End Notes

[1] The ISIG covers 20 normal glyph-blocks instead of just 4.

3D model

[2] It’s unclear how this “14” relates to Waxaklajuun Ubaah K’awiil – K’ahk’ Tiliw’s Chan Yopaat’s overlord and the CPN ruler who he rebelled against and executed. The latter was 13th in line of succession in the rulership of CPN. I.e., is K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat somehow even claiming to be the 14th in line of succession in the rulership of CPN? Looper-LW.p101.pdfp114.col1.para-1-col2.para1 discusses this and reaches the conclusion that it’s more a case of K’ahk’ Tiliw’s Chan Yopaat claiming the role of being “inheritor of the succession of K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’ and thereby cast[ing] Quirigua as the preeminent capital of the Southeast”.

[3] A1-B5.

The LC HAAB-month is Sotz’, whose patron would be expected to be XOOK, but that part of the ISIG is too eroded to say if there is a match.

The infixed glyph is very elaborate. There is the eroded outline of a “left feeler”/scroll on the left, the eroded outline of a “T’AB”-like series of steps in the middle (with two “bold, YAX-outline elements, each with its own internal scroll, infixed), and longish leaf-like element (resembling a very elaborate wi?) on the right.

The desire to have such an elaborate infix might have been the reason that this ISIG is so large. Not only is it double the width of most (large) ISIG’s, it’s also more than double the height. What isn’t explained is why the makers of this monument wanted to have such a large infixed patron.

[4] A6-B10. The ISIG’s LC.

The coefficients of the LC are given in very elaborate head glyphs. And, unusually, each unit is in its own glyph-block:

• 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 a worthwhile exercise to see how many of them can actually be “read” out of context.
• The coefficients are quite easy to read.

[5] A11.

It may not be that obvious what the coefficient of the day name in the Tzolk’in date is. However, B18-C6 (which almost immediately follows the ISIG, LC, and SS) reads: <elaborate-name> uk’aba’ 8-Ajaw Tuun = “<elaborate-name>, it is the name of the 8-Ajaw Stone”. As the “generic name” of this stela is “The 8-Ajaw Stone”, we know that the Tzolk’in date of the raising (= ISIG’s LC) is 8-Ajaw. This tells us that the coefficient of the day name at A11 is in fact “8”. Armed with that knowledge, it’s easier to notice that the head at A11 has a longish scroll in the centre, directly above the middle of the (giant) earspool). This is the corn husk – a characteristic feature of the head variant of “8”.

[6] B13.

This end phonetic complement of li for the K’AL is not common, but known from other inscriptions, e.g., QRG Stela E B6b.

[7] B11-B15. Calendrical calculations:

LC = 9.16.5.0.0; 8 April 756 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, there’s a bug in the Villaseñor calendar program and it produces a value of 0 for Glyph-C. The Bonn calendar program structurally doesn’t give Glyph-C values. However, there is only one definite mismatch, which is quite good. Cross-checks on the SS of other inscriptions often reveal more mismatches.

[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).]

[8] B16.

MHD gives the *ji? with u.<CHOK:*ji?> è uchokoj, a verb form which I’m not familiar with. Indeed, there appears to be no explicit writing of ch’aaj = “incense droplets”, as this ji is not preceded by ch’a.

Could the ji possibly be an underspelled -jiiy? If we had (“in deep structure”) u-CHOK-wa-ji{iy} è uchokowjiiy è uchokjiiy (with the dropping of the middle vowel of a trisyllabic word resulting from inflectional/derivational processes) and with the simplification of the consonant cluster -wj- to -j-, then uchokjiiy could conceivably be written u-CHOK-ji{iy}. (This is just idle speculation on my part, as I’m unfamiliar with the -oj inflectional ending and am just looking around for an alternative way of reading this.)

[9] B17-A18. The specific name of this stela.

·       MHD: yax u tun? chan lem? [Sim: it’s unclear to me if the MHD LEM is the element infixed in the forehead or the element at the bottom of A18. Perhaps the latter is the reason for MHD not transliterating a syllabogram ta or logogram TAL at the bottom of A18?]

·       GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p113.pdfp126 gives YAX-u-?? CHAN?-nu?.

·       Sim:

o   B17:

§  The YAX on the right seems quite clear.

§  The element at the top of B17b is quite eroded, so might be an unrecognizable or undeciphered bird-head glyph. However, the very confidently read u in QRG Stela K D6b suggests that the eroded glyph at the top of B17b could well be u.

§  The element at the bottom of B17b could well be an eroded form of TUUN (though TUUN often has a ni end phonetic complement).

o   A18:

§  One possibility for the top (main sign) is XOOK, as the head itself could be a variant of the shark-head glyph (without a slightly upturned nose, see end note under F5). The oval-ish element infixed in the forehead of the animal head could well be a LEM, indicating the shininess of the shark’s skin (a known element in XOOK).

§  The horizontally rectangular element at the bottom of A18 could be an unusual variant of ki. However, ki is usually more rectangular. The more “boulder outline” / main sign shape at the bottom of A18 (including the internal elements) is somewhat suggestive of TAL, though TAL doesn’t make that much sense in this context. MHD’s ta is a possibility, but doesn’t fit with the XOOK above it (if it is a XOOK, which is by no means certain).

[10] B18.

The glyph on the top of B18b is completely eroded. There’s a possibility that it’s K’UH{ul} (i.e., perhaps just an arc of “blood drops”).

·       The logogram K’ABA’ itself can have an “infixed” K’UH, but the general consensus is that this is just part of the logogram and doesn’t get read out as k’uh or k’uhul. It’s only where there is a CH’OK or ch’o-ko = ch’ok “infixed” in K’ABA’ (completely covering the original K’UH) that it gets read as ch’ok k’aba’ = “youth(ful) name”.

·       However, QRG Stela D C18b and QRG Stela F C10b-D10a each have their own (u)K’UH{ul} written above or before the K’ABA’. This is despite the K’ABA’ itself already having its own “infixed” K’UH. This is infixed K’UH is visible in the case of QRG Stela D C18b, but in the case of QRG Stela F C10b-D10a it’s obscured by an infixed bird-head variant of a, written (it would seem) to explicitly indicate the glottal stop at the end of k’aba’ (despite the fact that this bird-head a is redundant, as there already is such an “rectangular” a at the bottom of D10a).

·       Both QRG Stela D C18b and QRG Stela F C10b-D10a have this explicit K’UH{ul}, separate from the visible or implied K’UH of the K’ABA’ logogram, in the latter case even in a separate glyph-block.

·       Therefore, it can be seen that in both these stelae, it’s definitely the case that uk’uhul k’aba’ is to be read. (This is also “proof” that it isn’t read when simply “infixed” (or “conflated”) into the “rotated-L” of the K’ABA’. That’s because if it were read, then there would never be a need to write a separate K’UH outside of the K’ABA’.)

·       QRG Stela D and QRG Stela F provide exactly the same syntax and context as here in QRG Stela J, namely <complex-individualized-name-of-stela>, uk’uhul k’aba’ <generic-name-of-stela> (this last being <coefficient-and-dayname>-tuun):

o   QRG Stela D D17-C18a: tz’ahpaj (ti) K’an Naah Chan Yopaat, uk’uhul k’aba’ 7-Ajaw Tuun

o   QRG Stela F C9-C11a: chohkaj ch’aaj ti Pih Witziy Tuunil, uk’uhul k’aba’ 1-Ajaw Tuun

o   QRG Stela J B18: utz’apaw Yax … Tuun Xook, uk’uhul? k’aba’ 8-Ajaw Tuun

That’s why it’s entirely reasonable to think that the completely eroded glyph at the top of B18b is in fact K’UH{ul}. GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p113-115.pdfp126-128 gives exactly this transliteration, transcription, and translation, presumably for the same reasons.

[11] C6. The stela is called the “8-Ajaw Stone” because it was raised on 8-Ajaw.

[12] D6.

D6a looks more like yu than u, but context makes us read u. I don’t think it’s necessary to go looking for an explanation for some “double possessive” here, with y- being the possessed form of u-baah. Nevertheless, it’s curious that the carver chose to render the u in this way.

[13] C7-D7.

This reading is from MHD. It’s hard to know what characteristics of C7 make it CH’AB, but the pattern of u-* ya-*, with darkness property markers in the top and bottom right of D7 make a reading of uch’ab yak’ab plausible.

The meaning of uch’ab yak’ab:

·       Is this a parentage statement with the name of K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat’s father (Ha’ <something> Ek’) following it?

·       If so, where is the boundary between the father and the son’s name? It could vary:

o   One extreme, where the father’s name is just Ha’ <something> Ek’ and the son’s name begins already at Yax Chit Juun Witz’ Naah Kan.

o   The other extreme, where the father’s name starts with Ha’ <something> Ek’ and goes all the way to Uyokte’ Chan, Uyokte’ Kab, with the son’s name starting only at K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat.

o   Anything in between.

However, it seems most likely that this is not a parentage statement. While uch’ab (y)ak’ab is one of the known forms of the parentage statement, uchit (u)ch’ab is perhaps much more common. Looper-LW does not consider there to be a parentage statement present and instead views the uch’ab yak’ab as referring to “penitential bloodletting rites and the resulting materialization of a vision serpent” (Looper-LW.p101.pdfp114.col1.para2.l-9). This makes Ha’ <something> Ek’ part of the extended name/title of K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat, resulting in an extremely long series of names/titles for this ruler.

[14] C8.

·       MHD: HA’-?-EK’ è ha’ ? ek’.

·       GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p113.pdfp126: ??-ba-u.

The MHD reading seems like a good one. This is perhaps the same name as in QRG Stela D A21a (though the two contexts are slightly different and so don’t apply to the same object/person).

MHD considers the glyph at the top left as a (variant of a) single, undeciphered glyph (MHD.MB5/“ADWH”, the “Aged Deity with Hands”) rather than as an uneroded/undeciphered “head-glyph” placed to the left of a “hand-glyph”.

The reading order of the three glyphs is very unclear in QRG Stela D A21a. Does the infixing suggest that the HA’ and EK’ are read together? Even if that’s the case, there’s no indication if the HA’ and EK’ precede or follow the unknown third glyph, nor, for that matter, whether HA’ precedes EK’ or if it’s the other way around.

However, looking at (Stela J) C8 shows that EK’ is probably read last. This still leaves the relative order of HA’ and the undeciphered “ADWH” (“Aged Deity With Hand(s)”) glyph unresolved.

See the TTT of QRG Stela D A21a for more information.

[15] D11.

It’s unclear what the four touching circles / large dots mean.

·       MHD (as of 2024-11-01) does not transliterate them at all – are they perhaps seen as just a decorative element, not contributing to the reading of the sentence?  

o   The amount of separation from the head-glyph would tend to imply that they have an independent existence (and reading) of their own.

o   It might be tempting to read the four dots as CHAN = “four” – used here to write “sky” and thus yielding “Earth (and) Sky” or “Sky (and) Earth” – but the existence of CHAN = “sky” at D10 (clearly part of the same expression/title) means that this is extremely unlikely.

·       GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p114.pdfp127 gives KAB-4 è kab chan = “earth, four”.

·       Sim:

o   In the comments section, GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p117.pdfp130.para3 has Es a partir de este momento que K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat comienza a vincularse con el numeral cuatro en sus títulos. In English (via GoogleTranslate): It is from this moment that K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat begins to be linked to the number four in his titles.

o   It’s not completely clear to me if this comment pertains directly to the “4” after the KAB, or more generally to the Chan Te’ Ch’oktaak, Chan Te’ Ch’ajoom at the end of the inscription on the south side of the monument (G8-H8). Perhaps to both, but placed at this point in the thesis (where the east side, with D11, is being TTT’ed), it seems to (also) apply to this mysterious “4”.]

[16] C13.

MHD has yo-YOPAAT, but I’m unsure where the syllabogram yo is to be found (perhaps the element in the top left).

[17] C14.

There seems to be some uncertainty as to whether there’s a logogram NOHOL = “south”, as opposed to using a logogram NOH = “great, big” – just “as a rebus” – to write nohol = “south”. Alternatively, one could assign the meaning of “south” to the NOH logogram as well. Along with this uncertainty is whether the “horseshoes” (on one or both sides) represent a syllabogram no as initial phonetic complement, or whether they’re part of the logogram NOHOL. Indeed, perhaps they’re precisely what distinguishes NOH (no “horseshoes”) from NOHOL (with “horseshoes”).

[18] C15-D15.

Although C15a is quite badly eroded, IHK’ can be reconstructed/read with confidence, as Ihk’ Xukuup Ajaw is one of the well-known additional names/titles of K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat.

[19] C16-C17.

It’s unclear to me whether the phrase stops at the end of Wiin Te’ Naah, or continues to Ch’ahoom. That is to say: is K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat considered to be just 14th in line of some succession, with Ch’ahoom being just another one of his titles (commonly given for him, in other contexts, without a preceding tz’akbul), or is he considered to be 14^th in the line of Ch’ahooms?

This latter could very well be the case, with all other instances of Ch’ahoom simply referring to the fact that he is one, without bothering to list where he stood in the succession. So an alternative translation of C16-C17 might be: “The 14^th Ch’ahoom in the succession of Wiin Te’ Naah”.

Or does the order of succession statement apply to the Ihk’ Xukuup Ajaw preceding it?

[20] F1-E2-F2.

This is a DN going from smallest to largest unit, as almost all DN’s do. The coefficient of “0” for the WINIKHAAB is hence unlikely to be correct. This is because if it really were “0”, then the WINIKHAAB doesn’t need to written, or there would need to be a unit higher than the WINIKHAAB, after it. Amending “0” to “1” makes the calendrical calculations work (see next end note). So, pre-empting: DN = 0 → 1.11.13.3.

[21] F3-E4. Calendrical calculations:

 +  =

LC = 9.14.13.4.17; 29 December 724 AD.

The previous CR - DN matches the current CR, if we amend the DN’s WINIKHAAB coefficient from “0” to “1” (an amendment also made by MHD).

[22] F4. K’AL not CH’AM.

The large diagonal element (running SW to NE) is part of the iconography (the curved plume of a long feather) “spilling over” into the glyphic text, not a glyph in F4. It hence has no influence on the reading of this glyph-block.

Both MHD and GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p120.pdfp133 transliterate K’AL not CH’AM:

·       It might be tempting to view K’AL as fingers to the right and CH’AM as fingers to the left. For that reason, F4 might be thought to be CH’AM rather than K’AL.

·       However, the essential difference between K’AL and CH’AM is actually the horizontal vs. vertical thumb respectively. With that criterion, F4 is K’AL.

·       Furthermore, k’al is also the verb which is expected to go with the … huun tu’ baah … at E6-F6.

·       The exact verb form is (presumably) K’AL.<ja:yi> è k’ahlajiiy è k’ahljiiy = “(since) it was presented” (with the suppression of the vowel of the middle vowel, when trisyllabic compounds arise from derivational suffixing).

[23] E5. TZAK with another object?

·       The “hand grasping fish” glyph TZAK is assigned the code MZC in MHD.

·       A search in MHD on “blcodes contains MZC” gives 76 hits.

·       Though some hits are very eroded and only show the outlines of a fish (and a few are so eroded as to not show anything recognizable at all, or don’t show any image because of copyright issues), the overwhelming number of the 76 hits show a hand grasping a fish.

·       In fact, there are only two which clearly show something other than a fish – QRG Stela J E5 (i.e., this inscription, this glyph-block), and YAX Stela 21 pAp04.

·       In the latter case, this is even read as tzak k’uh (with the infixed K’UH apparently covering up or replacing the fish). So perhaps the possibility should be considered that E5 here is not just plain tzak but tzak <something>, where the object of the tzak is not (currently) known (and also covering up the fish).

[24] F5.

·       MHD registers the uncertainty in reading the top (i.e., “main sign) of F5b as XOOK by having a question mark.

·       GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p120.pdfp133 gives K’AK’-XOK-ki è k’a[h]k’ xo[o]k (without a question mark, which is a convention which is otherwise used elsewhere for doubt).

·       Sim: I think this is a very safe reading with no need for doubt: it has a LEM/”shiner” infixed in the top of the year, and is reinforced by the end phonetic complement of ki. The only reason for doubt might be the absence of a slightly upturned nose. But there are known examples of XOOK without this distinguishing feature.

[25] E6. HUUN.

·       This glyph is sandwiched between k’al and tu’ baah.

·       It comes immediately before the tu’ baah.

·       This fits the standard syntax for one of the accession rituals: k’al <qualifiers> huun tu’ baah <newly-accessing-ruler’s-name> = “(to) present the <qualifiers> headband on the <newly-accessing-ruler’s-name>’s head”, where <qualifiers> can be “nothing at all”, or sak, etc.

E6 appears to be the “bird-head” variant of HUUN. If we were unsure of this from the point of view of the visual appearance, then the “syntax and context” argument above allows us to very confidently read E6 as HUUN.

[26] F4-F8. … k’ahl(a)jiiy Balun Tzakaj K’ahk’ Xook Huun tu’ baah K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat, Ch’ahoom, K’uhul “TOL” Ajaw.

·       Looper-LW.p57.pdfp70.c2.para2.l+6: On Stelae E and F the accession is recorded as the receiving of a God K image, whereas Stela J commemorates the event as the fastening of the royal headband.

·       Sim: what’s interesting here is that this headband isn’t just a sak huun, but has its own name: Balun Tzakaj K’ahk’ Xook Huun = “The Many Conjurings(?) Fire Shark Headband”?.

[27] H2-G3. Calendrical calculations:

 +  =

LC = 9.15.6.14.6; 29 April 738 AD.

The ISIG’s CR - DN matches the current CR.

[28] H3. Just as a matter of convenience, I’ve translated this as a verbal construction in the passive. It doesn’t seem to be a possessed noun (= “the chop-head of”) because of the absence of an initial u. That leaves a verbal interpretation (particularly because of the ji-ya, giving a -jiiy verbal suffix). I’ve translated this as a passive, because the person beheaded immediately follows the verb, without the explicit naming of the person who did the beheading. But I have doubts about the correctness of this, because of the absence of an explicit -aj (which would normally be written with a ja) – perhaps it’s CH’AK-ka{j}-BAAH è ch’ahkaj baah = “it was chop-headed / head-chopped, (the) head of” (with the passive supplied by an underspelled -j). My grasp of Classic Maya grammar is not sufficient to know. See end note under QRG Stela E B12b for further considerations.

[29] H5-G6. Calendrical calculations:

 +  =

LC = 9.15.6.14.6; 6-Kimi 4-Sek; 29 April 738 AD = date of decapitation of Waxaklajuun Ubaah K’awiil (known also from Stela E A12b-B12a)

LC = 9.16.5.0.0; 8-Ajaw 8-Sotz’; 8 April 756 AD = date of the grasping of the K’awiil sceptre by K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat.

The previous CR + DN matches the current CR.

[30] G8-H8. Chan Te’ Ch’oktaak, Chan Te’ Ch’ajoom.

·       The transliteration is taken from MHD, which gives the translations “The Four Youths” and “The Four(?) Incense Offerers” for G8 and H8 respectively.

·       The question mark on the “Four?” in H8 is because there are only three dots visible in the drawing, but the positioning and context very strongly suggest that “Four” is correct – presumably, the second dot from the top got eroded.

·       Syntax, the parallelism between G8 and H8, and the general shape of the elements support the reading of TE’ for the glyph after “4” in both instances. That the first instance (slightly eroded) is TE’ is supported by the fact that both Chan Te’ Ch’oktaak and Chan Ch’oktaak are known phrases (and numeral classifiers like te’ and tikil are always optional in Classic Maya).

·       For both of these glyph-blocks, MHD gives “title, numeral classifier” in the semantic field (blsem). This is indeed the role they seem to play in this context, coming, as they do, directly after the  name of K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat: syntax would suggest that they’re simply additional titles. But “The Four Youths” and “The Four Chahooms” strike me as rather odd titles. The extended name/title Chan Ch’ahoom (without Te’) is known from QRG Stela E C12 (also as an extended name/title of K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat).

·       Stuart-NYRiCMI is a paper which discusses the phrase Chan (Te’) Ch’oktaak.

o   The interlocking nature of the different cycles of the Maya calendar is such that the “first day of the Haab year” (0-Pop/Chum-Pop/“The Seating of Pop”) can occur on only four different day names, each being 5 days after the previous one (4 x 5 = 20 day names). Different Colonial and modern Mayan cultures have different sets of four (Ik’, Manik, Eb, Kaban; or Ak’bal, Lamat, Ben, Etz’nab; or K’an, Muluk, Ix, Kawak), but there is always a fixed set of four. These are called the “year-bearers”, as the Seating of Pop will cycle through each one of the fixed set. To that extent, the phrase Chan (Te’) Ch’oktaak is explained.

o   Unfortunately, however, this “meaning” doesn’t explain the use of the phrase as an extended title in the current inscription. There is a curious parallel to a very similar term: Chan (Te’) Ik’ Xib. This is also used as an extended title in QRG, also in connection with K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat:

§  QRG Stela A C8:

§  QRG Stela D B18b

§  QRG Stela F A8b-B8a

§  QRG Stela I D1a

The phrase Chan Ch’ajol (note the difference from Ch’ajoom) is also used as an extended title in QRG – it occurs at QRG Stela A D7. There’s even a Chan Ch’ahoom in QRG Stela E C12, but there it’s unclear if it’s the plural subject of the verb (i.e., that four Ch’ahooms actually did something) or the singular subject of the verb (i.e., a name/title of the individual who did something).

o   None of them has the syntax of a title but they nevertheless seem to have been used as such in QRG. GutiérrezGonzález-PhD.p117.pdfp130.para3: It is from this moment that K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat begins to be linked to the number four in his titles. [Sim:

§  From context, “this moment” appears to mean the ritual execution of Waxaklajuun Ubaah K’awiil. If that’s the case, then I suppose The Four Youths and The Four Incense Offerers are reasonable (though still slightly odd) titles for a ruler.

§  The reference which GutiérrezGonzález gives at this point appears to be Stuart-TAoS – a paper on Teotihuacan and the Entrada. No page reference is given, and I was unable to locate anything about Quirigua and “4”, when looking briefly at the paper.]