in Tokovinine-TPoP and Tokovinine-TPoPDB. This is because they don’t read the bat-head glyph as xu. Instead, they take a neutral / cautious stand, and refer to it simply as T756d (= “head of leaf-nosed-bat with infixed ‘pond’ and ‘stalactite’”). This is perhaps a wiser approach, as it distinguishes it from T756ab (= “head of (plain old) leaf-nosed-bat”) – perhaps T756d doesn’t even have one of the possible readings of T756ab (SUUTZ’, tz’i, or xu). Both Tokovinine-TPoP and Tokovinine-TPoPDB recognize T756d-ya (the Xkuy/Xukuy of other epigraphers) as a separate polity/location from QRG. Tokovinine-TPoPDB shows it occurring on QRG Altar O’, Altar P’, Stela E, and Zoomorph G.

·       A search in MHD on “blengl contains xukuy” and “blengl contains lord” returns 6 hits, all in QRG (Altar O’ (2 hits), Altar P’ (1 hit), Stela E (2 hits), and Zoomorph G (1 hit). The search has to have two separate clauses (and-ed together) because 3 of the hits have xukuy? (with a question mark) and 3 of the hits have xukuy (without a question mark). It seems that Xukuy was a polity which was a vassal of QRG.

[24] A16a.

This can be read from context, even though it’s quite badly eroded.

[25] A17. Calendrical calculations:

 +  =

LC = 9.17.0.0.0; 20 January 771 AD.

The previous CR + DN matches the current CR.

[26] B17b.

Both MHD and GutiérrezGonzález-PhD read syllabogram wa on the top right.

[27] A18a.

·       GutiérrezGonzález-PhD transliterates only syllabogram wo and does not attempt a transcription.

·       MHD ho:lo:wo è Holow.

o   ho is the “thick-lipped head” (as in BeliaevEtAl-NGA.p357.pdfp7).

o   lo may be the element infixed into the head of ho but it is by no means certain. Perhaps it is just ho and wo. Alternatively, it is in the bottom right of the head (very eroded), as it is in QRG Stela K C7a (not eroded).

o   ho{lo}:wo è Holow, with underspelled lo, is also possible, as MRL Stela 1 E2 has ho{lo}.<wo:CHAN:na>. 

Do not confuse Holow Chan K’awiil with Holow Chan Yopaat, the name of a later QRG ruler. This ruler (K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat) features in many more QRG inscriptions, but is given the additional name/title Holow Chan K’awiil only in this inscription (Stela E). The name does however occur in two or three other inscriptions of another polity, MRL (Moral-Reforma), in reference to a different ruler.

[28] B20a. See end note under B15a.

[29] B20b.

This is what MHD transliterates, with transcription Wak Mih Winkil. (This would formerly have been read as Wak Mihnal, before the general acceptance of WINKIL.)

Note that the leaf on the right, unusually, goes downwards and occupies the entire right side. We see something very similar in the NAL in QRG Stela J D17.

With a reading of Winkil instead of Nal, B20b Wak Mih Winkil might be an additional name/title of the Xukuy ruler rather than a locative phrase indicating where the incense scattering ritual was performed and witnessed.

·       On the one hand – from the point of view of syntax – a locative phrase would have been expected earlier in the phrase/sentence, not at the end.

·       On the other hand, additional names/titles tend to come early in the sequence, ending with the “(k’uhul) ajaw” title (or having the “(k’uhul) ajaw” title come towards the end, perhaps with only a kaloomte’ title after it). For example, all the instances of the additional Mix Winkil (formerly Mixnal) name/title of Yaxuun Bahlam IV of YAX come (long) before the K’uhul Pa’-Chan Ajaw or K’uhul Kaaj Ajaw title.

On balance, I think reading it as an additional name/title is preferable. This agrees with MHD, which glosses it (in the blsem field) as a deity[-based] name/title.

[30] C1-D2. The LC HAAB-month is Kumk’u, whose patron “snake-2” matches the patron infixed in the ISIG.

The patron of Sak Sihoom (Sak) and of Hulohl (Kumk’u) both seem to be snakes. See the CMGG entry for ISIG for more information.

[31] C4. This is the (snake-)head variant of HAAB.

[32] D5b. HUUN.

·       From context, it’s clear that this is Glyph-F = TI’:HUUN. It appears to be the deity head variant, but with a right-side-up “la-face” infixed in the centre of the head, where the LEM normally is (and thus obscuring the LEM).

·       That infixed element may or may not be MHD.ZA7 (as it is in TIK Stela 31 C5, which is 1711hc with infixed BAHLAM). This is sometimes read just HUUN, sometimes as YOP HUUN – the status of the three “leaves” is a bit uncertain. For example MHD reads TIK Stela 31 C5 as YOP-HUUN-BAHLAM with no question mark on the YOP.

·       There’s a “la-face” in QRG Stela E D5b but the three “leaves” of MHD.ZA7 are missing, making the status of the “la-face” even more unclear.

[33] D6.

·       MHD is unable to do much with this and has: <??:ya>.<CHAN:na> è ?? chan = “?? sky”.

·       GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p142.pdfp155 gives: HUL-ya-CHAN-na, which is slightly closer to Glyph-DE, but the motivation behind HUL is obscure (is this WINIK-like glyph a reading for HUL?), and the CHAN is still unexplained.

·       Sim: this is the spot in the SS where Glyph-DE is expected.

[34] C7.

[35] C8.

GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p142.pdfp155 gives: u-K’AB’A’-CH’O-ko-wi?, but the wi? is actually the bottom part of syllabogram a, with the top obscured by the K’ABA’, as transliterated by MHD.

[36] C3-C9. Calendrical calculations:

LC = 9.17.0.0.0; 20 January 771 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.

Three out of five is not brilliant, but quite good. Still, 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).]

[37] C10. Yax Chit.

The main doubt involves the glyph on the bottom right:

·       From the drawing, the element could be ti or SAK. MHD reads it as ti, as an end phonetic complement of CHIT.

·       The drawing shows a quincunx infixed in the largest subcomponent of the ti, but MHD doesn’t transliterate a bi or BIH. Using the 3D model and changing the angle of incident light can produce a wide variety of views, many of which show multiple dots (and some of which might be interpreted as a quincunx).

[38] D10.

·       MHD: mi yi mok? sak ik' è ?? moksakiik'? = “?? Moksakiik'?” [Sim: MOK is the MHD transliteration for XAAK/SAAK.]

·       GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p142.pdfp155: D10 yi-K’AL-yi-[u]SAK-IK è yik’a[’aa]y u sak ik’ = GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p144.pdfp157 (free translation): “_ Se marchitó lo blanco y lo negro …” (“_ the white and black withered …”) and accompanying footnote GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p143.pdfp156.fn56: Traduzco la expresión yik’a’aay usak ik’ huxlajun ajaw tuun como “se marchitó lo blanco y lo negro de la piedra del trece ajaw”. He aquí una variante muy particular de Quiriguá para la metáfora de muerte o fallecimiento: yik’a’aay usak nik’, se marchitó su flor/su aliento blanco, … (I translate the expression yik’a’aay usak ik’ huxlajun ajaw tuun as “the white and black of the stone of the thirteen ajaw withered”. Here is a very particular variant of Quiriguá for the metaphor of death or passing away: yik’a’aay usak nik’, his flower/his white breath withered….)

·       AT-YT2021-lecture22.t0:42:00-46:16 goes for yet another approach: YAX chi-ti MIH-yi SAAK SAK IK’ 13 AJAW TUUN-ni, where Tokovinine (verbally, on the fly) renders MIH-yi as mihiy which he translates (again, verbally, on the fly) as “growing”.

·       Both GutiérrezGonzález-PhD and AT-YT2021-lecture22 are more ambitious than MHD, in attempting to read and translate this glyph-block. Both make the phrase in some way “verbal”. I haven’t found sufficient corroborative evidence to support either of these two interpretations and so have gone for a solution (following MHD) of reading C10-D10 as the specific name of the stela.

[39] C10-D10. Yax Chit Miy Xaak/Saak Sak Ik’.

Syntactically and semantically speaking, this could be either a locative (= the spot where the stela was raised), or the “specific” name of the stela (as opposed to its “generic” name of “13-Ajaw Stone”).

I think the latter is more likely, given the nature of the phrase itself – it “feels like the name of a stela”. This is indeed the MHD interpretation of the two glyph-blocks (MHD has “blsem = monument name” for C10-D10). Or the first few words might be the locative phrase and the last few words the name of the stela. Or (perhaps the least likely) all of it is the locative phrase.

Note that the distinction between the name of a monument and the spot where the monument is located can become a bit blurred. When they say: “the scattering happened at <Altar-X>”, do they mean Altar-X to be the object itself, or “the place where Altar-X is located”, viewed as a toponym? But here the verb is tz’ap = “to raise”, not chok = “to scatter”, so it’s much more likely that the entire phrase C10-D10 is the specific name of the stela.

[40] C11. The stela is called the “13-Ajaw Stone” because it was raised on 13-Ajaw.

[41] C12.

MHD transliterates the four dots with inner dots above the ho as “4” and reads it before the ch’ahoom.

·       AT-YT2021-lecture22.t0:43:02-43:23 explains that they are [Sim: equivalent to?] the Hero Twins at the time of the creation of the (current) world: And it's been ordered by Four Priests – we're talking about deities in this case – who basically summoned reality into existence. Remember those four Hero Twins who do bloodletting in different kinds of places – in the water, on land, ... – this is what they're talking about: the establishment of the world. [Sim: However, the ISIG has an LC = 9.17.0.0.0, which is not the LC = 0.0.0.0.0 corresponding to the creation of the (current) world. Conversely, LC = 0.0.0.0.0 corresponds to 4-Ajaw 8-Kumk’u, which is also not the CR of the first event of this inscription.]

·       See end note under QRG Stela J G8-H8 for a partial explanation, offered by GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.

[42] D12. This is a period ending, but at a very long time ago in the past. There is something similar at D15.

·       MHD: 19 05 ajan? nal è balunlajuun ?? = “19 ??”.

·       GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p142.pdfp155: 19-05-NAL-?? è b’olonlajun ho _ nal = “19 _ en el lugar del cinco _” (“19 _ in the place of five _”).

·       GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p144.pdfp157.fn59 gives: Esta notación desconocida de 19 periodos superiores al b’aktun podría ser la misma de la Estela F (este, C14). También la encontraremos en la Estela A (oeste, D1) = (via Google Translate) “This unknown notation of 19 periods above the baktun could be the same as Stela F (east, C14). We also find it on Stela A (west, D1).”

·       Sim: Indeed, the shared tzutz- in QRG Stela E D12, D15 and QRG Stela F C14, and the shared “19” in all four is intriguing.

[43] D13.

From checking an unpublished photograph and the 3D model, D13b is accurately drawn.

·       Callaway (Washington reading group, 2024-05-18) says that this is sa:ku, a syllabogram-only spelling for SAK(SIHOOM) [Sim: perhaps with the KAWAK playing a dual role of being ku (for sak) and SIHOOM?]

·       This is a known way to write Sak-Sihoom, as in CRN Panel 1 S1 and TNA Monument 69 C. These last two can be read with confidence because we have DN’s to use for cross-checking. The three relevant hits can be found in MHD by a search on “blcodes contains 32M” and “blengl contains sak”.

·       My theory is that the logogram SA’ gets used as a syllabogram sa by way of the very common process of dropping the final consonant of the logogram. A glottal stop, along with fricatives and nasals, are final sounds which very often undergo this process.

·       Note that MHD doesn’t read the “crest” as sa. It only recognizes a logogram reading of SAK (with a question mark) and a syllabogram reading of hu/wu. This is also a reasonable stance to take. In QRG Stela E D13, CRN Panel 1 S1, and TNA Monument 69 C, it represents SAK, with the KAWAK underneath purely for writing SIHOOM.

·       In fact, the 3D model suggests that the coefficient of 18 might not even be correct. There are two larger circles, one on each side, and two smaller touching circles, in the centre. This leaves the possibility of 17 (the two larger circles being fillers) or 19 (all four circles contributing to the number). However, the Bonn calendar program indicates that both 13-Ajaw 17-Sak and 13-Ajaw 19-Sak are invalid dates, even with absolutely no restriction on the baktun coefficient. This leaves us only with our original 13-Ajaw 18-Sak.

[44] D13. Calendrical calculations:

MHD does not assign an “event long count” to this event (corresponding to the CR of D13) – instead it just has ??.

With the idea that this is probably meant to be a significant period ending, we can try entering LC = *.*.*.0.0 and CR = 13-Ajaw 18-Sak into the Bonn Calendar program:

·       There are two LC’s with “19” in them – one very much in the distant past (2728 BC, close to the creation of the latest universe) and one very much in the distant future (4755 AD, beyond the infamous 2012 baktun period ending). Neither of them is a particularly significant period ending (not even a hotun or half-katun, just a “tuun” ending).

·       There is a katun period ending with LC = 3.7.0.0.0, but this shows no obvious relationship to anything mentioned in Event #2 (D12).

·       Perhaps this event took place in the very distant past (much lower coefficients of higher calendar units than the baktun).

See also end note under C16, which discusses a very similar issue.

[45] D14. MHD considers this to be a toponym (given as such in the blsem field, 2024-10-01). It might have been earlier designated as a deity name.

Could it be the personage who did the witnessing of this event, because the actual location is given in C15b?

[46] C15b.

·       MHD: ?? nal è ??-nal = “?? Nal”.

·       GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p142.pdfp155: NAL-?? è _ nal = “el lugar _” (“the _ Place”).

·       Dorota Bojkowska: the drawing shows NAL, but in photos related to Atlas Epigrafico de Peten (which are not necessarily open access):

o   The “CHIT/lo” looks more like a WINIK, so (with a water serpent underneath) this is just WITZ’.

o   The “NAL” looks more like a WINIK, because the left side is roundish and quite wide, with possibly two eyes and a mouth, so perhaps WINKIL.

Additional notes:

·       Both MHD and GutiérrezGonzález-PhD do not attempt to transliterate the glyph below the “NAL”, i.e., the CHIT-like element on top of the “serpent head” (WITZ’-like element). Specifically, there is no attempt to read it as Witz’.

[47] D15. Also perhaps a calendar unit which is much higher than the baktun. See end note under D12.

[48] C16. Calendrical calculations:

MHD does not assign an “event long count” to this event (corresponding to the CR of D16) – instead it just has ??.

With the idea that this is probably meant to be a significant period ending, we can try entering LC = *.*.*.0.0 and CR = 13-Ajaw 13-Wo into the Bonn Calendar program:

See also end note under D13, which discusses a very similar issue. Here there is even less to connect any of these LC’s to Event #3 (D15). This too seems to refer to an event which took place in the very distant past (much lower coefficients of higher calendar units than the baktun).

[49] D16b. Mix Winkil.

This is apparently the name of a God of the Underworld. The name is used as part of the extended name/title of PSD and YAX rulers. Here in QRG, it seems to be a reference to the god himself. See the CMGG entry on Mix Winkil / Mixnal for more information.

[50] C17b-D17a.

The hi is above the chi but read after: YAX:hi:chi:li wi:WITZ = YAX-chi-hi-li wi-WITZ è Yax Chihil Witz = “First Pulque?-ish/-type/Deer?-ish/-type Mountain”. The translation chih = “deer” is only possible in the late Late Classic, after the merger of j/h.

[51] D12-D17a. Event #2 and Event #3.

Event #2 and Event #3 both have identical syntax:

·       tzutzuy = “it was completed”,

·       <a-(presumably)-low-coefficient-of-a>

·       <very-high-calendar-unit>

·       on 13-Ajaw <appropriate-Haab-date>;

·       he <ordered/witnessed> it,

·       <name-of-mythical-being>;

·       it happened at <a-mythical-place>.

[52] C18b. MHD gives u:BAAH:hi:li è ubaahil an? = “of the image/impersonator?”.

·       The an is not present in the drawing (and hence also not transliterated by MHD).

·       Examination of the 3D model (under two different lighting angles) also fails to conclusively show the presence of (an infixed) AN. This doesn’t exclude the possibility that it was once present, as the 3D model also shows that there has been considerable erosion (or was never very deeply carved).

·       It is however introduced in the transcription, perhaps in order to make for a smoother translation, because “the image” is awkward as the subject of the verb ukabjiiy, and “the personification” makes a better subject.

[53] D18.

·       MHD: k'an te' nah _ u? kan? ek' è k'ante' naah _ ukaan? eek' = “K'ante' Naah ?? Ukaan? Eek'”.

o   Note that MHD has rendered the “TE’-like element at the very bottom of D18a as “_”, so it is definitely not the TE’ which is the second transliterated glyph. Instead, MHD has:

§  AB2a = monster-head with infixed K’AN = animal-head variant of K’AN.

§  ST2b = deity-head variant of TE’.

§  1G2a = NAAH.

§  200 = unknown

§  HE7? = u

§  AC6a? = CHAN/KAN (= “snake”).

§  ZQD = EK’.

This means that MHD considers the main sign of D18a to be a conflation of K’AN and TE’. The TE’ is not really visible, but perhaps known to be there from context (= other instances of the name K’an Te’ Naah, see below).

o   Dorota Bojkowska wonders if the bottom element of D18a might be wa.

·       GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p142.pdfp155: K’AN?-NAH?-TE’-HUN-EK’ è k’an/k’ahn te’ nah hun ek’ = “pedestal de la casa del árbol, del libro de estrellas (?)” (“treehouse pedestal, from the book of stars (?)”).

o   It seems that GutiérrezGonzález-PhD does read the glyph at the bottom of D18a as TE’ and doesn’t see a conflated TE’ with K’AN.

o   It’s unclear to me what the motivation for GutiérrezGonzález-PhD’s “pedestal” is. Dorota Bojkowska does not agree with the HUUN reading nor with the translation involving “pedestal”. The glyph at D18b (top) doesn’t look like HUUN. In particular, the cross-hatching at both ends doesn’t occur for HUUN. There is cross-hatching in the “two eyeballs” variant of u, but even there, the cross-hatching isn’t of the whole of the two circular end elements but only a portion of them (hence giving the “eyeball” effect). This is what makes it perhaps slightly likely to be u (as suggested by the question mark assigned by MHD) while making it almost definitely not HUUN.

·       I defer to MHD’s reading for D18.

Similar (but not identical) collocations are known:

·       QRG Stela D B17b: K’an Te’?/Chan? Naah.

·       TIK MT 9 / Alabaster Bowl 12K‐244/22: K’an Te’ Nal.

[54] C20b.

·       GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p142.pdfp155: u-b’u?-?? è u _ = “de los” (“of the _”) – i.e., Gutiérrez González does not try to read this glyph-block.

·       MHD: u:bu:t’u è ubut’ = “covering” / “filling” / “burial”.

·       MHD also gives the meanings “cover”/“bury”.

·       EB.p39.pdfp44.#9: but’ = tv. “to fill”, giving PAL Palace Tablet N11 as the sole reference.

·       EB.p147.pdfp252.#6: but’- tv. “to cover”, “to bury” (part of Appendix F, so no references to which inscriptions this can be found on).

·       Kaufman-APMED.p974.pdfp974.#1: b’ut’ with reflexes in more than ten Colonial or modern Mayan languages, with the meanings (re)llenar ((re)fill), lleno (full). [Sim: note that none of the modern reflexes actually retain the specific nuance of ‘burying”.]

·       Other instances:

o   A search in MHD on “bllogosyll contains u” and “bllogosyll contains bu” and “bllogosyll contains t’u” and “blmaya1 contains but” gives 3 hits (shown above):

§  PAL House C HS D03a (“objabbr contains PALHCHS”).

§  PAL Palace Tablet N11 (“objabbr contains PALPT”).

§  QRG Stela E A20 (C20 in the glyph-block labelling of the Looper-LW drawings).

o   A search in MHD on “blmaya1 contains but’” gives the same 3 hits.

o   This suggests that the root but’ is (generally) spelled only with syllabograms. MHD assigns it the meaning “fill”/“bury”. Interestingly, both of the phrases with ubut’uw in PAL are preceded by hai.

§  The context of PAL House C HS very strongly suggests the meaning of “bury”.

§  The context of PAL Palace Tablet is still reasonably suggestive of “bury” but perhaps slightly less so than in PAL House C HS.

Combined, they provide sufficient evidence for the same meaning in QRG Stela E, where the context doesn’t help at all.

[55] D20.

·       D20a:

o   MHD: ?? ATIK.

o   GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p142.pdfp155: ??-[le]??.

·       D20b:

o   MHD: a:AJAW:TAAK è ajawtaak = “lords”.

o   GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p142.pdfp155: -a-AJAW-TAK? è ajawta[a]k = “lords”.