The Glyphic Corpus from Ek’ Balam, Yucatán, México

Lords from Ek’ Balam

From the texts known, some twenty different characters have been identified and mentioned in many different ways, by their own names, by their names and titles, by their titles only, or as usual in different cases, by means of the gentilics using the formula agentive-toponym. All characters correspond to the Late Terminal Classic.

Among these identified lords are the ones associated with the Emblem Glyph of the site, and consequently they would be the kings of the place. Let us begin with them.

Kings from Ek’ Balam

Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’

Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ is the first king identified in the dynastic sequence from Ek’ Balam. He is, by far, the most frequently mentioned personality in the inscriptions of the site. In total, throughout the texts known so far, he has been mentioned 20 times, and one more time, probably two, in texts originated outside the site:

This character is most commonly mentioned as Ukit Kan Le’k, and he was first identified in the earlier known texts from the site, Cover of Vault 3, Stela 1 and the two Hieroglyphic Serpents (Vargas et al. 1999). Given that a portion of the name was written with the logogram IV "four", there were doubts at the beginning on whether it should be transcribed in Cholan as CHAN, or in Yucatecan as KAN. The decision made at that time to read the logogram IV as KAN, in Yucatecan, responded to the indication that the vernacular language of the site was Yucatecan, using as a diagnostic trait the trend to place the rank title Kalo’mte’ at the beginning of the nominal clause, before the personal denomination, a trait typical of the Yucatecan group (Lacadena 2000). The finding of Mural A in Room 29-sub, or Mural of the 96 Glyphs, has finally confirmed that the reading of logogram IV "four" was in fact KAN and not CHAN, given that, exceptionally, the scribe in one occasion used instead of logogram IV "four", the syllabic sequence ka-na, kan "four", in Yucatecan.

At three different times, in the Western Hieroglyphic Serpent and on Cover of Vaults 15 and 18, the sequence to-TOK’ or TOK’, tok’  "flint" was added to the name of the king, something that may be considered the complete version of his name, which would then be Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’.³⁴

The name sequence le-ku could correspond to lek "forehead" (Barrera 1980: 444), or either to the classifier for hard objects documented in the Tzeltal languages (M. Zender, personal communication, March 2002). The name of the king could therefore stand for "The-flint-father-of-the-four-foreheads", or either "the-father-of-the-four-hard-flints"—in which case, if le-ku is consistent with a numeral classifier, Ukit Kanle’k Tok’ would be a more adequate transcription. One final meaning could be expressing "the-father-of-the-four-flint-gourd", should we relate le-ku with the Yucatecan lek "bowl, gourd" (Barrera 1980: 444).

Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ is, in ten out of the twenty-one occasions mentioned in total, explicitly associated with the title ajaw "king". In two out of these ten occasions, ajaw is preceded by the adjective k’uhul  "sacred".

Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ is also associated with other titles in the texts, the most significant of which, and because of its political implications, could be that of KAL-ma-TE’, Kal[o’]mte’, which he exhibits in at least four occasions: in both texts of the Hieroglyphic Serpents located in the central stairway of the Acropolis, and in his posthumous references in Column 1 and Stela 1. Also significant because of the possible political implications, is the insertion of the expression ku-lu-a –Kula[’]?– that appears between titles in Column 1 preceeding the title Kalo’mte’, which several researchers have linked with Calakmul (M. Zender, D. Stuart, and S. Guenter, personal communications, 2002).

Other titles that are found together with the name of the monarch are Ajman "the one from Man", maybe a gentilic, twicely associated with him in the Mural of the 96 Glyphs (AJ-ma-na) in Miscellaneous Text 5 (AJ-[ma]-na),³⁵  and the already known ones of CH’AK-OL-la b’a-TE’, Ch’ak O’[h]l B’a[’]te’  "heart slicer warrior", and pi-tzi-la, Pitziil "handsome" (?), all of them from Miscellaneous Text 5.

Other titles that have not been satisfactorily read as yet, or whose meaning remains obscure, are repeatedly present in the Mural of the 96 Glyphs, in Mural C from Room 29-sub, in Miscellaneous Text 5 and in Miscellaneous Text 7, like the titles STRING-i-tz’i, I?-b’a-227, Ocho’m, K’ahk’ Okxo’m y …n O’hl Tajiil …n Ohl Pitzil, from blocks R-S from the Mural of the 96 Glyphs, whose initial portion is documented in sites like Naranjo (S. Houston, personal communication, 2000).

The name of Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ is also associated with several deity appellatives, like FIRE•KIB’-la-ja CHAN-[na] K’AWIL, …laj Chan K’awiil (CV19, MT5),³⁶  sa-ya-wa CHAN-na K’UH, Sayaw Chan K’uh (Mural 96 Glyphs, M19sub C) ³⁷  and … YAX-CHIT I-WINIK?, … Yax Chit Jun Winik (CV19), the Water Serpent appellative (D. Stuart, personal communication, June 2002). In Miscellaneous Text 7, Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ presents a lengthy pattern of deity personification (vid. supra).

His date of birth is unknown. If he accessed the throne between his twenty-five or thirty years of age, he must have been born by the end of the first half of the VIII century. Through the mural in Room 22, we now know the names of his parents, Ukit HEAD-## –maybe Ukit Ahkan, vid. infra. There are other individuals mentioned in Ek’ Balam–and a lady whose titles we are familiar with, K’uhul Ixik …/… Ho’ Ixik Ajaw  "Sacred lady …/… queen of …ho’ ". Even though there is no conclusive evidence that his father was a king in Ek’ Balam, his mother undoubtedly was of a royal lineage (vid. infra "Other characters mentioned in Ek’ Balam").

Ukit Kan Le’k’s accession to the throne might have taken place in 9.16.19.6.1 (May 26, A.D. 770), if we consider that the expression i patlaj Talol Ajaw  "then he became the king of Talol", closing the text in the Mural of the 96 Glyphs, refers to him (vid. infra). In any case, his reign is associated with the following dates:

A final action from Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ may be reflected in Mural B, dated 9.18.15.9.0 (January 16, A.D. 806), when perhaps in association with the New Year ceremonies, rituals in connection with the Ballgame were celebrated. Unfortunately, it would seem that no historic name has survived in the mural.

Keeping into account the time span between the early and the later dates, Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ seems to have ruled for a long time, between twenty-seven and thirty-two years–or thirty-six, if Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ was responsible for Mural B in Room 29-sub,–and his reign might have lasted forty-three years, should the king K’an B’ohb’ Tok’ have accessed the throne in 9.19.3.10.14 (January 8, A.D. 814) (vid. infra). This extended duration of Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’s reign clearly explains the high number of texts associated with him at the site.

After his passing, Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ was long remembered. All of the successors to the Ek’ Balam throne that we know of, have referred to him at least once. The texts from Ek’ Balam include four posthumous mentions of Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’. The first two are found in Mural 29-sub C, in 9.19.3.10.14 (January 8, A.D. 814), made by his probable successor K’an B’ohb’ Tok’, and probably too it was the the same individual who mentioned him in Miscellaneous Text 4. The third posthumous mention is found in Column 1, where another king of Ek’ Balam, Ukit Jol Ahkul, dedicates a funerary monument, Ukit Kan Le’k’s sak ahk b’aal tuun as the text reads, while he is represented convoking the image of his ancestor. This happened in 10.0.0.0.0 (March 11, A.D. 830). The fourth posthumous mention of Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ is found on a monument to king …K’uh…nal, on Stela 1, in 10.0.10.0.0 (January 18, A.D. 840), where he is represented as an ancestor, deified and seated on a celestial throne.

K’an B’ohb’ Tok’

For the time being, this ruler is mentioned four times, and twice in the same text:

While the meaning of the components K’AN, k’an "yellow, precious" and TOK’ tok’  "flint" from the king’s name are clear, the sequence b’o-b’o / ²b’o would allow for two possible transcriptions. The first possibility is b’ob’  "flower", (CHL bob "flor" (Aulie and Aulie 1978: 32), YUC bob "henequen flower" (Barrera 1980: 58), boob "dry bottoms of the henequen leaves", "floral offspring of the agave" (Bastarrachea et al. 1992: 80)); the second would be b’o-b’o, b’o[h]b’  "coyote, fox, beast" (CHR b’ojb’  "coyote" (Pérez et al. 1996: 26); b’ohb’  "fox" (Wisdom 1950); YUC bob "a mythological animal", boboch "a mythological animal" (Barrera 1980: 58), ITZ b’oo’  "a beast like a lion" (Hofling and Tesucún 1997: 187)).³⁸  Depending on each case, the name of the king could be transcribed and translated as K’an B’ob’ Tok’  "Yellow-precious-flint-flower", or K’an B’ohb’ Tok’  "Beast-flint-yellow-coyote". Choosing one of the two possible transcriptions is not an easy task. However, the presence of boob in modern Yucatecan indicates that in the Classic Period the term had a long vowel, a feature that has not been represented in the synarmonic pattern b’o-b’o. If we consider instead that b’ob’ has not lost its vocalic length, then we should favor the transcription of b’o-b’o as b’o[h]b’, and consequently, the meaning of "beast, coyote".

The name K’an B’ohb’ Tok’ has parallels in the southern texts, where the variant IK’-b’o-b’o-TOK’, Ik’ B’o[h]b’ Tok’, is found, in the name of a captive taken by a Machaquilá king. The presence of the color ik’  "black" preceding the name, indicates that the best translations for k’an of the name of the Ek’ Balam king is "yellow", and not "precious".

The first mention in Mural C, Room 29-sub, shows that which could be a complete version of his name: B’AK-B’ALAM K’AN-²b’o-TOK’, B’aak Bahlam K’an B’o[h]b’ Tok’. B’aak Bahlam could be analized and translated as "jaguar-skull". Considering the context in which the name appears, it could well be his pre-accession name.

K’an B’ohb’ Tok’ ruled in Ek’ Balam, as shown in the title he exhibits in Mural C from Room 29-sub, TAL-lo-AJAW-wa, Tal[o]l ajaw "king of Talol". In the same text another title is shown, 227-CHAK-la k’i-k’i or 227-CHAK-la ch’i-ch’i, depending on the reading value we determine for the sign ’ala’ in this case. Although the full meaning of the title remains elusive because of the current uncertain reading of the first sign, the final portion of it could be chak[a]l k’ik’ or ch’ich’  "red blood", cfr. YUCOL k’ik’, k’iik’  "blood" (Barrera 1980: 399); YUC k’i’ik’  "blood" (Bastarrachea et al. 1992: 100); ITZ k’ik’  "sangre/blood" (Hofling and Tesucún 1997: 391); MOP k’ik’  "blood" (Schumann 1997: 267), q’uic’  "blood" (Ulrich and Ulrich 1976: 180); CHN ch’ich’  "blood" (Keller and Luciano 1997: 102); CHR ch’ich’  "blood" (Pérez et al. 1996: 55). Like other kings from Ek’ Balam, and as shown in the fragmented Miscellaneous Text 4, K’an B’ohb’ Tok’ has incorporated the deity appellative of FIRE•KIB’ [CHAN]-[na] K’AWIL, to his nominal clause.

Presently, what we know about this ruler is not much. As of the chronological scheme we are handling on the monuments of the site, K’an B’ohb’ Tok’ was probably the successor of Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’. For the time being, the only date associated to his reign is that on Mural C from Room 29-sub, 9.19.3.10.14  3 Hix 17 Kumk’u (January 8, A.D. 814). The scribe who designed this glyphic mural has consciously chosen a text format that mimicked Mural A (the Mural of the 96 Glyphs) in that same Room 29-sub: one that should be read in horizontal lines, and with dates expressed in Calendar Rounds separated by the explicit expression of the days that separated them. The text structure is also identical, and it accounts for an arrival (hu-li) in that place. The individuals mentioned are K’an B’ohb’ Tok’ himself, and once again, Chak Jutuuw Chan Ek’ –in this case only accompanied by the title of b’a-ka-b’a, B’a[ah] Kab’  "Head/Prince of the Earth",–the foreign ruler who arrived to Ek’ Balam and who was involved in Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’s accession to power, forty-four years earlier. In fact, Chak Jutuuw Chan Ek’ and Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ are once again connected to one other in the mural by the enigmatic relating expression u-RABBIT-ka-yi (u-RABBIT-ka-ja in the Mural A or Mural of the 96 Glyphs). Thanks to the parrallelisms between both texts, we are now able to interpret the event recorded in the mural as K’an B’ohb’ Tok’s accession to power, and the date 9.19.3.10.14  3 Hix 17 Kumk’u (January 8, A.D. 814) as the day he was enthroned.

If K’an B’ohb’ Tok’ was in fact Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’s successor, then probably he was the one that made the arrangements for his funeral. The finding of Cover of Vault 4 in Room 25 of the Acropolis, whose dedicatory text probably speaks of K’an B’ohb’ Tok’, could be related to the remodelling works undertaken in that sector of the Acropolis at the time the Sak Xok Naah, the building that houses the tomb of his predecessor, was sealed.

Ukit Jol ’Ahkul

He is mentioned twice in the preserved texts:

Ukit Jol Ahkul possibly stands for "the-father-with-the-turtle-head". During the Classic Period, in the context of toponyms and names of individuals, ahk "turtle" is often suffixed with the morpheme –u’l or –ul (a-ku-la, AHK-la, a-ku-lu, AHK-lu), as in the case of Ek’ Balam.³⁹

Ukit Jol Ahkul was king of Ek’ Balam, as is attested by the title K’UH-TAL-AJAW, k’uh[ul] Tal[ol] ajaw  "sacred king of Talol" shown in Column 1. The presence of the k’uhul  "sacred" preceding the Emblem Glyph is significant, should this concurrence allow to derive implications of a political nature.

We ignore when exactly Ukit Jol Ahkul was enthroned, but by means of the date in Column 1, we know for sure that by 10.0.0.0.0  7 Ajaw 18 Sip (March 11, A.D. 830), he was already ruling. In this monument, which probably stood against the surface that covered the Sak Xok Naah where Ukit Kan Le’k’s burial chamber was located (L. Vargas and V. Castillo, personal communication), king Ukit Jol Ahkul was depicted in a seated position, wearing a cloak, and wrapped up with the serpentine body of a supernatural being that emerged from the shell of a sea turtle represented beneath him, whose fauces let out the image of Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’, his predecessor in the throne. This monument, whose significance has already been outlined in the Long Count date it exhibits, one that allows to define a deadline ante quem for Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’s life, is extremely interesting for its iconographic and epigraphic contents, as we have outlined elsewhere in this report.

Because of the dedicatory date recorded, 5 Imix 14 Kumk’u, 2 tuun 5 ajaw, and through what may still be read of the name of the individual who owned this structure, u-ki-ti #-JOL?-##, it is probable that Ukit Jol Ahkul was the lord mentioned in Cover of Vault 10 from Room 38, in 10.0.1.15.1 (January 1, A.D. 832). As Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ had already passed by 10.0.0.0.0, and the date in this Cover of Vault occurs only two years after the dedication of Column 1, the reliable sequence of the text u-ki-ti … could well refer to this monarch. This would imply to admit that during his reign, this sector of the Acropolis underwent architectural interventions.

Another possible reference to king Ukit Jol Ahkul is found in Panel 2 from Ichmul. Ukit Jol Ahkul could be the ballplayer represented at the left, with a nominal clause that shows the sequence u-[B’AH]-hi / #-#-# / [pi]-tzi / u-[ki]-[ti] / #-JOL?-#. The individual exhibits an Emblem Glyph placed at the end of his nominal clause, which, because of its overall disposition, could be that of Ek’ Balam, though this is not evident in the drawing. The verification of such a suggestion awaits the examination of the original monument. The presumed reference to Ukit Jol Ahkul would not contradict the date of the monument, one k’atun 7 Ajaw, corresponding to 10.0.0.0.0, precisely the date recorded in Ek’ Balam’s Column 1, dedicated by him.

… K’uh…nal / K’ihnich Junpik Tok’ K’uh…nal

For the time being, this monarch of Ek’ Balam is known only through one single but particulary important text, Stela 1. The king was portrayed in the front of the monument, with luxury costumes, wearing a mask and a sophisticated headdress, exhibiting the scepter of the K’awiil god in his left hand, and with his right hand possibly executing the chok-ch’aaj ritual on the small altar represented in front of him, on which an offering of hearts or fish can be seen. A glyphic clause engraved in front of his face, with two entire glyphic blocks missing, identifies him as […] […] K’UH-#-NAL, … K’uh…nal. The king exhibits two major titles of political rank: KAL-ma-TE’, Kalo’mte’, opening the nominal clause, and K’UH-[TAL]-lo-AJAW, kuh[ul] Tal[o]l ajaw "sacred king of Talol", as a closure. The stela, dated at the rear with the Initial Series 10.0.10.0.0  6 Ajaw 8 Pop (January 18, A.D. 840), defines the moment when … K’uh…nal is ruling.

Above the image of the king another individual is represented, seated on a celestial band in the shape of a throne, inserted in an ovoidal cartouche, denominated by iconographers as an ancestors cartouche. The individual carries a shield and a ceremonial lance, finished on both sides with three flint leaves. Though eroded, the glyphic clause engraved before him identifies the image, by stating "it is the image of the sacred kalo’mte’, Ukit Kan Le’k". Like his ancestors, king … K’uh…nal also makes a posthumous reference to the first king of Ek’ Balam.

Because of the name’s structure and the similarity of the preserved signs of the name …K’uh…nal, maybe this king is the same lord mentioned on Lintel 1 from Halakal with Ek’ Balam’s Emblem Glyph, towards 10.2.1.0.0 (A.D. 870). This relation has also been outlined by other epigraphists (vid. Vargas et al. 1999; Voss and Eberl 1999, García 2000). The name of this Ek’ Balam ruler mentioned in Halakal is K’IN-ni-chi-I pi-ki-TOK’-K’UH-#-NAL, K’i[h]nich Junpik Tok’ K’uh…nal–David Stuart being the first one to identify this K’ihnich Junpik Tok’ in the texts from Halakal and Chichén Itzá–while he might be once more mentioned in the Hieroglyphic Band of the Red House in Chichén Itzá simply as K’ihnih Junpik Tok’. If … K’uh…nal from Ek’ Balam’s Stela 1 and K’ihnich Junpik Tok’ K’uh…nal from Halakal’s Lintel 1 are one and the same inividual, his reign must have lasted for at least thirty years, which is the temporal distance separating the date 10.0.10.0.0 in Ek’ Balam’s Stela 1, and the reference 10.2.1.0.0 from Halakal.

K’inich, k’in-ich is often translated as "solar-face", from the Yucatecan k’in "Sun" and ich "face". However, we think that as this title is frequently seen in southern Mayan texts with a definite Cholan filiation, the translation, more accurately, could perhaps simply be "solar", from k’in "Sun" and –ich "have the quality of", a well-documented suffix in the Mayan tongues from the lowlands. Søren Wichmann (2000) has recently contributed to the discussion around this title by presenting a second alternative according to which the logogram K’IN would transcribe not only the word k’in "Sun", but also k’i[h]n, with the related meanings of "heat, hot" and "anger, rage, annoyance", well documented in the Ch’orti’ tongues. Considering that the suffix –ich represents the same value of "having the quality of", we would then have that k’ihnich, k’ihn-ich could also mean "hot" and "angry, enraged, furious". Although the three qualifiers of "solar", "hot" and "annoyed, choleric, furious" are epigraphically possible and do make sense, in this case and for the meaning of the name of the Ek’ Balam king, I’m in favor of "angry, choleric, furious". Thus, K’ihnich Junpik Tok’ would translate as "furious-eight-thousand-flints". It would be interesting to point out that the Rabinal Achí documents a qualifier or title oyew, or oyew achi, preceding personal names, with the meaning of "choleric, fierce" (vid. Breton 1999: Note 22, 314, 371-372). The oyew title could be a survival and a literal translation of the classic title k’ihnich, with an identical meaning.

Even though the identity of … K’uh…nal from Ek’ Balam and K’ihnich Junpik Tok’ K’uh…nal is by all means possible, it should not be forgotten that with the evidence available so far it is not possible to make a final assertion. For now, the suggested identity of both characters depends on another character mentioned in Ek’ Balam, Tz’ihb’am Tuun, mentioned in Cover of Vaults 1 and 2 of the site, and associated to the date 10.0.11.11.10 (August 30, A.D. 841), and if he was, or was not, king of Ek’ Balam. If Tz’ihb’am Tuun was in fact a king, his reign would have taken place undoubtedly between the reigns of …K’uh…nal from Stela 1 (10.0.10.0.0) and K’ihnich Junpik Tok’ K’uh…nal from Halakal’s Lintel 1 (10.2.1.0.0).

Endnotes

34. With the purpose of always presenting an homogeneous version of the king’s name, I am preliminarily transcribing the disharmonic sequence le-ku as le ’k (in any case, and concerning the disharmonic pattern e-u, vid. Lacadena and Wichmann, in press). As a convention, in this and other occasions where "flint" appears as tok’, transcription with a short vowel has been made, as a consequence of the lack of epigraphic information on the phonetic realization of the term in the inscriptions from northern Yucatán, where there is not enough information on final phonetic complementation or pure syllabic compositions. In the southern lowlands and in the Cholan context, "flint" was probably too’k’ (Lacadena and Wichmann, in press).

35. Man is probably the place where Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ was born. Although the location has not been identified so far with any particular village, Man, in the form of Maní, is present in other toponyms from the northern Yucatán peninsula. Probably Man was a small locality within Ek’ Balam’s territory, but not the capital itself.

36. Ek’ Balam provides epigraphic evidence to state that logogram FIRE•KIB’ is finished with an /l/, due to the complementary patterns present: FIRE•KIB’, FIRE•KIB’-ja and FIRE•KIB-la-ja. The absence of FIRE in the example of the mural from Room 22 would reinforce the notion that ’fire’ in such cases is an optional semantic determinative.

37. The occurrance of K’uh, the God C, as an acting entity in the appellative Sayaw Chan K’uh in relation with the other celestial gods, is extremely interesting.

38. Nikolai Grube (personal communication) notes that among the cruzo ’ob’ from Quintana Roo there is a beast or imaginary monster known as b’óob’ which is said to devour merchants. No doubt, this monster has something to do the Ch’orti’ meaning of "fox, coyote" and of "a beast like a lion" of the Itzaj.

39. The glyphic sequence u-ki-ti jo-lo-a-ku is seen jointly with the name of Ukit Kan Le’k in the Mural of the 96 Glyphs. Even though the similarity between this form in the Mural and the king’s name is evident, it still remains unclear whether reference is made to him or not, as it could be a nickname for Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’, later adopted by Ukit Jol Ahkul. In any case, if the optional chronology situating the Mural of the 96 Glyphs in a later Calendar Round is adopted, both characters would result to be one and the same person.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page