End Notes

[1] A1-B2.

The LC HAAB-month is K’ayab, whose patron IXIIM would be what is expected infixed in the ISIG. However, there is definitely a moon glyph to the right of the infixed head, suggesting that the infixed head might be UH (the Moon Goddess), the patron of the Haab-month Ch’en. Might the carver have mistakenly carved UH instead of IXIIM? Or is this indeed an IXIIM, with a syllabogram ja for some sort of inflection?

MHD transliterates pure IXIIM, without question mark, and without mention of the moon glyph.

[2] A4.

The unit must be HAAB both from context (coming after the WINIKHAAB and before the WINIK) and from its own intrinsic features of the drawing (bird-head with bone-jaw). The coefficient appears to be a very clear “7” (a “left-feeler” scroll in eye, with no bone-jaw). MHD reads “13” but the standard diagnostics for “13” – the IK’ glyph infixed on the right and (frequent) round forehead ornament – are not present, nor is there a bone-jaw.

The “13” can be inferred from other redundancies in the calendar system (see end note under B5-A6).

[3] B4.

The unit must be WINIK both from context (coming after the HAAB) and from its own intrinsic features of the drawing (the spiral to the right of the mouth, with dotted spine, for an iguana head). That the coefficient is “4” is clear from the K’IN infixed into the right of the head.

[4] A5.

The unit must be K’IN from context (coming after the WINIK and before the Tzolk’in date) but it isn’t at all obvious based on its own internal characteristics in the drawing. The coefficient is “17” based on the bone-jaw for “10” and the “scroll in the eye” plausibly being a “7”. That it is “17” can be confirmed from other redundancies in the calendar system (see end note under B5-A6).

[5] B5-A6. 12-Kaban 5-K’ayab.

Calendrical calculations:

The ISIG LC = 9.14.13.4.17 agrees with the CR = 12-Kaban 5-K’ayab.

Alternatively, if we’re unsure of the reading of the K’IN and HAAB coefficients, we can fill in the coefficients we are sure of, with asterisks for the unclear values (9.14.*.4.*), plus the CR of 12-Kaban 5-K’ayab into the Bonn calendar calculator:

This gives only one possible value for the less certain coefficients:

These are more or less the LC value we were expecting, except that the “7” of the HAAB coefficient at A4 has to be amended to “13”.

Further confirmation comes from M&G.p218.pdfp218, which gives the reign of K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat as being from 724 AD to 785 AD.

[6] B6.

The wi in the bottom right – under the CH’AM – is a bit puzzling. Is it:

·       An internal phonetic complement -w- for K’AWIIL, or

·       A verbal inflection – the antipassive ending of CH’AM?

[7] A7.

Although it’s quite clear from context that Yopaat is the word intended, it wasn’t initially at all clear to me how the “rotated-L” glyph at the top of A7b contributed to writing Yopaat. However, MHD provided the solution of *YOP:*AAT:ti, where it’s simply the eroded form of the leaf logogram, perhaps rotated 90 degrees clockwise.

[8] B8b.

MHD gives B8b as u:si?:<na/li> è u-? = “?”. The reading of si? is because it could be the relatively rare “rat-head” variant of si.

From the context, this would have to be an additional name/title of K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat, coming – as it does – between some well-known additional names/titles (Chan Te’ Ihk’ Xib) and his very commonly used “official” titles (Ihk’ Xukuup Ajaw and K’uhul “TOL” Ajaw).

[9] A8b-B8a. The XIB at B8a (bottom) is from MHD. The four-word phrase Chan Te’ Ihk’ Xib = “Four Black Men” appears to be a name/title, and occurs on QRG Stela A C8, QRG Stela D B18b, QRG Stela D D22b (top), and QRG Stela F C8b-D8a, all in connection with K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat. See also the introductory notes for the frequent occurrence of the word “Four” in the extended names/titles of K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat.

[10] A9.

A slightly obscure title, it occurs on QRG Stela A as Nohol Chan Yoon (= “The South Sky Yoon”, whatever “Yoon” means) as one of the extended titles/names of K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat. Here on QRG Stela F it occurs as Waxlajuun Yoon, Balun Yoon, (“Sixteen Yoon”, “Nine Yoon”). The title is also known in PAL, where the title(s) are found on the East and Central Tablets of the Temple of the Inscriptions, applying, apparently, to a deity. It’s also found on PAL Palace Tablet, in the form of Ucha’ Tal Yoon (“The Second Yoon”), as one of the extended titles of K’inich K’an Joy Chitam II, one of the sons of Pakal the Great.

Neither MHD (MHD.AP5) nor Bonn (0734st) provide a reading for this glyph. See the CMGG for more information.

[11] B9. Ihk’ Xukuup (if it is indeed Xukuup) is a toponym associated with the QRG polity. It’s unclear to me whether it refers to the central part of the QRG site or a subsidiary site within the QRG polity. The main title of the rulers of QRG (the “EG”) had a main sign with “TOL” a vine/gourd rotated 90 degrees clockwise (e.g., A10a of this inscription), but Ihk’ Xukuup Ajaw was an additional title.

[12] A11b.

The day name is completely eroded, but because of the -iiy clitic on the preceding uhtiiy, we may infer that this relates the DN to the previous CR (which is the normal interpretation anyway), repeating the Tzolk’in of that CR here. The fact that the coefficient in A11b is the same as in B5 earlier further supports this interpretation.

[13] B11b-A12a.

A12a:

·       The eroded outline of the main sign is probably the “full body of a fish” variant of ka.

·       The eroded outline of the element infixed in the main sign is probably the “boulder” variant of se.

·       Context also helps us to read this, as it’s well known from other inscriptions (for example, QRG Stela E C12-C13) that Waxaklajuun Ubaah K’awiil was beheaded on 6-Kimi 4-Sek.

·       Lastly, the calendrical calculations also get us to 6-Kimi 4-Sek as well anyway.

Calendrical calculations:

 +  =

LC = 9.15.6.14.6; 29 April 738 AD.

The previous CR + DN matches the current CR.

[14] A12b.

·       The reconstructed *ji in the top right is presumably the “rat-head with teeth” variant.

·       The reconstructed *u in the bottom left is presumably some variant of the “crescent” u.

·       The reconstructed *BAAH in the bottom right is presumably the gopher head – the mammal ear can be made out at the top right (of the head) and the element at the bottom left (of the head) is probably the protrusive tongue.

·       Context also helps us to read this, as what follows at B12 is a very clear Waxaklajuun Ubaah K’awiil.

[15] A13.

The main sign in A13b is probably an eroded form of the “rat-head” KAB, with a mammal ear in the top right and the few remaining internal lines the “protector” of the upper cross-hatched circle and other facial features of the rat. Compare this to A18b, where the “rat-head” KAB is much more obvious.

[16] B13a.

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

·       The NAAH is the usual abstract/“axe-head” variant.

·       The same name/title occurs at QRG Stela D C21 with the same glyph for SIBIK but rather different variants of the glyphs for NAAH (the “full-head” variant) and AJAW (the “vulture-head” variant).

[17] B13b-A14a. K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat.

·       B13b: It’s interesting to see that the -iw of Tiliw is written at the bottom right of B13b. This is a bit like how AJAW is sometimes written with the wa end phonetic complement on the bottom, disconnected from the (reduced) AJAW (the “BEN-ICH” variant) on the top, with a “main sign” in between, usually the EG of a polity. However, in the case of AJAW, the AJAW glyph and its phonetic complement don’t have to be considered to be completely disconnected, as the main part of the “full AJAW” may be considered present, just obscured by the EG which is between the reader and the “full AJAW” glyph, with just the “BEN-ICH” poking out above (from behind the EG). In the case of TIL here however, there’s nothing being obscured by the CHAN – the TIL is simply disconnected from the wi. One difference is of course that the wi isn’t acting as an end phonetic complement to a “TILIW”, but in fact spelling the -iw as an addition to TIL.

·       A14a: There are two ways of reading this arrangement of glyphs:

o   The YOPAAT is a full head-variant, with two protected scrolls on top and a deity-head on the bottom. The deity-head is, however, obscured by the AAT, which comes between the viewer and the full head-variant of YOPAAT (here informally notated as a conflation of the two), leaving just the two protected scrolls to stick out above, from “behind” the AAT.

o   The YOPAAT is a reduced (horizontally rectangular) variant consisting of just two protected scrolls. The AAT then comes directly below this reduced variant.

[18] B14.

This reading is taken from MHD:

·       B14a:

o   The “bay” of the WAY = “cenote” normally has three non-touching dots in a SW-to-NE diagonal. This seems to have been replaced by an infixed IHK’. Indeed, QRG Stela J D17 is an example of precisely such an IHK’ infixed in the bay of WAY, making this reading of B14a more likely to be correct.

o   There appears to be a na obscuring the main body of a full NAL, just below the “leaves”. This could be treated as an initial phonetic complement of NAL, though this would be rather unusual.

o   The two horizontally touching circles at the very bottom could be the eroded outlines of la – two upside-down la-faces, with only the mouth left, and the eyes and nose eroded away.

o   This gives us: IHK’-WAY-na-NAL-la è Ihk’ Waynal.

These readings are not the most obvious ones, but one could interpret the drawing this way, based on knowing that the (real or mythical) toponym Ihk’ Waynal exists (e.g., QRG Stela A C9 and QRG Stela J D17).

·       B14b – MHD reads u-NAAH-?:

o   The top element could be the eroded outline of some variant of u.

o   The middle element could be a NAAH because of the crossed bands in the centre, but what appears to be a dot on each side make it less likely to be NAAH.

o   MHD does not attempt to read the bottom element.

o   How about <some-animal-head>:NAAH:hi è <some-animal> Naah = “<Some-Animal> House”?

[19] A17. 3-Ajaw 3-Mol.

Calendrical calculations:

Putting in 9.*.*.*.* and 3-Ajaw 3-Mol into the Bonn calendar program gives this as the only “round” (period ending) date:

LC = 9.15.10.0.0; 26 July 741 AD.

This agrees with the Tahn Lam at A16b.

[20] B15.

MHD gives <LAKAM:TUUN:ni>.<*xu:ku:pi> è lakamtuun xukuup = “stela ‘large stone’ Xukup? (Copan)”:

·       B15a: There is full confidence in the reading of the top of B15a as LAKAM. It looks a lot more like BAAH to me (and surely baah tuun would work also). Or perhaps the slightly curved internal lines on the left are the “trunk and branches” of LAKAM? A very similar glyph can be seen in QRG Stela D B23b, where a probable eroded LAKAM might also be read as BAHLAM. In the latter case, the evidence seems to favour LAKAM (less erosion shows that there is more of the “trunk of a tree” on the left and more “leaves” at the end of the “trunk”) which may influence us here in the same direction.

·       B15b: Although it’s quite eroded, xu at the top of B15b is reasonable, both because there is the outline of what could be the upturned nose of the head of the leaf-nosed bat on the left, and also from context (with ku and pi below).

[21] A16.

·       A16a: This is <10:tu:TUUN> and not <10:SAK:SIHOOM> – the tu is the initial phonetic complement of TUUN.

·       A16b:

o   MHD doesn’t transliterate a (flint variant) ta, but I feel there’s one present between the very top and the LAM. This is the most common variant of ta – the (long, rectangular) “flint outline with one or two elements in the middle, bound to the flint by a short vertical band” (though the bound element(s) are not visible in the drawing in this case).

o   If there is indeed a ta present, it covers the horizontal bar which is normally found between the “bow tie” / “butterfly” ma at the top and the MIH/flower-like element in the middle of A16b.

o   The very centre of the LAM seems to be an infixed (boulder variant) ta rather than a TAHN. It might even be TAHN conflated with the boulder variant of ta (the boulder outline with a horizontal three-bump line in the middle, with two slightly curved pillars from the bold ceiling to the three-bump line, and a scroll-like element in the bottom left). If so, then there is both a flint variant of ta near the top and a boulder variant of ta in the centre of A16b. I venture this opinion because a regular TAHN doesn’t have two slightly curved pillars going from the ceiling to the middle of the glyph and instead should have two or three mostly horizontal dots in a very slight arc. A close look at the 3D model doesn’t reveal these two slightly curved pillars, though the carved lines seem very blurred (from erosion?) compared to the east side. So blurred that even changing the angle of incident light doesn’t help.

[22] B16.

MHD:

·       B16a: 4:wi?{n}:ti:?:ku? è chan wintik? = “CPN”. [Sim:

o   But traditionally CPN is Uhx/Hux Wintik. Why is “3” now “4” here?

o   What is the mystery element / glyph between the ti and the ku?]

·       B16b: <JEL.ja>:k’o{oj}:ba{l} è jehlaj k’oojbal = “it was renewed/replaced, (the) image?”.

GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p130.pdfp143 gives:

·       B16a: 04-wi-ti-?? (doesn’t view the element at the bottom as a possible ku)

·       B16b: JAL-ja-k’o-b’a.

The (passive) verb + subject combination jehlaj k’ob is known also from QRG Stela C B6 = “renew/replace (the) image”. In the latter case, it refers to an event in mythical times (i.e., at the time of the creation of the current Maya universe in 0.0.0.0.0; 3114 BC) whereas here it seems to refer to a “contemporary” event in the Late Classic period (731 AD).

[23] A17. 4-Ajaw 13-Yax.

Calendrical calculations:

Putting in 9.*.*.*.* and 4-Ajaw 13-Yax into the Bonn calendar program gives this as the only “round” (period ending) date:

LC = 9.15.0.0.0; 18 August 731 AD.

[24] B17.

DN = 1.16.13.3 ~= 36.2 years.

[25] A19. Calendrical calculations:

 +  =

LC = 9.16.10.0.0; 13 March 761 AD.

The previous CR + DN matches the current CR.

[26] B19. The 13-Ajaw appears to be a reference to the 17^th katun (13-Ajaw 18-Kumk’u; LC = 9.17.0.0.0; 20 January 771 AD).

The preceding CR of 1-Ajaw 3-Sip corresponds to LC = 9.16.10.0.0 (see previous end note). The tahn-lam therefore is a reference to this LC = 9.16.10.0.0, which is halfway through to the katun ending on LC = 9.17.0.0.0. (GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p132.pdfp145: Pasaron tres días, trece winales, dieciséis tunes y un k’atuun desde el 12 Kab’an 5 K’ayab’ (9.14.13.4.17, 2 de enero, 725 d.C.) y entonces ocurrió el 1 Ajaw 3

Sip (9.16.10.0.0, 17 de marzo, 761 d.C.). (9.16.10.0.0, 17 de marzo, 761 d.C.) en la mitad del

hundimiento del 13 Ajaw (el k’atuun 9.16.10.0.0 es la mitad del k’atuun 9.17.0.0.0, 13 Ajaw 18

Kumk’u, 24 de enero, 771 d.C.) = (via Google Translate) Three days, thirteen winals, sixteen tuns and one katun passed from 12 Kab’an 5 K’ayab’ (9.14.13.4.17, January 2, 725 AD) and then 1 Ajaw 3 Sip (9.16.10.0.0, March 17, 761 AD) occurred. (9.16.10.0.0, March 17, 761 AD) [is] in the middle of the sinking of 13 Ajaw (the 9.16.10.0.0 k’atuun is half of the 9.17.0.0.0 katun, 13 Ajaw 18 Kumk’u, January 24, 771 AD).)

[27] C1-D2.

The LC HAAB-month is Sip, whose patron “SNB”/MIIN matches the patron infixed in the ISIG.

[28] D6.

Although the regular word ak'biiy = “last night”, “yesterday” is written, this is at the spot in the SS where Glyph-DE (giving the number of days since the new moon, in the current lunation) would normally occur. The ak'biiy is immediately followed by huliiy, the expected component in Glyph-DE as well. This suggests that this is, indeed, just an unusual way of giving the Glyph-DE information – indicating that it’s 1 day since the new moon, i.e., 2 days into the current lunation. This matches what the Villaseñor calendar program calculates (see next end note).

[29] C8.

It’s easy to make the mistake of thinking that C8b is “10”. But the (god-)head variant of “10” is a full and proper skull – percent sign, “bone” property marker (three non-touching dots in an oval), hole representing sunken nose, etc (some optional) – while C8b is just an anthropomorphic head. The forehead ornament could also be interpreted as a YAX. This means that it’s actually just the head variant of “9”. What appears to be a bone-jaw is perhaps just an attempt to draw the dots around the mouth of “9” (it can’t be “19” because the only choice we have here is between “9” and “10”). The final point to support reading a “9” is that the Villaseñor calendar program gives a value of “29” not “30” for Glyph-A (see next end note).

[30] D5 & D8. 1-Ajaw 3-Chakat/Sip.

Calendrical calculations:

LC = 9.16.10.0.0; 13 March 761 AD.

The ISIG LC matches the CR = 1-Ajaw 3-Sip.

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.

Four of the five values match, which, while not perfect, is quite good.

[31] D9-C10a.

·       This reading is adapted from MHD (no essential changes, I just adapted the conventions used in transliteration): ti-PIK-WITZ-yi TUUN-ni-li è ti pik witziy? tuunil = "on Pik Witziy? Tuunil". The only small change is that I read PIH/PIH-hi rather than PIK, influenced by what appears to be an end phonetic complement of hi at D9a (bottom).

·       There is a deliberate difference in reading of D9b (top) = WITZ vs. C10a (top) = TUUN, based on the presence and absence of an internal scroll along the outline of the glyph (at the top in this case) – the standard way to distinguish WITZ from TUUN.

·       MHD gives the transcription witziy? with a question mark, perhaps because it’s unclear what such a word might mean.

[32] D10-C11. The stela is called the “1-Ajaw Stone” because it was raised on 1-Ajaw.

[33] D11-C12a.

The transliteration is taken from MHD. MHD gives it with confidence (no question marks on any of the glyphs). We know that it’s PIK/PIH and not MIH – both are head glyphs with a hand-jaw, but PIK/PIH is a bird-head, while MIH is an anthropomorphic head.

u-MAM-PIK CHAN è Umam Pik Chan, but MHD doesn’t try to translate this name, rendering it in English as just the name “Umam Pik Chan” (cf. end note under C13 below, where the name is translated). Here I venture the translation “The Grandfather of 8,000 Snakes/Skies”?.

[34] C12b-D1a.

·       The element consisting of “crossed bands in a bold (partial) circle” infixed in CHAN is not the glyph AT of Yopaat displaced into a rather odd position in another glyph-block. Rather, it’s just the central component in one of the variants of CHAN. Such crossed bands are not an extremely common variant, but are by no means rare – the only unusual aspect is that the normally parallel pillars flanking the crossed bands are in this case a bold (partial) circle.

·       The yo at the top of D1a is a slightly unusual form of the “leaf” variant of yo, showing multiple “veins” in the main structure of the leaf.

[35] C13.

·       Looper-T311PT (2002) explains that 3-11-PIK is a known collocation. In this context:

o   The PIK can be written either with the “double KAWAK” variant or as the “bird-head with hand-jaw” variant.

·       Callaway (personal communication 2024-10-23):

o   The 11-PIK part stands for a period of 8,660 days (a few months short of 24 years). So, 3-11-PIK-AJAW functions as a title signifying age, indicating that a ruler's life overlaps three, “3-11-PIK” stations, where each station records an elapsed span of 8,660 days. Someone who is a 3-11-PIK Ajaw, lived a life that overlaps three stations of 3 x 8,660 days (that includes a final 3rd "triple" station (in the sequence of three stations). Furthermore, since 3 x 8,660 days is very close to one degree of precessional drift, the 3-11 PIK stations may originate from a Maya almanac that once tracked precessional drift of the fixed stars from the era base date, 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk'u, (MacLeod n.d.).

·       Sim:

o   The <N>-WINIKHAAB-AJAW title functions in a similar way:

§  The WINIKHAAB = katun is a period of 20 years.

§  The <N> is the coefficient (1 to 6) which indicates a multiple of that period.

§  The Ajaw gives the title of the protagonist.

An N-Katun Lord is hence in his <N>^th 20-year period of life, i.e., anywhere above <N-1> x 20 years. The coefficient rarely goes beyond 4, because of the natural limitation in the lifespan of humans, though the wife of Yaxuun Bahlam III was a 6-Katun Kaloomte’ and Kokaaj Bahlam III was a 5-Katun Ajaw.

o   The <N>-WINIKHAAB system is used for other titles too. For example, YAX Lintel 3 refers to a 3-Winikhaab Sajal, and YAX Lintel 23 to a (1-)Winikhaab Sajal.

o   In the case of <N>-11-PIK, the “11-PIK” part represents a period of about 24 years, and the <N> coefficient indicates a multiple of it (the only known instances are with a “3”).

·       Looper-T311PT was written in 2002 and gives two examples of 3-11-PIK-AJAW (NAR Altar 1 H12 and QRG Stela F C13). Now that MHD is available, a search on “bllogosyll contains 11“ and “bllogosyll contains PIK” and “bllogosyll contains AJAW” gives 4 hits (as of 2024-10-18) – the two already cited, a “Vase with Waterlily Monster” pF, and PBX (Pol Box) Stela 3 H6.

·       Unlike the <N>-WINIKHAAB-AJAW title, which occurs quite frequently and can occur in any
context where the age of the protagonist is being given, the <N>-11-PIK title occurs often in tandem
with “deep time” dates, i.e., before the creation of the “current Maya universe” in 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk'u. [Carl Callaway, Washington reading group, June 2024; and personal communication, Barbara MacLeod, June 2024.]

[36] D13.

·       D13a is the coefficient “0”.

·       The three touching circles at the bottom of D13b can be viewed as either:

o   la as an end phonetic complement to NAL, or

o   An element consisting of two or three small dots at the bottom of boulder-outline glyphs (especially HAAB). It’s shown as a blue dot ● in the transliteration. This element is pure decoration and doesn’t contribute to the reading of the text.

·       D13b is the calendar unit known to epigraphers as an “alawtun”, one of the highest units in the Maya calendar with a (nick)name. The units go: k’in, winal, haab, winikhaab, pik/pih, “piktun”, “kalabtun”, “kinchiltun”, “alawtun” (where the names after pik/pih are all only nicknames).

·       However, it’s difficult to make sense of a 0-coefficient for the “alawtun”. Perhaps Callaway’s proposal can explain this unusual aspect as well (see Introductory Notes above).

[37] C14b.

[38] C15b.

Is it possible that the tripartite element above the two KAWAK’s is actually an unusual variant of the two-scroll “flames”-element with a single “dotted protector” (T42/MHD.1G8/0042bv/0042bt)? If so, then this is ti:YAX:<“PIKTUN”>, i.e., “in the first piktun”. I think this is quite unlikely because the number of scrolls at the top of “PIKTUN” seems always to be two, not three, and always seem to have a dotted protector. Here in C15b there are three scrolls with no protector. I mention the piktun possibility merely to exclude it.

Another possibility is tzi:pi, with the reduced (i.e., “crest”) variant of tzi and the “2-KAWAK” variant of pi. Two sources, Boot-TLaToBCK and Guenter-TIoDPawBCK, support this. Both discuss DPL HS2.

We know that many of the steps of DPL HS2 have the same general format, namely:

This standard template is particularly present for the Central and East Stair:

• Central Stair – where it holds for all the steps (Steps I, II, III, IV, V, VI), and
• East Stair – where it holds for almost all the steps (Steps II, V, VI, with the relevant portion being partially eroded in Step I and IV, and totally eroded in Step III).

If we reconstruct the eroded information, it’s likely that every step in the Central and East Stair fits this format. Furthermore, Step II of the West Central Stair also has this format (though apparently none of the other steps have). In particular DPL HS2 Step IV D1 has YAX:<tzi-pi> è Yax Tzip. With all the other steps being a period ending, it seems quite reasonable to view Yax Tzip also as a period ending of some sort (albeit a rather unusual one).

In fact, calendrical calculations show that DPL HS2 Step IV D1 (2-Ajaw 13-Pax) is LC = 9.10.3.0.0. So we could put forward the hypothesis that “Yax Tzip” is the third year (tun) of a katun. Further evidence to support this can be found by doing a search in MHD on “bllogosyll contains yax” and “bllogosyll contains tzi” and “bllogosyll contains pi”. (The last clause here is “contains pi” instead of “contains PIK” in order to catch instances where the double-KAWAK (and variants) might have been transliterated as PIK or PIH. As it turns out, MHD is completely consistent in transliterating all instances of interest to us as PIK, but we don’t know that prior to doing the search.)

Such a search yields 10 hits (as of 2024-09-10). Of these, 6 are considered to be period endings (add a clause “evcal contains period”). 4 of these 6 (in turn) have an LC of 9.X.3.0.0. Unfortunately, 1 of the 6 has 9.X.0.0.0, and another is unclear; most unfortunately, this happens to be QRG Stela F A15.

• CPN Stela 2 D7: 9.11.0.0.0
• DPL HS2 Step IV D1: 9.10.3.0.0.
• NAR Stela 29 I12: 9.13.3.0.0
• NAR Stela 29 H17: 9.13.3.0.0
• QRG Stela F A15: unclear
• TIK Temple I Lintel 3 A2: 9.13.3.0.0
• MHD calls it Temple I Lintel 3
• Garay-BSc.p126.pdfp170.para2.l+7-8 calls it Temple I Lintel 1

This combination of glyphs is also mentioned (in passing) in CrasbornChavarría&Garay-ESdP.p702.pdfp9.fig5c, but there it’s treated as a toponym. I think there’s sufficient evidence that this is incorrect, and that this is indeed also a period ending.

It is, however, very promising that 4 of the 6 are, nevertheless, the third year of a katun (and of two different katuns, at that).

CPN Stela J A4:

• To the four above instances of its clear use as a period ending can be added CPN Stela J A4. This doesn’t turn up in the above MHD search because the tzi is written with an unusual variant – the “pa-ja” glyph, which MHD doesn’t read as tzi. The LC of this event is 9.0.3.0.0, and if we allow a tzi reading for the “pa-ja” glyph, then we have five instances of Yax Tzip as a “third year of the katun” period ending. In an argument which may appear slightly circular, I feel that this justifies such a tzi-reading for the “pa-ja” glyph.
• Garay-BSc.p126.pdfp170.para2.l+7-8 (with reference to CPN Stela J A4): Notably for the 3rd tun, a reference to Yax Tzip Pihk? is found, which appears to be another type of calendar season celebrated with the arrival of the 3rd tun in a k'atun; This can be seen in other texts, such as on Lintel 1 of Temple I in Tikal, where a phrase opens with a Calendar Wheel: 9 Ajaw 13 Pop, followed by a brief Yax Tzip (in A2); This date corresponds to 9.13.3.0.0 (March 1, 695), which is the 3rd tun of the 13th k'atun. (=Notablemente para el 3º tun, se encuentra la referencia a Yax Tzip? Pihk, que parece ser otra clase de estación calendárica que se celebra con la llegada del 3º tun en un k'atun; esto se puede ver en otros textos, como en el Dintel 1 del Templo I en Tikal, donde se abre una frase con una Rueda Calendárica: 9 Ajaw 13 Pop, seguida de un escueto Yax Tzip (en A2); esta fecha corresponde al 9.13.3.0.0 (1 de marzo de 695), que es el 3º tun del 13º k'atun.)
• There is some lack of clarity as to the LC of CPN Stela J A4. Garay-BSc assigns it 9.13.3.0.0 (1 March 695 AD) whereas MHD assigns it 9.0.3.0.0 (24 November 438 AD). This is less serious for our purposes, as both are the 3^rd year of a katun.

These five examples seem to me to be sufficient evidence to consider (at least some instances of) the term to be a period ending.

There’s an element consisting of two or three small dots at the bottom of the two KAWAK’s. It is shown as a blue dot ● in the transliteration. I think it’s pure decoration and doesn’t contribute to the reading of the text.

There is also the issue of the actual transliteration (and transcription = the Maya words) written by these glyphs. Is it:

• YAX-tzi-pi è Yax Tzip (with no PIK involved) [Boot-TLaToBCK.p4.pdfp4, Guenter-TIoDPawBCK.p7.pdfp7].
• YAX-tzi{p}-PIK è Yax Tzip Pik [CrasbornChavarría&Garay-ESdP.p702.pdfp9.fig5c].
• YAX-TZIP-PIK è Yax Tzip Pik [Garay-BSc.p123.pdfp167].

Note that Kupprat-TRoCMI.p26.pdfp26 has CPN Stela 12 F10 YAX-tzi-pi è Yax Tzip, but it’s not clear how relevant it is to the current discussion as the context there may be that of a theonym (or perhaps a toponym?), not necessarily a period ending.

Of the four readings, the middle two seem less likely to me:

·       It’s probably not Yax Tzi Pik because it looks “phonetically odd” – words rarely end in a vowel in Classic Maya (Sak Tz’i’ ends in a glottal stop).

·       It’s probably not Yax Tzip Pik because -p is very rarely underspelled.

Garay-BSc.p123.pdfp167’s YAX-TZIP-PIK means that he reads the “pa-ja” glyph as a logogram TZIP. This is not at all at odds with a reading as syllabogram tzi, as loss of final consonants of a logogram to produce a syllabogram is a known process. However, such a reading of TZIP leaves us with an additional PIK, which is not present in the other contexts. It seems to me that the tzi reading is the best for the “pa-ja” glyph.

This leaves us with Yax Tzip = “the first tzip”, with all five instances being the (end of the) first three years of a katun. In the case of Stela F C15b I’m unable to check this date, as it’s part of a narrative involving the “extra-high calendar units” (see end note under C17a).

[39] C16a.

·       MHD gives ik' ?? nal è ihk' ??-nal.

·       GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p126.pdfp139 gives IK’-NAL-NAB’? è ik’ naahb’ nal.

·       Sim: I wonder if the two elements under the (undoubted) IHK’ might be just NAHB, without a NAL being present. This is because there are variants of NAHB with a NAL-like element at the top, where no separate NAL is actually being written (though these variants usually have a “WINIK” as the main boulder-part). MHD in any case doesn’t read a NAHB (treating the bottom, boulder component as undeciphered) and reads the middle component of C16a as NAL.

[40] D13-C17a. The glyphic text at the end of the east side of this inscription (D13 to D19) has “extra-high calendar units”. It seems to recount two events, at two different (mythical?) places: one at Juun Witz’ (on 1-Ajaw 13-Mol) and another at Ihk’ Nahb Nal (on 1-Ajaw 13-Yaxk’in). The latter event speaks of a ritual execution and is, in that sense, connected to the historical execution of Waxaklajuun Ubaah K’awiil recounted on the west side (a “historical/mythical reference”).

Without more understanding of the higher units, I’m unable to do the calendrical calculations to cross-check the various parameters. In particular, I can’t calculate the LC of the period ending (see end note under C15b). This has been solved by a proposal by Carl Callaway (see Introductory Notes).

[41] C17b.

My first impression is that the three little dots in the “blade” of the CH’AK-axe is an infixed ja – this would provide a nice passive inflection. However, MHD doesn’t transliterate a ja here, inserting it only as underspelled in the transcription.

[42] D17.

This reconstruction of the eroded parts of D17a is from MHD, which can’t make much of it either:

 ya pa? ma? _ k'in ni chi la è ?? _ k'inichil = “? _ radiant?”.

If the glyphs in D17 are correctly read, then Yapam K’in(i)chil might be a possible transcription.

[43] C18b-D18a.

D18a is completely eroded, leaving only two boulder outlines. An outside possibility is to notice that B15 (also eroded, but not as drastically) can be reconstructed to read <<*LAKAM?>:TUUN:ni>.<*xu:ku:*pi> èlakam tuun xukuup = “(at the) stela (at/in) CPN”. Although the drawing of D18a shows only two boulder outlines, this could be because the erosion is so much greater. As C18b might be the same as B15a, this leaves the possibility open that D18a might be the same as B15b, i.e., also <*xu:*ku:*pi>, both then being lakam tuun xukuup = “(at the) stela (at/in) CPN”. This would fit in meaning: “On 1-Ajaw 13-Yaxk’in, it was the decapitation of Yapam Kinchil Ajaw, at the stela in CPN; it was ordered by …”.