The Glyphic Corpus from Ek’ Balam, Yucatán, México

Comments on Mural A or Mural of the 96 Glyphs: Implications for the Dynastic History of Ek’ Balam

The attempt to define a dynastic history for Ek’ Balam at this time would by all means be premature. In spite of the fact that the number and significance of the texts recovered in the past few years through the works accomplished by Archaeologists Leticia Vargas, Víctor Castillo and their team is truly relevant, the unfinished excavation of the Acropolis (only half of its surface has been excavated so far) and of the two other major structures that flank the central plaza east and west, anticipate the finding of new texts, something that undoubtedly will take place along the coming seasons. Some of these future texts, with their dates and names, may contradict what I am about to suggest here. Nontheless, I shall risk a few interpretations that the existing material seems to support, or at least not to contradict, a number of hypothesis presented like preliminary answers to the many questions raised by the epigraphic materials recovered in Ek’ Balam. The wrong appreciations and inexactnesses shall be corrected in the future.

For reconstructing the dynastic history of Ek’ Balam, it is necessary to talk about the Mural of the 96 Glyphs. According to the chronology applied so far (vid. supra), with the dates 9.16.19.3.12  11 Eb’ 10 Sotz’ (April 7, A.D. 770) and 9.16.19.6.1  8 Imix 19 Xul (May 26, A.D. 770) this is the first dated text from Ek’ Balam, and the first to mention king Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’. The Mural of the 96 Glyphs is original, in different ways. The format in horizontal lines, the extraordinary quality of its calligraphy, the probable coincidence of the 96 tablets with the well-known panel from Palenque, are all very special traits. Unfortunately, the content of the text, for the most part, remains obscure. Some components that are crucial for the understanding of certain relations present undeciphered signs that prevent their reading and translation; unusual verbal forms or remarkably polysemic forms do not allow to identify the event they were referring to; in some other cases, in spite of the transparent transliterations, the transcription is equivocal or the final meaning remains elusive. However, the relevance of the text is attested, the recorded events were significant, and the kings of Ek’ Balam acknowledged this fact through at least two additional entries to the compound, to add new glyphic murals below the existing one.

The first intriguing fact in the Mural of the 96 Glyphs, is the association of a date 11 Eb’ with an arrival ([hu]-[li]), considering that one of the most relevant events in the history of the lowland Mayas during the Classic Period is also associated to a date 11 Eb’ and to an arrival, that of the Teotihuacáns, in Central Petén (Stuart 2000; vid. Martin and Grube 2000).

Following this event, we have a completely lost tablet and an expression [ta?]-EK’-b’a-la-ma, Ek’ B’a[h]lam or Ek’ B’aalam. I have interpreted this as a toponym, due to the possible presence of the preceding preposition ta "to, in" and the syntactic situation in the entire phrase. The meaning of the glyph that comes after, IV-tzi-ma-hi, Chan Tzimaah is enigmatic (the literal translation in Cholan would be "four squashes"–does not seem to be the name of a person, but rather to be somehow connected to Ek’ B’ahlam, given that it is mentioned once more in T3 possessed by the pronoun u-). Then there’s an expression indicating that Ek’ B’ahlam Chan Tzimaah is the u-b’a-tz’a-ma of an individual. It may well be a form possessed by u-, the ergative pronoun of the third person singular before a consonant. But then, what is b’a-tz’a-ma? I have not found a single satisfactory entry for a possible b’atz’am or b’a[h]tz’am. However, it could reflect the form b’aah tz’am, "head/first throne, seat". If so, Chan Tzimaah or otherwise Ek’ B’ahlam (or both, Ek’ B’ahlam, Chan Tzimaah), the place of arrival, is being described as the b’aah tz’am "head/first throne" of an individual.

This character, whom I consider the subject of the verb huli, he who arrives, is called Chak Jutuuw Chan Ek’, and is the leading character in this first part of the text. This lord is of the outmost political relevance, inasmuch as he displays the highest possible titles for a Maya ruler of the Classic Period: k’uhul ajaw "sacred king", Xaman kalo’mte’  "Northern Kalo’mte’", B’aah Kab’  "Prince of the Earth". The combination of "northern" xaman and the Kalo’mte’ title is interesting, as it closes the series of the Kalo’mte’  title associated to the cardinal points: Ochk’in Kalo’mte’, Elk’in Kalo’mte’, Noho’l Kalo’mte’. A recent identification of the variant Xaman Kalo’mte’ in Altar 1 from Ixlú (S. Guenter, personal communication, July 2002), confirms that this title is not of an occasional nature.

King Chak Jutuuw Chan Ek’ is related to Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ from Ek’ Balam through the relational glyph u-RABBIT-ka-ja, whose reading, unfortunately, is still uncertain. The expression possibly reflects a noun possessed by u-. This possessed noun is probably a substantive derived, through suffix –aj from the verb documented as RABBIT-ka-ja in the Panel of Brussels, with a probable root CVk.

In tablet T, following the name and titles of Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’, a new phrase probably begins; if we take u-tz’i-b’a as a verb, then maybe utz’i[h]b’a "has written it". Next comes a name, the subject of utz’ihb’a, called Uchaahkil K’in O’ Chaahk, Ajchan B’aak "the one of the four captives".

After tablet X and up to the end of the line, the structure of the text is lost: perhaps a new verb, tu-ta-ji, tutaaj, of an unknown meaning in this context–other southern examples indicate that tut could stand for "to cover", "to renovate a house", and maybe this is the case at this time–is found in tablet X, then maybe a name, the title ch’ok, perhaps a new verbal form in tz’a-pa-ta-na…

In the second line, a sequence of forty-nine tzolk’in days begins, counted as of 11 Eb’. It begins with 12 B’en, 13 Hix, and continues through the end of the line, which concludes with 3 Ak’b’al, 4 K’an, to continue then in line three with 5 Chikchan, 6 Kimi, until in tablet Q we come to 8 Imix, whose 19 Xul, the corresponding haab’ is expressed in tablet R. This new date, 8 Imix 19 Xul corresponds to 9.16.19.6.1 (May 26, A.D. 770).

Immediately after, in tablet S, we may see the verbal expression associated with this new Calendar Round. The expression, although with a transparent transliteration, ta-k’a-ni-ti, poses problems for transcription and even more, for analysis and translation. The transcription problems derive from the two possible alternatives it features: the first one has to do with considering that the verbal form is ta-k’a-ni, tak’aan or tak’ni and that ti transcribes the preposition ti, in relation to the following expression, u-IV-tzi-ma-hi; the other one has to do with considering that ta-k’a-ni-ti constitutes one single word, whereafter the verbal expression would be tak’aanti. Other problems arise when we try to clarify the meaning of the expression, due to the huge polysemy that the verbal root tak’ presents in the lowland Mayan languages. Even though excluding, because of its unlikelyness, the meanings of "to mature", "to cook", "the creature to be conceived in a woman’s womb", and "to revel, to have sexual intercourse", tak’ still features the following meanings, all of them, so far, valid for the text:

• tak’  "to stick, to place on a wall, to lean on" (CHN täq’ue’  "to stick" (Séller and Luciano 1997: 232), täc’a "tied to, perched", täc’äm "sticky" (ibid.: 230); CHR tak’  "to stick with glue" (Pérez et al. 1996: 196), tak’b’u "to stick (with glue), to stick (to put) on the wall", (ibid.); COLYU tak’  "to stick paper, clay, and similar things to a wall, to stick with paste, to stick, to affix" (Barrera 1980: 762); YUC taak’  "to stick, to glue, to affix, to assemble, to attach" (Bastarrachea et al. 1992: 119); ITZ täk’  "pegar/stick" (Hofling and Tesucún 1997: 581), tak’al "pegado/stuck, leaning against" (ibid.: 574); MOP täk’ik "to stick it, to attach it" (Schumann 1997: 279)). This meaning for tak’ is interesting, inasmuch as it could be referring to the dedication of the Mural of the 96 Glyphs, when it is "stuck", "attached to" or "placed against the wall" in Room 29-sub. In this case, the verb tak’ would be identical to the one S. Houston identified in the Madrid Codex.

• tak’  "younger brother" (COLYU tak’  "brother or sister that follow another one", "brother that comes next", "brother or sister born next" (Barrera 1980: 761); CHR tak’  "younger brother" (Pérez et al. 1996: 196)). This meaning for tak’, maybe in the inchoative form tak’aan or tak’ni that may be translated as "he became a younger brother", poses interesting questions on the presumed accomplishment of some type of ritual designed perhaps for the kinship association of the actors involved.

• tak’  "to join, to become a participant, to become a companion" (COLYU "to adhere to, to come close, to become a participant, a companion" (Barrera 1980: 762). CHN täq’ue’  "to connect, to unite" (Keller and Luciano 1997: 232)). As previously, in this case tak’ would also suggest the accomplishment of certain rituals aimed at some type of association between the characters involved.

• tak’  "to light (a fire)" (CHR tak’ar "lit (the fire)" (Pérez et al. 1996: 196); tak’res "to light (the fire)" (ibid.: 197)–possible cognates in the other languages like "to roast, to cook"). The reference to a ritual involving lighting a fire would not be rare, considering that this kind of ceremony is well documented in the Classic Maya Period, not only in relation to building dedications but also to other types of ceremonies.

• tak’  "to preach, to encourage" (CHNAC tak-an, "to preach, to encourage" (Smailus 1975: 169)). This meaning for tak’ should not be disregarded, as the event recorded in this expression might very well describe such an activity, with sermons and exhortations.

On the other hand, should the verbal sequence be ta-k’a-ni-ti, tak’aanti, the possible morphological analysis thereof would point to the Chontal, where the analysis tak’-aant-i or tak’-a-ant-i would make sense. In this case, and in addition to other textual evidences, tak’ or tak’a would need to be placed in relation with the verb tak’-a-n documented in the Chontal from Acalan in the sense of "preaching, encouraging" (Smailus 1975: 169), the last meaning we have seen. In turn, the suffix –Vnt- is documented in Chontal as the passive suffix of transitive verbs of no-CVC; -i would then mark the completive. The form would then be passive (consistent with suffixing the third person absolutive pronoun –ø), "was preached", "was encouraged". The Papers of Paxbolón (Smailus 1975: 109) present a similar passive form (in the optative though): takanticob –tak’-ant-ik-ob’, in modern graphs– "were preached", "so that they were preached". In spite of the subjective nature of this solution, there is no reason whatsoever to justify the presence of the western Cholan morphology in this text. Nevertheless, tak’  "to exhort", "to preach" might be a valid entry for the root, even when we consider that the form is tak’-aan and ti the preposition ti.

In all cases, I am taking the expression u-IV-tzi-ma-hi as the name of the place where the event takes place, perhaps this Room 29-sub, this sector of the Acropolis or the entire Acropolis. It is an expression identical to the one found before the name of Ek’ B’ahlam at the beginning of the text, only that in this case it is possessed by the pronoun u-.

Next, the text tells us about the actors that are participating or attending the event described by tak’, whichever this may be. Following the expression yi-ta-ji, yitaaj, maybe translatable as "in the company of, with" or "he has accompanied him", we have on the one side AJ-IV-na-b’a-ki, Ajchan B’aak, and on the other MAMIF-AJAW-wa, … ajaw. Ajchan B’aak "the one of the four captives", is the title the character called Uchaahkil K’in O’ Chaahk displays in the first line of the text; in turn, … ajaw  "king of …" is the Emblem Glyph of Chak Jutuuw Chan Ek’, the visiting king. Then, and following the expression of agency u-526-ji-ya, we have the name of Ukit Kan Le’k, followed by the titles of Sayaw Chan K’uh, I?-b’a-227, STRING-i-tz’i, K’ahk’ Okxam, Ajman and Ocho’m –the title K’ahk’ Okxam was already present in line one associated with Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’; the titles Sayaw Chan K’uh, I?-b’a-227, STRING-i-tz’i, Ajman and Ocho’m will be seen together with the name of Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ in Mural C of Room 29-sub and in Miscellaneous Text 5;–these titles are followed by the sequence u-ki-ti jo-lo-a-ku, Ukit Jol A[h]ku[l]; the expression u-K’AB’A’-a, uk’ab’a  "this is his name" closes the whole.

In this text, the presence of u-ki-ti jo-lo-a-ku is highly confusing. This name is similar to u-ki-ti JOL-a-ku-lu?, Ukit Jol A[h]kul, which belongs to one of the successors of Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’. Again, there is a number of different possibilities: (1) the long sequence of name and titles correspond to one single individual, Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’; then, Ukit Jol Ahku[l], is one of the nicknames of Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’, a nickname adopted later by king Ukit Jol Ahkul when he accessed the throne; (2) the sequence of names and titles refers to two individuals, Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’, who owns the whole of the titles, and Ukit Jol Ahkul, his successor.

At the end of the line and closing the text, in tablets E’3-F’3, there is an interesting phrase which poses no translation problems: i-PAT-la-ja TAL-[lo]-[AJAW]-wa, i patlaj Talol ajaw "then he became the king of Talol". After so many uncertainties, this sentence brings us back to the primary sense of the text, to the culmination of the entire preceding account: the commemoration of an accession to the throne of one of the kings of Ek’ Balam.

But, whose accession? Who became king of Talol at that time? According to the first outline of the dates considered that place the Calendar Rounds 11 Eb’ 10 Sotz’ and 8 Imix 14 Xul in 9.16.19.3.12 and 9.16.19.6.1 respectively, this text would fall in the beginning of Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’s reign–all dates from the remaining monuments of the site that refer to him are subsequent,–and would thus narrate his own access to the throne. Considering the alternative Long Counts of 9.19.11.16.12 and 9.19.12.1.1, it would result that the text corresponds exactly to the end of Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’s reign. Thus, Ukit Jol A[h]ku[l] would be the name of his successor, as in Column 1, we learn that he is undoubtedly ruling in 10.0.0.0.0 (A.D. 830); should this alternative interpretation be correct, we would have that the king of Talol enthroned was Ukit Jol Ahkul, so that probably Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’, even being alive, had abdicated in his favor or had somehow associated him to the throne.

In either case, king Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’s accession to the throne should have taken place under the auspices of Chak Jutuuw Chan Ek’, "sacred king", "the northern Kalo’mte’, "Head/Prince of the Earth". This is an important piece of information that situates the kingdom of Ek’ Balam in the period when the Mural of the 96 Glyphs was created, under the political protection of a different kingdom.

Even though the second alternative mentioned is certainly possible and would be supported by the appearance of the name u-ki-ti jo-lo-a-ku, I’m in favor, after the information available at this time, of the first solution, the one considering that the dates from the Mural of the 96 Glyphs are 9.16.19.3.12  11 Eb’ 10 Sotz’ (April 7, A.D. 770) and 9.16.19.6.1  8 Imix 19 Xul (May 26, A.D. 770), and therefore, considering that the text is an account of Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’s accession to the throne. The following arguments support this option:

• As we have already pointed out, the archaeological sequence suggests that Room 45 was built after Room 29-sub. Cover of Vault 14, associated with Room 45, is dated 9.17.10.7.17   13 Kab’an 0 Xul (May 4, A.D. 781). There’s no way this date could be delayed one full Calendar Round, because it would reach beyond the limits outlined by the date 10.0.0.0.0 in Column 1 for Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’s life extension.

• Among the many titles that Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ is given throughout the text in the Mural of the 96 Glyphs, none corresponds to that of "king" or "sacred king". Perhaps he was not ruling at that time maybe because, as specified at the end of the text, i patlaj Tal[o]l ajaw "then he became the king of Talol".

• It would seem that since or around 9.18.0.0.0, the scribes of the sites deliberately attempted to present historic events with a greater chronological precision. The earlier dates for Ek’ Balam corresponding to the 9.17.0.0.0 k’atun are indicated only by a Calendar Round (CV7, CV14, CV6, Mural from Room 22). After the 18 k’atun, when Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ became fifty-two years old or shortly after–he has been ruling throughout an entire k’atun–the dates from Ek’ Balam begin to combine with the Short Count (CV18, CV19), and it is by then or even later when the Initial Series appear. Precisely, the Mural of the 96 Glyphs shows only dates of Calendar Rounds, indicating they belonged to an early period.

Besides, there are other elements that seem to suggest that perhaps we are witnessing something more than a king’s accession to the throne. The hypothesis being considered is that Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ was the first king of his dynasty, and maybe the first king following the foundation of Ek’ Balam as a kingdom. This does not mean that as a city Ek’ Balam was founded at that time. There is archaeological proof regarding the antiquity of the settlement. Probably, Ek’ Balam was a settlement within a larger political unit, that of king Chak Jutuuw Chan Ek’;—was his b’aah tz’am "head/first throne", one of his political capitals? When considering this interpretation, a number of facts begin to be better accounted for and understood:

• Even though Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’s mother, the "queen of …Ho’ " undoubtedly comes from a royal lineage, we are not positive this was the case with his father. As mentioned earlier in this report, if Ukit HEAD-## from the Mural in Room 22 is the same individual as Ukit Ahkan from Miscellaneous Text 7, the owner of the carved thigh-bone relic, then the father of Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ would not have been a king but an ajk’uh, a priest.

• The events of arrival (huli) in the Maya area are sometimes associated, like in Mesoamerica, to dynastic foundations or re-foundations, as documented in Tikal and Copán. In the case of Ek’ Balam, the election of the date 11 Eb’ 10 Sotz’ perhaps was not accidental, and instead, the connection with Siyal K’ahk’s famous arrival to Tikal in 11 Eb’ 15 Mak was being sought.

• When Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ accessed power, Ek’ Balam was a modest settlement. The monumental public center did not exist with the architectural volume we are now familiar with. The Acropolis itself was a much smaller building, half its height and narrower in two-thirds than the sophisticated building presently at sight. The uninterrumped works for remodelling and building the Acropolis were initiated precisely after Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ accessed power, presumably when Structure 1 was transformed into the Royal Palace of an undoubtedly dynamic ruler.

• All other kings from Ek’ Balam that we know of mention Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ in their texts, posthumously. The image of Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’, as presented by his successors is that of a royal founder: K’an B’ohb’ Tok’, probably his direct successor, re-enters Room 29-sub and places below the Mural of the 96 Glyphs a new hieroglyphic mural with an identical format, reproducing the discursive scheme with his own arrival in the site and that of king Chak Jutuuw Chan Ek’, involved in Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’s accession forty-four years before; he is given a tomb never seen before north of Calakmul, and the building that contains his burial chamber is ritually buried (Vargas and Castillo 2000); Ukit Jol Ahkul will honor him after his death by dedicating a funerary monument, the sak ahk b’aal tuun, placed in front of his sealed tomb; another king, … K’uh…nal, will portray him in his own stela, seated on a celestial throne as a deified ancestor. In a way, Ukit Kan Le’k Tok’ is present in his successors’ monuments in the same way that the dynastic founders Yax Ehb’ Xook appears in the Tikal monuments, or K’ihnich Yax K’uk’ Mo’ in Copán’s.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page