End Notes

[1] A1-B2. The LC HAAB-month is YAX, whose patron EK’ matches the patron infixed in the ISIG. This infixed patron seems to be EK’ infixed in the “Venus Monster”.

[2] B6b-A7a. Calendrical calculations:

 +  =

LC = 9.18.14.7.10; 22 December 804 AD.

The previous CR - DN matches the current CR.

[3] A7b.

·       The element over the eye is simply a form of the CHUWEN-/se-/cha-like element covering the eye of the animal head – a distinctive characteristic of WA’.

·       The ja of la-ja-ya è -lajiiy seems to be infixed in the WA’, making the reading order a bit at odds with the arrangement of the glyphs. What this isn’t is WAL being a transitive verb, with the la being just an end phonetic complement and the ja contributing to the <verb-stem>-h-l-ja, making *wahlaj, the passive form of wal. Instead, this is WAL/WA’ as a positional verb, with a -laj-iiy inflection, where the -laj is similar to chumlaj, with chum being another positional verb.

·       MHD reads a (y)OK = “foot (of)” which could be the dog-head (MHD.AP1) conflated with the more bird-like head of WA’ (MHD.AX1). This is a known but optional part of the 819-day cycle expression – such a reading perhaps being prompted by the teeth in the animal head.

·       WA’ is a positional verb. EB.p196.pdfp201.#2: wa’ pv. “to put upright”, “to erect”. As this category doesn’t exist in English, they are often translated with “to be” + “past participle”, e.g., chum = “to be seated”. This then tends to give them a feeling of being a passive form of a transitive verb, but they are certainly not that in Classic Maya. Instead, they reflect a situation where an object or person occupies (or takes) a certain physical position, with respect to the surroundings. So they should feel more like an intransitive or stative verb. MHD gives “stand up” in the Catalog, and “stood” for QRG Stela K A7a, which nicely leaves more open the question of transitivity or otherwise (and hence avoids the “passive” feeling).

[4] B7.

It’s very easy to think that this is utuunil = “the stone/stela of”, but that leaves the “knot” at the top of B7b unexplained. MHD reads NAAH at B7a. Reading NAAH-hi-li/na-hi-li è nahil = “north” explains both the “knot” and provides a compass direction which is common in the 819-day cycle expression at this point. How this relates to the two commonly listed words for “north” – xaman (Classic) and nal (Post-Classic) is unclear to me. Perhaps nal is a contraction of nahil.

[5] C1.

The head-glyph at the bottom of C1a is very eroded. The SIP is from MHD and is perhaps read from context (this being the only word which fits in this spot). The SIM at C1b, though also very eroded, can be read with confidence because it’s expected in conjunction with the SIP, but also because the two bent arms can be discerned at the top and the two bent legs at the bottom.

[6] C2a. Juun Ch’ok is a known optional part of the 819-day cycle statement.

[7] D2b. Glyph-X.

This is simply the “ECLIPSE-GLYPH” above and the “CROSSED-LEGS” below, one of the known forms of Glyph-X.

[8] C4. Calendrical calculations.

LC = 9.18.15.0.0; 20 July 805 AD.

Unusually, the 3-Ajaw from before the SS (A4a) is repeated here, after the SS (C5a).

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.

That only 2 out of the 5 values match is disappointingly low. 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).]

Note the unusual feature of having DN = 0.0. Normally, after the ISIG, we have the LC, Tzolk’in date, SS, Haab date, optional locative phrase, then the verb of the first recounted event, i.e., the event associated with the ISIG LC, without a DN. It’s only after this first recounted event that we get a (“non-zero”) DN, which takes us to the next CR, associated with the second event recounted after the ISIG.

Here however, instead of the Haab date, we have a DN = 0.0, and a full CR, i.e., a repetition of the previously given Tzolk’in date, with the appropriate Haab date. There’s no flaw in the logical or mathematical aspects of this, it’s just slightly different from the standard pattern (and the only such one I’ve seen so far).

[9] D4. As in A7b, this is wa’laj with wa’ as a positional verb and not wahlaj, with an inserted -h- and -aj as the passive of a transitive verb wal.

[10] C5-D5a.

This reading is adapted from MHD:

·       C5a (top): MHD reads/reconstructs this as AJ – apparently the “flaming AK’BAL”, rotated 90 degrees anticlockwise.

·       C5a (bottom): MHD reads ne.

·       C5b (top): MHD does not attempt to read this head-glyph.

·       C5b (middle): MHD reads the two circles as la?.

·       C5b (bottom): MHD reads ni (no question mark).

·       D5a: MHD reads the middle element as the reduced variant of K’AHK’ with the bottom element unknown. [Sim: The u- however tends to suggest that the eroded head is a noun or proper noun, the “possessor” of the fire. This makes the reading of the middle element as the reduced variant of K’AHK’ quite likely. However, perhaps the possibility of the middle and bottom elements forming a single logogram shouldn’t be excluded.]

The context (with uk’aba’ hux-ajaw tuun following) suggests that this is the name of the stela.

[11] C6. The stela is called the “3-Ajaw Stone” because it was raised on 3-Ajaw.

[12] D6a. 9.18.15.0.0 is indeed the start of the last hotun of the katun.

[13] D6b.

The reading *ch’a?{aj} è ch’aaj is adapted from MHD and is probably based on context (ch’aaj being the most common object of CHOK). Could it be that the eroded element at the bottom isn’t ch’aaj, but instead wa, to make uchokow, with just an implicit object “he scattered it (=incense)”?

[14] C7-D7.

The reading ho-lo-ya è holow is from MHD. The unusual treatment of ya is perhaps because the name K’ahk’ Holow Chan Yopaat (as a ruler of QRG) is known from other QRG inscriptions.

The name Holow is known (with wo instead of ya) (e.g., from Looper-LW.p198.pdfp211.fig6.19) on:

·       QRG Structure 1B-1 Hieroglyphic Step D-F.

·       QRG Structure 1B-1 Hieroglyphic Step Q-R.

and one instance of Jolow on:

·       QRG Stela I A8-B8

The transcription of Holow rather than (something like) Holoy might be due to “statistics”, with two known (and a third highly likely) instances of -w and only one of ‑y. This may or may not be supported by the existence of potential descendants in the modern and Colonial Mayan languages for the former, but I’m unaware of where this might have been discussed.