1

Before 1999, Temple XIX drew littleattention from archaeologists and visitorsto Palenque. Its location within the largerarchitectural complex of the CrossGroup, and its orientation facing directlytoward the imposing Temple of theCross, gave some indication that it wasan important building, but as a fallenstructure nothing more could be said ofits date or significance. Thanks to therecent efforts of the Proyecto de lasCruces, under the auspices of INAH andPARI, Temple XIX’s anonymity hascompletely changed. With its four impor-tant inscribed monuments, this buildingcan now be appreciated as one of themajor ritual structures of the ancient city.

This paper examines one of TempleXIX’s inscriptions, the text on the stuccopanel decorating the east side of the tem-ple’s interior central pier (Figure 1).1 Theimmense modeled and polychrome sculp-ture depicts a striding figure clad in avery unusual costume. The theatricaldress is designed as a representation of ahuge bird’s head that seems to consumethe wearer, whose upper body emergesfrom the open beak. The stone panelattached to the front of the very samepier depicts the Palenque ruler K’inichAhkal Mo’ Nahb’ in a similar birdhead costume showing some differencesin detail.

A text of sixteen hieroglyphs accompa-nies the stucco portrait (Figure 2), eachglyph painted dark blue against a redbackground. The inscription is difficult toread in places, yet enough is understand-able to reveal several new insights intothe ritualism and dynastic history of LateClassic Palenque.

The Three Dates

Three Calendar Round dates appear inthe inscription, each accompanied by ashort verbal statement (Figure 3). No dis-

tance numbers connect the dates, butthey can nevertheless be securely placedin the Long Count as:

A1: 9.13.17.9.0 3 Ajaw 3 Yaxk’inB2: 9.14.0.0.0 6 Ajaw 13 MuwanC2: 9.14.2.9.0 9 Ajaw 18 Tzek

The middle of these can only be theK’atun ending 9.14.0.0.0, as confirmedby the glyph which follows at C1,CHUM-TU:N-ni or chum-tu:n, “stone-seating.” Such expressions are usedthroughout texts at Palenque, Pomonaand some neighboring sites to describethe initiation of a series of twenty ritualstones that symbolized the twenty unitsof the K’atun period (Stuart 1996). ThePeriod Ending in the second date there-fore serves as a welcome anchor for theplacement of the other two dates in theLong Count, as given above.Significantly, all three dates are earlierthan most others cited in Temple XIX’sinscriptions. The building’s dedicationceremony — what the Maya called anoch k’ak’ or “fire entering” — was on9.15.2.7.16 9 Kib’ 19 K’ayab’,recorded in the three other texts of thetemple. The building therefore dates tonearly twenty years after the latest of thethree dates in the stucco inscription.Evidently, the stucco panel commemo-rates times and events that occurred sig-nificantly before it was made. It is diffi-cult to know at present if the stuccopanel was produced at the time of thetemple’s dedication or, alternatively, wasa somewhat later addition.

A simple but interesting numerologicalpattern links all three dates. Taken insequence, each is separated by the sameinterval of 2.9.0, or 900 days. Whilenever noticed before as a meaningfulsubdivision in Classic Maya time reckon-ing, 2.9.0 is a “half hotun,” the exactmidpoint within the ritually importantspan of five Tuns (5.0.0). Exactly five

Tuns thus separate the initial and finaldate. More of this will be discussed aswe consider the details of the narrativeand the glyphs within the text.

Notes on the Inscription

The opening date 3 Ajaw 3 Yaxk’in pre-cedes an unusual verb or predicate at B1.The glyph block is partially lost, but theupper left corner displays a man’s headturned upward, and enough details are

Ritual and History in the Stucco Inscription fromTemple XIX at PalenqueDAVID STUARTPEABODY MUSEUM, HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Figure 1. General view of the Temple XIX stuccopanel (photograph by Mark Van Stone/Mesoweb).

2

left to indicate the presence of afeathered wing a little below. Fullexamples of this odd “bird man”are attested in other inscriptionsfrom Palenque, Tonina and possi-bly Tikal, but its reading remainsproblematic. One comes from thefragment of a stone slab, possiblya throne or sarcophagus lid, foundon Temple XXI at Palenque(Schele and Mathews 1979: no.553) (Figure 4a). Its incompletetext shows only the end of aSupplementary Series and “3Yaxk’in,” followed by the birdman glyph. Given the month andverb combination, the Temple XXItext very likely recorded the samedate we find in Temple XIX,9.13.17.9.0 3 Ajaw 3 Yaxk’in.

The full-figure bird man alsooccurs as a verb or predicate intwo Tonina inscriptions.Monument 141 cites it in connec-tion with the date 9.13.7.9.0 4Ajaw 13 Ch’en (Figure 4b). Itstands alone without any otherverb or protagonist, suggestingthat it somehow describes somegeneral characteristic of the date,rather than an action of any kind.Another Tonina stela (as yetundesignated) bears the date9.14.12.9.0 8 Ajaw 8 Zip on its base,once more with the bird man glyph.2

Here it follows a standard half-periodglyph (‘u-tanlam-il), indicating that theMaya themselves viewed the date as themidpoint of the 5 Tun period, as alreadydescribed.

Grouping the bird man references fromPalenque and Tonina, we find that thedates fall into a possible pattern:

9.13.7.9.0 4 Ajaw 13 Ch’en/TNA: M.141

9.13.17.9.0 3 Ajaw 3 Yaxk’in/PAL: T.XIX stucco; T. XXI slab

9.14.12.9.0 8 Ajaw 8 Zip/TNA: undesignated

Precisely ten Tuns (10.0.0) separate thefirst and second date, and fifteen Tuns(15.0.0) fall between the second andthird. The common denominator is fiveTuns, and all the dates again fall on themidpoints (2.9.0, 7.9.0, 12.9.0, and

17.9.0) of the four standard hotun subdi-visions of the K’atun. It seems, then, thatthe bird man marks a previouslyunknown ritual or calendar cycle. It isinteresting, however, that the last date inthe stucco text from Temple XIX,9.14.2.9.0, fell on the same kind of sta-tion, but that no bird man glyph accom-panies that statement.

The third glyph of the stucco text (A2)follows the bird man and presumablyprovides more specific information aboutthe opening date. Its first part is ‘U-NAH-hi, ‘u-nah, “(it is) his/her/its first.”The second half of A2 is also prefixed by‘U- (though a different sign variant)before an intriguing main sign showing acrested bird consuming a fish. The waterbird sign has no known reading, but thedarkened banding around the eye strong-ly suggests its species identification as ablue heron, or Ardea herodias (Figure 5).This is followed in turn by the subfix -le.

Jumping ahead some-what, we will come tofind two other examplesof the same ‘U-“heron”-le glyph in

this inscription (at D1band D3a) - a remarkablefact considering that thisrepresents one quarter

of the entire text. Eachappears in direct associa-tion with one of the threedates, and it is probably

no coincidence thatthese dates are all

connected numerologi-cally. With the ‘u-nah“first” modifier before-hand, I suspect that ‘u-“heron”-le can be ana-

lyzed as a noun derivedfrom an intransitive verb(“it is his first ‘x’-ing”).

Whatever action theheron records, it is thekey topic of the

inscription.Unfortunately, its deci-pherment is unlikelyuntil more examplescan be found; only

one other case of theglyph is known, also

from Temple XIX at Palenque (Figure 6).There, on the inscribed platform, theheron occurs in the name caption of aseated noble, but without any of theaffixation seen in the stucco inscription.It occupies a very different syntacticposition, therefore, as a title or personalreference.

The heron sign, with its image of the birdtaking a fish in its beak, may be connect-ed to the distinctive costume worn in thescene below. Although damaged andincomplete, the huge outfit worn by thewalking male figure represents a kind ofwater bird, as indicated by the fish dan-gling from the upper hooked beak. (Thesame attire is found on the main stonepanel of the same pier, but shown infront-view.) But there are a few differentdetails visible in this bird head to suggestit is not the blue heron of the glyphsabove, but rather a species of cormorant(mat) commonly found as the main signof the toponym Matawil or Matwil, so

Figure 2. The hieroglyphic inscription(drawing by the author)

Transcription of the Stucco Text fromPalenque, Temple XIX

A1: ‘UX-’AJAW ‘UX-YAX-K’IN-niB1: ?A2: ‘U-NA:H-hi ‘U-?-leB2: WAK-AJAW ‘UXLAJUN-

MUWA:N-niC1: CHUM-TU:N-niD1: ‘U-CHA’-TAL-la ‘U-?-leC2: B’OLON-’AJAW WAXAKLAJUN-

ka-se-waD2: k’a-[ma]-? hi-liD3: ‘U-?-le ‘U-PAKAL-K’INICHD4: b’a-ch’o-ko ?-NAL-laD5: ch’o-ko ne-?-laD6: ?-?-K’UH

3

often cited in Palenque’s inscriptions.3

The heavily lidded eyes (visible on thestone panel’s view) and the teeth in thebeak are distinctive characteristics of cor-morants in Maya art, and not at all likethe details of the heron. I believe that theritual costume is somehow a reference toMatwil, the place of Palenque’s mytho-political origins, as will be discussed fur-ther in the forthcoming study of the otherTemple XIX monuments.

The stucco text continues with the sec-ond date at B2, 9.14.0.0.0 6 Ajaw 13Muwan, with its accompanying statementof a chum tu:n, or “stone seating.”Reading on to D1, we find that this daysaw the second of the three “heronevents.” The heron glyph itself carriesthe ‘U- and -le affixes, and the precedingordinal modifier ‘U-2-TAL-la, for ‘u-cha’-tal, “the second...”. As with the ini-tial section, this second sentence or pas-sage ends abruptly without any subjectnamed.

Block C2 is the third of the evenly

spaced dates, 9 Ajaw 18 Tzek, or9.14.2.9.0. The accompanying verbphrase at D2a is a slightly damagedglyph, consisting of the sign k’a, a sec-ond missing element, and a sign resem-bling a twisted or looped cord (I willrefer to it as the “cord” sign simply as aterm of reference). Enough of the glyphsurvives to allow reconstructing it as k’a-ma-“cord,” an important event expres-sion cited in two other inscriptions ofTemple XIX (Figure 7b). The first twosigns spell the transitive root k’am, “totake or receive something,” and the cordor rope subfix likely indicates the objectof the verb. Such an unmarked verbalform, stripped of temporal and per-son markers, seems a nominalizedform similar in structure to otherimpersonal events such as chumtu:n, “stone seating,” och k’ak’,“fire entering” and k’al tu:n, “stonebinding.” Like the bird man andchum tu:n verbs of the initial twopassages, “cord taking”(?) seems toserve here as a general descriptiveterm for the date, as in “9 Ajaw 18Tzek (is) the rope taking.”

Another record of the k’am-“cord”event appears in a block from theTemple XVIII stucco inscription,but spelled somewhat differently(Figure 7c). Here k’am is the famil-iar “ajaw-in-hand” logograph,replacing the k’a-ma syllables ofother examples. Using a picto-graphic convention, the scribe hasplaced the rope-like element, thedirect object, within the hand, much aswe find in common spellings of the “GodK-in-hand” accession glyph read k’amk’awil, or “the K’awil taking.”

The “rope” sign somewhat resembles the“figure eight” logograph TAL, but it is

likely to be different, being open at oneend. This sign appears elsewhere inMaya texts, but it is rare and its readingstill seems difficult to establish. Perhapsits best-known usage before now was inthe spelling of a name of a particular ser-pent way (animal co-essence) shown onsome Classic ceramics where it refers tothe draping and braided snake “collar”worn by a fantastic deer (Schele 1990;Nahm and Grube 1994: 693). A similarlytwisted cloth adornment is worn aroundthe neck of two figures on the platformof Temple XIX (see Figure 6), and alsoon the younger (shorter) Kan B’ahlam IIportrayed on the main tablets of the

Cross Group. It is likely that the hiero-glyphic expression k’am and “twistedcord” refers to the wearing of this loopedcostume device.

The spelling k’a-ma raises an importantissue about linguistic variation in theClassic inscriptions. We are accustomedto reading this “receive” verb in itsexpected Ch’olan form ch’am, which hasfor several years been the more estab-lished value of the “ajaw-in-hand.” Thiswas based originally on an example fromPanel 2 from Piedras Negras, where thelogograph takes the prefix ch’a- and thesuffix -ma as phonetic complements,clearly indicating the Ch’olan pronuncia-tion. K’am, however, is the Yukatekancognate. The situation is not unique, forPalenque is unusual for its occasional use

Figure 4. “Bird man” glyphs from Palenqueand Tonina: (a) from a slab from TempleXX at Palenque (drawing by Linda Schele),and (b) from Tonina, Monument 141 (draw-ing by Peter Mathews).

Figure 5. Water bird signs from the stuccoinscription compared to the blue heron, Ardeaherodias. Subtle differences among the birdglyphs may be due to different artisans who craft-ed the individual glyphs (drawings by the author).

Figure 3. The inscription arranged intothree passages, with structural parallels.

4

of Yukatekan spellings in place ofexpected Ch’olan forms. Other examplesinclude zu-ku for zukun, “elder brother”(elsewhere spelled as Ch’olan za-ku,zakun) and ka-b’a for kab’, “earth” (inCh’olan this would be chab’). Thesewords alone do not indicate thatPalenque was a Yukatekan site, for theoverwhelming phonological and morpho-logical patterns in Palenque’s inscriptionsare decidedly Ch’olan (Houston,Robertson and Stuart, in press). Rather,such spellings are best seen as subtleindications of close language contactbetween Ch’olan and Yukatekan speakersin the northwest lowlands during Classictimes, if not earlier. The same connectionis reflected in Chontal, a Ch’olan lan-guage, where “earth” is kab’ instead ofchab’ (Kaufman and Norman 1984),exactly as indicated in Palenque’s texts.

Returning to the stucco text, the secondportion of block D2 is hi-li, which pre-cedes the third and final example of theheron glyph with its familiar affixes, atD3. The preceding passages have alreadytalked of the “first” and “second”

instances of this heron event oraction, and it seems that hi-lihere is somehow parallel tothose ordinal numbers (seeFigure 3). Significantly, hil is anintransitive root in Ch’olanMayan languages meaning “toend, rest, finish” (Kaufman andNorman 1983), and in this set-ting it probably refers to the“ending” or “resting” of thethree-stage ritual process involv-ing the “heron” action. In thestucco inscription fromPalenque, it would appear thatthe act of “cord taking” saw alsothe “resting” of the ceremonialcycle tied to the half-hotun inter-val of 2.9.0.

Following the last of the heronglyphs is the first personal nameof the stucco inscription, written‘U-PAKAL-K’INICH ‘UpakalK’inich, “The Sun God’sShield.” The name takes the title

b’a-ch’o-ko, for B’a(h) Ch’ok,here meaning “Principal Heir.”Although this person is notamong the familiar charactersin Palenque’s history, recent

suggestions by Martin (1998) and BernalRomero (1999) have convincingly shownthat ‘Upakal K’inich is the name of alord who eventually ruled at Palenqueunder the royal name ‘Upakal K’inichJanahb’ Pakal (Figure 8) . Being theonly name in the stucco text, we mustconclude that the portrait on the stuccopier is ‘Upakal K’inich as the heir appar-ent, shown before assuming the throne.

This ruler remains very obscure,documented only from a tabletfragment from the Palace and inthe so-called “K’an Tok Panel”excavated from Group XVI. Noaccession date is known for‘Upakal K’inich, but he was inoffice on 9.15.10.10.13 8 Ben 16Kumk’u, a date cited on the K’anTok panel for the accession of ajunior lord under the auspices ofthe Palenque king (BernalRomero 1999).4 This falls onlya few years after the last knowndate from Temple XIX,9.15.5.0.0, when K’inich AhkalMo’ Nahb’ celebrated the

Period Ending. Evidently ‘UpakalK’inich Janhab’ Pakal succeededK’inich Ahkal Mo’ Nahb’ as king at some point between these two dates.

The title B’ah Ch’ok shows us that‘Upakal K’inich was considered the heirto Palenque’s throne, but it is difficult tointerpret this given the final date cited inthe stucco inscription. 9.14.2.9.0 9 Ajaw18 Tzek fell within the reign of K’inichK’an Joy Chitam, when that king wasnearing seventy years of age. The manwho would eventually take the nameK’inich Ahkal Mo’ Nahb’ was in his mid-thirties at this time, and wouldassume the throne about eight years later.It is therefore difficult to see how UpakalK’inich could be named as a B’ah Ch’okat a time when his own predecessor inoffice still had not yet assumed thethrone. It instead seems likely thatUpakal K’inich was the “Principal Heir”during the reign of K’inich Ahkal Mo’Nahb’, when the text was written andproduced. We know the three dates onthe stucco panel record retrospective his-tory, but the B’ah Ch’ok title is probablyto be considered “contemporary” withregard to the stucco panel’s later compo-sition. It is reasonable to suppose thatUpakal K’inich was the first son ofK’inich Ahkal Mo’ Nahb’, and theelder brother (or at least half-brother) ofK’inich K’uk’ B’ahlam. K’inich AhkalMo’ Nahb’ was thirty-six at the timeof the last date and ceremony recorded inthe stucco text, and if ‘Upakal K’inichwas indeed his son, he must have beenno older than an adolescent. The scale ofthe portrait perhaps indicates his youngage, for it is noticeably smaller than the

Figure 6. Left portrait on the Temple XIX platform,west panel (from a preliminary drawing by the author)

Figure 7. “Cord-taking(?)” events at Palenque: (a)from the stucco text, (b) from the inscription on theTemple XIX platform, blocks E2-E4 (drawings bythe author), (c) a stucco block from Temple XVIII(drawing by Linda Schele).

5

image of the standing ruler depicted onthe pier’s stone panel.

Back now to the stucco inscription. Inthe second half of block D4 is a familiarglyph with a main sign representing a leftarm, ending with -NAL-la. A yi- prefix isfound on other examples of this “arm”glyph, sometimes infixed into the neckarea of the main sign, as may be casehere. The glyph customarily intercedesbetween two names, the second oftenbeing a god’s designation, and it seemsto be some sort of possessed noun or“relationship” glyph (Figure 9).

The environment of the arm glyph, alongwith the yi- prefix and -NAL ending,raise the possibility that it is a variant ofy-ichnal, “together with, in the companyof,” but on closer review this seems aproblematic connection. The arm seemsmore thematically restricted than thewidespread y-ichnal, for it regularlyappears after the names of children oryoung people. For example, on the jambinscription of Temple XVIII (Figure 9b)it follows the pre-accession name ofK’inich Ahkal Mo’ Nahb’ as a boy,and on the Palace Tablet it follows theyouth name of the preceding king,K’inich K’an Joy Chitam (Figure 9c). Inboth instances the event is a youth’s cere-mony perhaps called k’al may, “hoofbinding.” The Temple XIX example pro-vides a third case from Palenque wherethe arm relationship glyph appears withyouth or pre-accession rites. It is proba-bly no coincidence that the arm sign isvisually similar to the pose of infants inMaya art and iconography (Figure 9d), aswe see in the portrait name of GII of thePalenque Triad, given later in block D5.5

Despite such contextual and visu-al clues, it is difficult to establisha viable reading of the arm rela-tionship glyph, if it is in fact dis-tinct from y-ichnal. In the casesfrom Palenque and elsewhere, thename written after the armexpression is of a god or a lord ofhigher rank than the youthfulprotagonist, suggesting that, likey-ichnal, the arm glyph helps to

specify who sanctioned, oversaw orattended to the ritual concerned.

The name after the arm glyph in the stuc-co inscription is, as noted, GII of thePalenque Triad (D5). Like ‘UpakalK’inich, GII bearsthe designationch’o-ko, ch’ok,“young one,” pre-sumably because of hisinfant aspect. The inscrip-tion closes at D6 with a“title” or designation forGII based on the signK’UH, “god,” with two pre-fixed signs of unknownvalue. The secondof these prefixes,the larger of thetwo, resemblesMaya representa-tions of an eye, soperhaps the title des-ignated GII as the “?-eyedgod.” The singling-out ofGII as the divine participantin, or overseer of, the finalof the “heron” events isextremely interesting, butonce more not easy toexplain.

Conclusions andHalf-FormedThoughts

In summary, thestucco inscriptionrelates a narrative ofthree evenly spacedrituals, the “first,”“second,” and “last”of a series spanningfive years. All threeevents are describedby a heron sign,

which is likely to be related conceptuallyto the water bird costume worn by theprotagonist, ‘Upakal K’inich. The datesof the three rituals are each spaced 2.9.0(900 days) apart, and fall over twodecades before the dedication date ofTemple XIX. They are therefore retro-spective records of a specific ritual cycleinvolving the would-be heir to thethrone, possibly the first son of K’inichAhkal Mo’ Nahb’, who came to rulesometime after his father’s death andbefore the accession of his youngerbrother, K’inich K’uk’ B’ahlam. Thedeity GII has some involvement withthese rituals, but it is difficult to know inwhat capacity. The last of the heronevents also involves a curious rite

Figure 8. Two citations of the ruler ‘UpakalK’inich Janhab’ Pakal: (a) from theTemple XIX stucco text, and (b) on a frag-mentary panel from the Palace (drawing byLinda Schele)

Figure 9. The “arm” relationship glyph with youths’ names: (a) from the Temple XIX stucco text, (b) from the Temple XVIIIjambs, and (c) from the Palace Tablet (drawing by Linda Schele); (d) a “jaguar baby” glyph from Tikal, Stela 29.

6

described as something like “cord tak-ing,” an event mentioned in another textfrom Temple XIX in connection withanother date, 9.15.2.9.0 7 Ajaw 3Wayeb’, precisely one K’atun later.

I am inclined to see the glyphs thatimmediately follow the first and lastdates in this inscription - the bird manverb and “cord taking” - as structuralpartners to the “stone seating” glyph usedsimply to describe the calendrical signifi-cance of the middle date. All would servelike-in-kind roles as descriptions of sta-tions within the K’atun period, like thefar more common and familiar “hotun”marker glyphs used to name the quartersof the K’atun. The bird man is found inthree cases at Palenque and Tonina tomark dates that are divisible by 1/8 por-tions of the K’atun. The two knowninstances of “cord taking” events (if thisis the true reading) fall on dates that fallon 2.9.0, or the initial 1/8 within aK’atun. It is possible that “cord taking”therefore describes a specific rite associ-ated with the first 900 days of a K’atun,but this remains to be established. At any rate, there is now good reason tobelieve that the Maya recognized the1/8th subdivisions of the K’atun as ritual-ly significant, even if these were not soroutinely commemorated in textsthroughout the Maya area. Joel Skidmore(personal communication, 2000) hasrecently pointed out to me an examplethat proves the point very well. The easttablet of the Temple of the Inscriptionscites the Calendar Round 13 Ajaw 18Mak (M7, N7), corresponding to9.8.17.9.0, or 7/8ths of the K’atun. Thetext does not mention any event for thisdate; instead, it is a self-evident sort ofPeriod Ending that provides a chronolog-ical anchor for the event recorded in thenext blocks, namely Palenque’s conquestat the hands of Calakmul on9.8.17.15.14.

Interestingly, Stela J of Copan presents alist of individual Tuns within a K’atunperiod, each accompanied by its proper“designation.” Three of these termsdescribe actions or rituals involving theword ch’am or k’am, “take, receive,”perhaps strengthening the notion that“cord taking” event is a similar sort ofterm used to designate or describe a setperiod or sub-division of the K’atun.

The stucco panel must be considered inthe context of “pre-accession” ritualsinvolving young kings-to-be, for the“cord taking” event recorded in theTemple XIX stucco seems to concernyoung or yet to be established rulers. Wecannot know ‘Upakal K’inich’s age at thetime of the ritual cycle commemorated(his birth date is unknown), yet there areimportant connections to be drawnbetween the dates and events of the stuc-co pier and other known rituals involvingyoungsters. We have already seen, forexample, that the “cord” sign may specif-ically refer to the looped, almost braid-like cloth bands depicted in the costume

of the young K’inich Kan B’ahlam II, asportrayed on the tablets of the CrossGroup. The same type of neck ornamentcan be seen on each of the flanking fig-ures on the west side of the Temple XIXplatform, both of whom are named ch’ok,“youth, emergent one.” This distinctiveelement of ritual dress may be associatedwith youth rituals, therefore.

On the Palace Tablet, we read of a “cordtaking” rite involving K’inich K’an Joy

Chitam as a young man, on 9.11.13.0.012 Ajaw 3 Ch’en, many years before hisaccession (Figure 10). Here the event issomewhat different, however, written ‘U-K’AM-wa CHAN-?, or ‘u-k’am-awchan ..?.., “he takes the snake ‘cord’.”The combination of CHAN and the“cord” recalls the imagery on the “ser-pent deer” way entity mentioned above,and we can perhaps imagine that theobject taken in this ceremony was asnake or snake effigy worn around theheir’s neck, like on the deer figure.

On the Hieroglyphic Jambs of TempleXVIII we read that the young K’inich‘Ahkal Mo’ Nahb’ participated in apre-accession event on 9.13.2.9.0 11Ajaw 18 Yax, when fifteen years of age,nearly three decades before his ownaccession to office. Most of the associat-ed text in the upper portion of the southjamb is missing, unfortunately, but thedate once more is significant, ending in2.9.0. The final date of the Temple XIXstucco text (9.14.2.9.0) comes oneK’atun afterwards. We therefore havetwo independent records of royal heirsparticipating in rituals on this chronologi-cally significant station. One wonders ifperhaps these less important stations ofthe K’atun were considered the ritualresponsibilities of rulers-in-training.

As noted, the other “cord taking” citedon the Temple XIX platform (9.15.2.9.0)is one K’atun later still. Is it possible,then, that the west panel of the platform,with its “youths” draped in braided cloth,depicts another pre-accession ritual ofsome sort? This point will have to beconsidered at another time. For now, it isclear that any effort to understand one ofthe challenging Temple XIX monuments,be it the stucco panel, the stone panel, orthe magnificent platform, must involve adeep awareness of the ritual and historyrecorded in the others.

Figure 10. Record of a youth ceremonyinvolving the future king K’inich K’an JoyChitam, from the Palace Tablet at Palenque(drawing by Linda Schele).

7

References

BERNAL ROMERO, GUILLERMO1999 Analisis epigrafico del Tablero deK’an Tok, Palenque, Chiapas. Paper pre-sented at the Tercera Mesa Redonda dePalenque. Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico, June27-July 1, 1999.

HARTIG, HELGA-MARIA1979 Las aves de Yucatan: Nomenclaturaen maya-espanol-ingles-latin. FondoEditorial de Yucatan, Merida.

HOUSTON, STEPHEN D., JOHNROBERTSON and DAVID STUARTIn press: The Language of Classic MayaInscriptions. To appear in CurrentAnthropology.

KAUFMAN, TERRENCE S., andWILLIAM M. NORMAN1984 An Outline of Proto-CholanPhonology, Morphology, and Vocabulary.In Phoneticism in Maya HieroglyphicWriting, edited by J.S. Justeson and L.Campbell, pp. 77-166. Institute ofMesoamerican Studies, Pub. No. 9. Albany,SUNY-Albany.

NAHM, WERNER, and NIKOLAIGRUBE1994 A Census of Xibalba: A CompleteInventory of Way Characters on MayaCeramics. In The Maya Vase Book, Volume4, pp 686-715. Kerr Associates, New York.

SCHELE, LINDA1990 A Brief Note on the Name of theVision Serpent. In The Maya Vase Book,Volume 1, pp. 146-148.

SCHELE, LINDA, and PETER MATH-EWS1979 The Bodega of Palenque, Chiapas,Mexico. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington,D.C.

STUART, DAVID1996 Kings of Stone: A Consideration ofStelae in Classic Maya Ritual and Representation. RES 29/30:148-171.

Endnotes

1 A much longer study encompassing allof the Temple XIX inscriptions is now inpreparation, and will be published sepa-rately by PARI.

2 This small monument was displayed atthe Museo Arqueológico de Palenque inJune, 1999, as part of a special exhibitionorganized for the Tercera Mesa Redondade Palenque. The dates and interpreta-tions given are based on my inspection ofthe monument at that time.

3 In the Matwil toponym and in personalnames, the cormorant sign is read MAT(occasionally it is replaced by the sylla-bles ma-ta), and the species identifica-tion is confirmed by the attested wordmach in Yukatek for “cormorant” (Hartig1979). The mythical toponym is spelledin a variety of ways: MAT-la, ma-ta-wi-la, ma-ta-wi, or ma-MAT-wi-la (the lastfrom the recently discovered platformtext from T. XIX). I cannot at presentexplain the -wil ending.

4 The K’an Tok panel records a series of“junior-level” accessions overseen byPalenque kings over the course of severalcenturies. Bernal Romero (1999) inter-prets the protagonists as rulers of a sub-ordinate site under Palenque’s domain. Itis more likely that the accessions pertainto a sub-royal office or position withinPalenque’s local court society.

5 At Piedras Negras, two other examplesof the “left arm” relationship glyph seemto be related to young people. On Panel3, it occurs in the main text in a passagedescribing an Early Classic ritual that isprobably depicted on the accompanyingscene. At least one figure, standingbehind the ruler, is a young boy. On theshells of Burial 5, the twelve-year old“Lady K’atun” is named beside anotherexample of the “arm” relationship glyph(here a right arm, it seems), which appar-ently establishes some connectionbetween the girl and a woman named inthe next block.