Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Of Gods Glyphs and Kings Divinity and Ru

    Uploaded by

    Angel Sánchez
    8 views24 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views24 pages

    Of Gods Glyphs and Kings Divinity and Ru

    Uploaded by

    Angel Sánchez

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 24
    Of gods, glyphs and kings: divinity and rulership among the Classic Maya STEPHEN HOUSTON & DaviD STUART* The Aymquity prize-winning article in the last volume addressed writing, its varying rature and role in early states, Now that the decipherment of Maya writing is well ‘advanced, we can know more of the records of kingship. From them we may discern the comeepts and beliefs that defined the authority of these holy lords, as we seek the source of the power of rulers like ‘Sun-faced Snake Jaguar’. “the mere fact of royal divinity was nat so impor tant asthe relations which lve king formed with other gods and men, and the contexts ia which he was able te assert his divinity’. (Buxcharr 1987: 237) New hieroglyphic decipherments now allow us to address sovoral fundamental questions about the conceptual and religious undorpin- ings of Maya rulership, We can now explore the Maya concepts of relationships between doities and kings. Of particular interest are the ritual expressions of these relationships in the political and social arenes of various kingdoms. We can also attempt to delineate how relations botween royalty and divinity chenged over time in the Maye ares, most notably afier the fall of numerous kingdoms at the dawn of the Post- classic eva ‘The implications of these issues reach far beyond the Maya region. Scholars studying cultures from Ancient Egypt to China have confronted the question: how can rulers em- body characteristics of both the hurtan and the divine? Comparative studies show this ques- tion to be relevant to many traditional systems of authority, since rulers may tend to connect themselves with an immutable, divine order “which transcends mere [human] experience and sction’ (Bloch 1987: 272). Tho power and mys- \exy of divinity provides the ultimate sanction of worldly authority, There is, however, an apparent difficulty with attributing godhood to human rulers, namely, the fact thet rulers are observed by their subjects to undergo the same processes as commoners do, Rulers are bom, they live and dic, demonstrating muta bility and frallty as they do so, Some scholars have suggested that rulers may seek identifi- cation with the divino precisely because of their mortality and evident human weakness (O'Gon- not & Silverman 1995a: xxiii), And yet, despite what many researchers consider to be the paradox of the concept of divine buinans, cultures ruled by such hybrid divinities do not seem to find any inherent contradiction in it, As this article will make clear, a lerge part of the ‘paradox’ is created by scholarly preconceptions of what ‘god’ is. The Western concept of a god as one who is all- powerful, without faults, whose existence is not marked by either birth or death, is at times indiscriminately applied to other culturos, In abelief system where gods or supernaturals aro born and can die, are changeable and even ca- pricious, and have their own vulnorebilities, itis less necessary for a ruler to explain away these qualities in him- or herself. Jn 49th-contury Fiji, the ‘stranger king” and his family were establishod as boings that were ontologally ond historically separate from their subjocts. Rulers did not ‘spring from the same clay as (their) people’ (Sehlins 1981: 112). In other parts of Polynesia, rulers were likened to sharks travelling on land, rapacious, unpre- dictable, wholly foreign in origin — danger- * Stophon D. Houston, Departnent of Anthropology, igham Young University, Provo UT 84602-5522, USA. David Stuart Peabody Museum, Hi eed University, Cambridge MA 02128, USA Received 6 Jone 1995, accepted 3 September 1895, revised 2 December 1095, ‘Asmiquiry 70 (1996): 280-012 0 STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART as (Seblins 1981: 112). In avery different place ‘ad time, legal theorists in Tudor England found ttuseful to distinguish between the king’s body tatural’ and bis 'body politic’, the domain of ‘cer- ‘ain truly mysterious forces (which) reduce, or even remove, the imperfections of... fragile human. ature’ (Kantorowicz 1957: 9). These societies Jamed authority in terms of mystical andl reli- lous forces, vested in a king ‘who reigns not by force, still less by illusion, but by supernatural powers... . [within] ... him’ (Kertzer 1988: 82) ‘Throughout the world’s history, culturally accepted linkages between rulers and the su- pernaturel fall nto recognizable patterns, dom- onstrating the ease with which such associations could be made in # context of appropriate bo- liefs and values. Cross-culturally, arrogating divinity and its attributes directly to the ruler ‘occurs in three typical ways, 1 The ruler claims to be divine, in direct de scent from other divinities, or receives divine honours after death (Price 1987: 104). 2 Thoruleriis rhetorically described in terms ‘of qualities and ‘epithets appropriate toa deity’, although remaining recognizably distinct from a true god (Moertono 1988: 43-4; Liebeschuetz 1979: 238). Sactality may hinge then on the possession of le- gitimating icons, such as the roya) drum ofthe Ankole kingdom in East Africa, the ‘magical pusake, ‘holy relies of inheritance’, of 18th-century Java or the ting tripods of early China (Moertono 1968: 65; Pemberton 1994: 32; Ferrie 1995: 317), Alternatively, sacrality may connect with an auraof'dan- gerous, sacred force’ emanating from ro ally: the dau restrictions surrounding traditional Hawai'ian élites or prohibi- tions regarding the imperial person in 47th-century Japan exemplify this force (Kertzer 1988: 46-7), 3 The ruler achieves divine status only on a, through the ritual summons of ike forces which he appropriates for ‘himself (Hocart 1970: 82—3). By this form of possession, godly words form on a rul- or's tongue. His statements pass into the realm of unexamined, unquestioned truth, and his body becomes, as in ancient Egypt, ‘suffused with the same divinity manifest in his office and the gods themselves’ {O'Connor & Silverman 1995: xxv]. OF GODS, GLYPE Another mode of relating kings to divinity involves less the practice of sharing in divin- ity — the three customs outlined above — as fulfilling a central role in communications be tween gods, humans and, frequently, royal an- cestors, who operate as crucial intermediaries |Further, lords may im (Bendix 1978: 38; Keightley 1978: 212-13). To ‘validate coremoniss ( the ruler goes the important task of interpret- joften through god effi ing divine will and controlling ‘human ap- |that may be paraded cet proaches to the divine and the communication |invocation of divinity (of gods to men’ (Beard 1990: 90; see elso Moer- liken royal lives to the tomo 1968: 40-41). Contrast with this situation ‘by gods. Implicit here the case of Classical Athens, where religious ‘remote events and he functions took place on many different levels, repetition of such pat involving people of varying status (Garland 1990: Mesoamerica, Nicho| 90), Perhaps the unique characteristic of royal |‘pattern history’, fou: interpretation of divine will fs its applicabil- currence: as calendar ty to all subjects ina polity. Finally, 2 divine mutations of these cycl ruler’s human qualities, particularly his mor-jlike-in-kind repetitic tality, may be cast in such a way as to exem- /historical events. plify larger, cosmic cycles or patterns. In this) The artistic and di manner the symbolic attributes of the ruler jthe Classic Maya om) negate common, human ones, or at leas alevate /for linking rulers with them to another dimension of meaning (Feeley-|froquont use of the e> Harnik 1985: 281-2). To quote Bagehot, ‘a/or‘divine lord’, In ritu: princely merriage is the brillient edition of a impersonate’ gods b ‘universal fact, and, as such, itrivets mankind’ masks, clothing and ¢ (cited in Cannadine 1987: 7). sts may also appear ir Royal divinity can also be reinforced by myth as actual witnesses 0. and ritual. To those who believe, myths pro- as effigies of wood, vide incontrovertible, narrative rationales for documenting these ™m why things exist in the way that they do. Arule, however, we mu subset of myths includes royal charters, stories nature of ‘gods’ in Cl that justify or explain regal behaviour. Simi-american belief. larly, as ‘highly structured, standardized ch to divinity, or do so rh like titles end demand Idue to gods. They m: intermittently, employ lbehaviours to summon juencos’, rituals often engage distant events,,the nature of Maya gc forces, ot beings at are described in myth orfincient Maya sourese charters and make them tangible and potent intions and mentions ofs: the present (Kertzer 1988: 9). The parading ofpf which are common god effigies — seen extravagantly in ancientflents of Mesoamerica Egyptian processionals (Kemp 1989: 205) orWword is k'u or chu, t Sumerian Gottermeisen (Sjoberg 1957~1971: 481)Hependent on the part — underscores royal protensions of affinity withhe Yucatecan or Gros the gods. To spectators, the gods concretely andBut ‘god" is not alway visibly participate in the ruler's ceremonies. Infion.K'v or ch'u— whic much the same way, Mesopotamian rulers boast} ‘sacred entity’ when of ‘housing’ gods in sumptuous dwellings andpr ch’! (as in k'ul ahas enjoy, particularly in the late Srd millonniumbeaning of ‘holy, sact 1c, the role of physical proxy in the marriagestautions, we retain the of gods (Botiéro 1992: 225-6). Broadly speaking, then, there exists consid Ei notations orable variety in royal identifications or interior eral sive tonccee ventions with gods, Rulers may lay direct claimfevig in Classe Mayan For glyphic notation (OF GODS, GLYPHS AND KINGS: DIVINITY AND RULERSHIP AMONG THE CLASSIC MAYA | 1g kings to divinity |to divinity, or do so rhetorically by using god- BE sharing in divin- /like titles and demanding the ritual veneration tulined above — a8 }due to gods. They may possess divine force ‘ommunications be- 'kntesmittently, employing godly costumes and fequently, royal an- [behaviours to summon supernatural presences. jeial intermediasies [Further, lords may invite gods to witness and 1978: 212-13). To [validate ceremonies (Licboschuetz 1979: 43), at task of interpret- often through god effigies or physical proxies rolling ‘human @p- /that may be paraded ceremonially. A more subtle the communication} invocation of divinity consists of stories that 0:30; s00 also Moer | liken royal lives to tho immutable patterns set st with this situation, by gods. Implicit here is not only the notion of ins, whero roligious| remote ovents and beings, but the continual any different levels, repetition of such patterns in later times. For status (Garland 1990; Mesosmerica, Nicholson (19712) calls this Saracleristic of royal, ‘patton history’, founded on the idea of re- sill is its applicabil’ currence: as calendar cycles, or certain per ity, Finally, a divine) mutetions ofthese cycles, epeat, they produce verticularly his mor-|like-in-kind repetitions of mythological or ha way as to exem-jhistoricel events, s patterns. In this’ The artistic and documentary sources of tos of the ruler! the Classic Maya employ all these methods jes, orat least elevate for linking rulers with the divine. Kings make ofmeaning Feeley-|frequent use of the explicit title k'ul chav! > quote Bagehot, “a or ‘divine lord’ In rituals, lords also frequently brilliant edition of a/‘impersonate’ gods by the wearing of deity 4h, itrivets mankind’ masks, clothing and emament. Gods or spiz- 2 its may also appear in ceremonial situations boroinforcedby myth as actual witnesses or participants, perhaps ‘believe, myths pro{as effigies of wood, stucco, or stone. Before trative rationales for\documenting these manifestations of divine ‘way that they do. Alrule, however, we must address the complex royal charters, stories nature of ‘gods’ in Classic Maya and Meso- gal bebaviour. SimiJamerican belief, ed, standardized se ‘goge distant ovonts|The nature of Maya gods deseribed in myth ofAncient Maya sources are replete with depic- fangible and potent inftfons and montions of supernatural beings, most 3:8). The pazading ofpf which ere commonly called ‘gods’ by stu avagantly in ancien{dents of Mesoamerican religion, The Mayan {Kemp 1989: 205) ofvrord is k'u or cl'u, the pronunciation being berg 1957-1971: 481 dependent on the particular language, be it of -ssions of affinity witithe Yucatecan or Greater Tzeltalan branches. tegods concretely anq8ut ‘god’ is not elways a satisfactory transla- rule's ceremonies. bfion. K'u or ch’u—which more accurately means ;potamian rulers boash ‘sacred entity’ when used as an adjective k’'ul ptuous dwellings anpr ch’u! (as in K'ul chav, holy lord’) —has the Plate rd millenniusdmeaning of ‘boly, sacred, divine’. With these yy in the marriagePautions, weretain the term ‘god’ for most major bo} Fo sf F5 goableaoaton we wea eysem advocate by 1, there exists Const saorge Ste for is Research Reporte serie bold ind lentifications or inte ates ie gygh ensipunn, fle oe rahe oe tory lay chioet cali In ee hapa 201 deities while recognizing its limitations and understanding that not all supernatural enti- ties can be grouped under a single, inclusive term. Partly in reaction to Schellhas’ compilation of Maya divinities (1904), Tatiana Proskouriakoff and others (Proskouriakoff 1965: 470-71; 1978: 113, 116-17; Marcus 1978) make four, related assertions: that the idea of ‘gods’ results from the spurious application of Old World paral- els (Marcus 1978: 180: Proskouriakoff 1978: 1113; Marcus 1983: 345, 349, 951; Marcus & Fiaie nery 1994: 57); that the concept pertains only to. fow, late periods in Mesoamerican antiq- nity, especielly those at a state or imperial level of political organization (Kubler 1969: 32; Grove 1987: 426; Marcus 1992: 270-71); that the no- tion of a ‘god! inherently distorts nuances of indigenous belief (Beals 1945: 85; Marcus 1986: 150-52); and that most ‘gods’ in Mesoamerica represent euhiemerized ancostors(Proskouriakof® 1978: 116-17), Rather than devising a pantheon, a roster of gods organized into a family on & Greco-Roman model, ancient Mesoamoricans categorized and worshipped vital, impersonal forces of ature. Those forces embodied essences that animated all (or most) things in nature and incorporated the powerful, intercessionary spirits of ancestors (Spores 1984: 85). There is some merit to such views, and the critics are ‘correct in questioning indiscriminate use of the term ‘god ‘To illustrate the complexities, we can point oan important category of supematurals known ‘as wayod (singular way), the ‘animal compan- {on spirits’ that helped constitute the psycho- logical and spiritual make-up of Mays lords, rulers and places (Houston & Stuart 1989; Grube & Nahm 1984). Among modern native Meso- americans, these entities are often célled na- gucles, and remain an essential aspect of native ‘Mesoamerican spirituality. They are consistently ‘viewed as an aspect of the human soul, some- times wandering at night from theit sleeping hosts. This connexion is no doubt reflected in the alternate meaning of way as the verb ‘to dream’. In their depictions in Classic Maya art, ‘usually on tho exteriors of polychrome drink: ing vessels, wayob are shown as animal com- posites ores animals with unusual behavioural or bodily attributes. They are also explicitly inked with poople. These depictions. then, are of ancient royal souls. or parts of these sous, 202 FicuRe 1. Glyphs for ku, ‘god’ a The God C’ head. bts common abbreviation. and constitute an important key in the study of ancient Maya religion. Significantly, the way entities seem separate fromt the notions of K’u ‘or ch’u, and we prefer not to call them ‘gods’ This, atleast, isa distinction the Maye were apparently careful to make, Ch is the foundation of the word ch’ulel, which appears in Chol Mayan and the Greater ‘Tzoltalan languages with the meaning like ‘v- tality’, but perhaps more literally ‘holiness’ (the term is composed of ch’ and tho abstractive suftix-lel). Widely translated as ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’, Stmore correctly refers to the vital force or power that inhabits the blood and energizes people and a variety of objects of ritual and everyday life (Vogt 1969: 369-71). This general Maya conception is essentially identical to concep- tions of divinity found elsewhere in Meso- america. The Classical Nahuatl word teot, also widoly translated as ‘god’, is more appropri- ately waderstood as ‘a numinous, impersonal force diffused throughout the universe’ (Towns end 1979; 28; soe also Hvidtfeldt 1958). Burkhart (2988: 37) aptly classifies this system of bolief as ‘polytheist monism .... (a) divine principle manifested . . . in multiple forms, some am- bivalent, some expressing opposite principlos in their difforent manifestations’. Ethnographic research among Misterspeaking peoples in Mesoamerica confirms the durability of this concept: poten? forces, some linked to the earth, others to wind, water and the sky, present differont faces or aspects for human apprehension ohn Monaghan pers. comm.) Humans receive only partial glimpses ofa di vine totality, often in manifestations we call ‘gods’ (Townsend 1979: 28) Not surprisingly; them, it is difficult to de- velop an inclusive and satisfactory definition for Maya ‘gods’. They may assume special hu- man of animal forms (often both), aid embody certain specific natural forces, such as light- ning, wind, or the essence of maize (Taube 1985; ‘STEPH HOUSTON & DAVID STUART. 19928). Other, more specialized supernatucals seem to be narrowly conceived in connexion with specific places or socio-political entities. ‘The Maya situation is similar iz many respocts to thet which Nicholson (1971b) has described among the Aztec, where we find hierarchical categories of supernatural figures, each with diverse ‘aspocts’ exd sometimes overlapping attributes. According to extant fragments of Classic period mythology, some supernaturals have birth-datos and named parents (Berlin 1983; Kelley 1965). Also, many Maya gods ex {sted in two ot more planes, living within sa cred narratives far-temoved froma the present world as well as participating directly in the ritual activities of humans. As Michael Cos (4973: 22) and others suggest, sacted narratives not only worked to explain the patterning o| natural events, but could establish charters for uman, usually toyel, bohaviour. As actors ane participants in rituals, gods could interact with powerful humsrs in an almost routine man ner. Interestingly, many of these basic feature of native religion survived the European con quest, and remain prevalent iz Mesoameric: to the present day (Gossen 1986). In regionalized incarnations, Mesoamerica: ods enjoyed tutelary relationships with per ticular socio-political groups (Lockhart 1892 16), with whom they had an almost contrac tual relationship of quid pro quo transaction (Thompson 1970: 170). Nobility was define in pact through ils direct association with par tloular gods. Crucial titles of rulership, as tt Chalco, Mexico, involved the concept of ‘god possessor lord’, perhaps reflecting an earlis tion oflors as carriers of god effigies (Schroede 1901: 122-3, 142, 172-4). Similar evidence a ‘pears in the Mixtec region of Mexico (john Mone ghan pers. comm). Below we demonstrate th ‘ways in which Maya rulers associated themsalve with gods, often in similar ways. Glyphs for gods ‘The key glyph in discussing Maya conception of divinity is the ‘God C’ sign (Prone 1), dec phored as a logograph with the value K’U(L or CH'UGL) {Barthel 1952: 94: Ringle 1986). A 2 Yanbe (19928) provider an excollent discussion of sp cife Maya detes, nd Boer (1992-212) gives a comps ble mphasis on theo-anthropomorphiznlioa in Mesopotanl Guthet (1995) efiers abroad discussion of atiopomors ‘aati foal religious thought. FIGURE 2, Vase of the a proper noun, this of ku, "god, sacred e when profixed to read a8 the adjecti siga is extremely ¢ af the Classic pert cient texts are atic Classic beliefs. A basic functior on the so-called "Ya. shows two rows nf before an enthrone 2; see Ringle 1988 convention, these human in their faes sitting side-by-side eyeballs and dark} sinister, nocturn, hieroglyphic text it list of deity names slyph. Each of the ave designated as t specialized supernaturals conceived in connexion ‘or socio-political entities ig similar in many respects Ison (1971b) has described hhere we find hierarchical natural figures, each with xd sometimes overlapping ng to extant fragments of rology, some supernaturals ad named parents (Berlin ‘Also, many Maya gods ex: plenes, living within sa removed from the present anticipating directly in the humans. As Michael Co: ‘suggest, sacred narratives > explain the patterning © could establish charters £0 al, behaviour. As actors anc tls,gods could interact with in’an elmost routine man ‘of these basic feature: ‘usvived the Buropeen con prevalent in Mesoameric: (Gossen 1988) neamations, Mesoamerica: ary relationships with par cal groups (Lockhart 1992 rey had an almost contrac f quid pro quo transaction 170). Nobility was define: direct association with par ial titles of rulership, as iy ‘volved the concept of "god sthaps reflecting en earlie Tiers of god effigies (Schroede (72-8). Similar evidence ap region of Mexico John Mons Below we demonstrate th rulers associated themselve similar ways iscussing Maya conception od C’ sign (FicuRe 1), dec Taph with the value KU, 211952: 94; Ringle 1990). 4 ‘es an excellent discussion of sP PSS raz 233) aves m comnpss {L_snerphiaton inMosopetas! Seed discesston of anopom0:p hovaht (OF GODS, GLYPHS AND KINGS: DIVINITY AND RULERSHIP AMONG THE CLASSIC MAYA Ficune 2. Voce of the Soven Gods (Coo 1973: 109), ‘proper noun, this hieroglyph conveys the ideas of Ku, ‘god, sacred entity’,as already described: when prefixed to other signs, it also may be read as the adjectival form k'ul, sacred’. The sign is extremely common in the inscriptions of the Classic period, suggesting that the an- texts are a rich source for understanding lassic belies, ‘A basic function of the K'U(L) sign appears on the so-called ‘Vase of the Seven Gods’, which shows two rows of seated supernatural figures before an enthroned underworld deity (FIGURE 2; see Ringle 1988: 3, 5). According to Maya convention, these individuals — clearly non- human in their faces — rest on two base-lines, sitting side-by-side in two rows. The extruded eyeballs and dark background of the sceno lend 2 sinister, nocturnal quality to the image. The hieroglyphic text in the middle includes a long list of deity names, each followed by the K’U slyph. Bach of the right-facing figures, then, are designated as the ‘so-and-so "god””. A verb ee Beale alt PED reed [e-altae io of hell We 290 Telco procedes this list of god names and follows, in turn, the 4 Ahau 8 Gumku date of Maya crea- tion, The event may indicate that these gods are ‘multiplied’, ‘ordered’, ‘added together’ at the beginning of the current creation (Freidel et al, 1999: 67-9). Often certain prefix and affix signs qualify ‘he sign for ‘god! in ways that affect its reading and weaning, For example, the K’U sign often takes the prefix element U-, serving as the pro- noun tr, ‘his, hers, its’, and the nominal suffix -il (FICURE 3}. In Mayan syntax, these affixes signal possession, so that the name of the pos- ‘s0ss0r — the person to whom the ‘god’ belongs FicuRE 3. The glyph for wks, his/her go, from the Tablet of ‘Temple XIV at Palenque, block G10. (After drawing by Linda Schele) 291 —comes next in the phrase. In this way the tem ‘u-k’u-ilX’ would render ‘X's god’. As one ght suspect, the appoaranco of this phrase inithe inscriptions helps us to understand the relationships between deities and bumens. ‘Several related inscriptions from the ‘Cross Group’ temples at Palenque, Mexico, contain nny such explicit statements of god ‘owner- ship’, and thus merit a more detailed analysis. ‘The texts of the three temples in the Cross Group generally relate information about the “Palenque Triad’ gods, three mystical brothers who wore important tutelary deities of the lo- cal dynasty (Berlin 1983; Kelley 1968). Each ofthe three temples concerns one member of the Triad: the Temple of the Gross with the deity Known as’GT, the Templo ofthe Foliated Cross ‘with GIT", and the Tomplo of the Sun with ‘GUT. Etch god was born in the far distant past; the rain tablets associated with them connoct their mythic history with the early Palonquo kings (see Lounsbury 1979), Secondary inscriptions lecated outside the inner shrines of the temple give important dedicatory information on the Construction of the temples and the ‘housing’ of the gods within, Significantly, the inner shrines of these temples are explicitly ‘owned by the deities themselves. This concept is re- flected throughout Mesoamerica, where tem- pss are almost universally considered 'gods* ‘houses’. There are fev other instances in which gods possess things. A text on the lid of a stone box parallels the Palenque material (Coe 1973: plate 7). The inscription, beginning with a date and verb, continues with an exprossion prob- ably reading U-PAS-TUN-I, glyphs spelling ‘open stone’ (areference tothe lidded box) along with the usual possessive affixes. To judgo from the remainder of the inscription, the box be- Jonged to two gods, identified as “the gods’ of a ruler of Toning, @ site relatively close to Palenque, ‘Typical of the dedicatory texts of the Crass Group is the inscription from the balustrade for alfarda} ofthe Temple of the Foliated Cross. According to this text, on the day 1.18.5.4.0 1 ‘Ahau 13 Mac (8 November 2360 8c) the god GIL was born at a place called Matawil, and some 3000 years later, on 9.12.19.14.12 5 Eb 5 ‘Kayab (12 January ab 692), the ‘god’ of K'inich Kan Balam, the contemporary Palonque king, ‘entered the house’. One may safely assume here that the ruler’s ‘god’ is Gil himself, although ‘STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART. he is not named in this second dedicatory pas- sago. A related inscription from the door jamb of the shrine of the same temple presents the information in a slightly difforont way. This toxt states the same ‘house entering” event involv- ing GH, now named, but states that the deity is, the ‘cared-for thing’ or ‘precious thing’ (huntan) ofthe ruler K'inich Ken Balam. Interestingly, the word huntan is more often used to express therelationship between a child and its mother (Kinich Ken Balam is the precious thing of the Royal Lady Ts’ak’, for instance). Although no precise kin relationship is expressed, it would seem that a ruler was thought to ‘care for' a ‘god, perhaps through sustaining sacrifices, much in the way a mother cares for her offspring. It is doubtful, howover, that such statements can be extonded to mean that rulers were consid- ered ‘mothers’ of deities (cf. Schele & Freide] 1990: 475; Stuart 1984). ‘These inscriptions and their alternative phrasings demonstrate beyond doubt that the rulers could be considered ‘ownors’ of impor. tant deities. The possessed u-k'u-il glyphs do not allude to concepts of ‘temple’ nor to any abstract, impersonal invocations of ‘holiness’ (cf. Schele & Freidel 1990: 473, figure 6:25), but rather pertain to distinct and personalized sacred entities, One may go so faras to suggest that such references may allude to specific images of gods, for the identical phrase u-ch'us il means ‘his ido!’ in Colonial Cholti Mayan (Fought 1986). The corresponding hieroglyph, shown in FIGURE 3, Is common in many dif ferent types of Maya texts, including several touching on themes of warfare and conquest. Inscriptions at Tikal, for example, refer to ‘the gods’ of a ruler from El Peru and another of a Naranjo lord, both of whom. were apparently the victims of military defeats. Although tho readings of these passages present certain prob: Jems of interpretation, we concur with the sug- géstion by Simon Martin and Nikolai Grube thet the defeat of neighbouring kingdoms may have involved the appropriation, capture or desecre tion of foreign god effigies ‘owned’ by royal vietims (Martin n.d). Ideas of god ownership are not the sole source ofdivine qualities ascribed to rulers. an icono- ‘graphic usage, the k'u glyph appears as streams of liquid falling from the hands of rulers in sacrificial costume. The streams represent roye) blood shed in self-sacrifice (Stuart 1984; 1988) (OF cons, Give their depiction as the nals the concept ofthe to numerous ethnogre 4 part ofthe soul and humans (Vogt 1969). defined by many mo: degree of one's ‘heat strength of one’s chu: 72), Ancient rulers, Maya of today, may ha: souls which could be sanctify and bless rit rate persons. The ch’. have gone by another was probably a central ritual, and, perhaps, « the divine qualities o: Rulers as gods Classic Maya rulors vinity by means of cert use of the UL) sign exalted title used alm is the most importan: tile includes the term : of a placo over whic claimed dominion, ar ing attribute —K’ul,'se 1001: 24; Stuart 1999: 2 thatthe ruler holds « others, @ quality that divinity of, more prect an intriguing pattern, ‘common only rather iz (Houston 1989: 55). As thatthe Emblem title — (great ruler’) of the Mt eed for now, more es and a distinetion betw 3. Inouropin'on, Freidal& cussion of Classic Maya rule fal poser and sire divin connecting divine oF supe (lor ile. Apparently nes "ledoes at inital connote theMatan equivalent of thee |sobsiows: Moveover Freide ine lords far, ‘holy Ipc an nti’ ad define [Freige! 1992; 119), We bal ‘took pace flats. ig second dedicatory pas- pption from the door jemb Jame temple presents the fly different way. This text so ontering’ event involv- but states that the deity is sr'precious thing’ (huntan) Ken Balam. Interestingly, nore often used to express reen achild and its mother ‘vis the precious thing of ke for instence). Although ship is exprossed, it woul ‘as thought to ‘care for’ @ stistaining sacrifices, much 1 cares for her offspring. It r, that such statements can 1 that rulers were consid aities (of. Schele & Freidel 284 ind thefr alternative fate beyond doubt that the sidered ‘owners’ of impor- assessed u-k’u-il glyphs do apts of ‘temple’ nor to any al invocations of ‘holiness’ il 1990; 473, figure 6:15), o distinct and personalized e-may goo far as to suggest ‘es may allude to specific the identical phrase a-ch'u- in Colonial Choltt Mayan ‘corresponding hieroglyph, 3, is common in meny dif. \ye texts, including several 2s of warfare and conquest. al, for example, refer to ‘the mm El Peru and another of a 1 of whom were apparently itary defeats. Although the assages present certain prob- ion, we concur with the sug- Aartin and Nikolai Grube that ‘bouring kingdoms may have opriation, capture or desecra- d effigies ‘owned? by royal a. aevhip are not thesole source aed torulers. Jaan icono- eu glyph appears as streams trom the hands of rulers in The stroams represent royal ‘sacrifice (Stuart 1984; 1988); (0 GODS, GLYPHS AND KINGS: DIVINITY AND RULERSHIP AMONG THE CLASSIC MAYA their depiction as the k’u motif most likely sig nals the concept of the ch’ulel, which according to numerous ethnographic sources, constitutes 1 part of the soul and inhabits the blood of all humans (Vogt 1989). Power and prestige are dofined by many modern Maya groups by the egroe of one's “heat” and the corresponding strength of one's ch’ulel(Guiteras-Holmes 1961 72), Ancient rulers, much like hig) Maya of today, may have had ‘stronger’ or‘ souls witich could be channelled, in effect, to sanctify and bless ritual objects and subordi- nate persons. The chulel of the rulers —it may have gone by another term in Classic times — vas probably a central focus of much royal blood ritual, and, perhaps, a major factor in dofining the divine qualities of royal office. Rulers as gods Classic Maya rulers made direct claims to di vinity by means of certain rayal titles that make use of the K'U(L) sign, The ‘Emblem glyph’. an exalted title used almost exclusively by kings, s the most important of these. The Emblem Lille includes the term for‘lord’, ahaw, the name of a place over which the lord exercised or claimed dominiaz, and — as its distinguish- ingattribute— K'ul, ‘sacred’ or ‘holy’ (Mathews 3994: 24; Stuart 1993: 226), Tho ‘holy’ intimates that the Tuler holds a quality shared with few others, a quality that presupposes a claim to divinity or, more precisely, god-like status." In an intriguing pattern, the k’u! chav epithet is, common only rather late in the Classic period (Houston 1969: 55). An ergument can be made that the Emblem title —rether like hueitlahtoani (great ruler’) of the Mexica Aztec — reflects a need for new, more exalted grades in societ tnd a distinction between the ruler and 2 bu 3. Inour opinion, Froidat & Scholes 1086: 248 353) di ‘cussion of Cassie Maya rulers a ‘condui) of supernata- ral power end direct dive Sneplztion’ goo too fat in Connecting divine of supensaural power with the ahew (lord) il. apparsalysectricte to tho royal fails tho {ide doosno’ ase connote diviaity, butmay rather supply ‘he Mayan equivalent of ie canta Mexican tem, tlahoan, ‘speakers note proto-Cholen “aw, ‘shout (Keufan & Nor otsibly In "apa, "he of the fal connection with Big Men” Froidel contends thst the tle of" vine lord (in fact, “holy [place lord’) came into being = 4p ngtltution’ and “definition of eontral pawer by AD 199 (Freidel 1992: 139). Wa botieve that comeon use of this title took place fat Tater. 6. 300. 295 gooning group of nobles, many ofroyal descent. ‘There is increased emphesis on royal Indies who use the honorific ttle k’u! ixik, ‘holy woman’, at about the same time. To restrict the number of chawob, rulers may have used the expedi- ent ofbilaterel descent to define royalty through paternal and maternal blood-lines, a pattern well-documented among Mixtec rulers, who lived within‘a closed social universe that could be legally penetrated only by birth’ (Spores 1967: 141), Nonetheless, present Mayan hieroglyphic evidence shows somewhat more floxtbility than, existed among the Mixtec. Another claim to divinity is evident from the personal names of Maya rulers {see Geertz 1077: 158; 1080: 124, for a similar pattern in Bali). Meny namos incorporate references to deities, one of the most common being the int tial element K'inich (‘Sun-faced’,a descriptive name forthe sun], as in K'inich Kan Balam (‘Sun- faced Snake Jaguar), Other rayal names doseribe aspects of deities, such as the Yexchilon ruler Jtsamnab Balam, or ‘Itsamneh Jaguar’ (widely known as ‘Shield jaguar’), Itsaminah being the name of the very important deity sometimes known as ‘God D’. This name would seem to describe a jaguar that assumes a partial iden tity with the deity ltsamnah, Two rulers of Clas- sictimes share the name Itsamnah K'awil. Rawil is the name of another deity of great impor tance (widely dubbed ‘God K"}; again the name seems to intimate that these kings are some how ‘hybrids'of these supernaturals. Other royal names, more descriptive, are hardly less opaque: “Chaakis bora from the sun’ (FIGURE 42),’’awil {is born from the sky’ (FicuRe the farou of the ruler, the god. As i throughout th tification of se deities. Several dait tion phrase’ god occurs in the Sun God (F deity named 1 7c). Several c association w tual guise of t three exampl: spondence be dressed in ele vars; jaguar m figure (Ficurs show this dei the Underwor is proceded b. suspect this ¢ 5 The bennert {Coo (1978: 108) f pter prineauy fom Beneath the figure 22 ‘Youthful daty Pal. 1865: pate Picted pets ike cho pali-toa (Gaur 1992:40, fon such vegetal ceaatinge ume lisse Theoret Point made by F potarian sep. Unitary notations of diferent ois am) ing by fan Graham.) srihwraite 1982: figure 74.) Ticuas 7. God imper- senation expressions. 1 Mateo gd ot Tika (Drawing after fones & Sattorthwaite 1982: figure 74) 4). Sun god at Bonam- pak. (Drawing by ‘Stephen Houston.) ‘Lord af the black hole’. (Drawing after Kerr 791.) ments of Maya hieroglyphs a ncepts prevailed among \. _nctive, formulaic phrase that introduces the names of ose relatives, often accompa- rulers as impersonators. The ~| z, (OF GODS, GIYPHS AND KINGS: DIVINITY AND RULERSHIP AMONG THE CLASSIC MAVA relevant glyphs asd what-if, posstby ‘his body" ‘or ‘image’, followed by a sign ropresenting a ‘anner or flag decorated with bar-and-dot num bers. This banner sign can be replaced by the syllables a-ne, suggesting its full value of ANUL or ANUM, porhaps related to Yucatecan anu, famous’ (FIGURES 6a, 6b)-* Occasionally, these jgns are conflated o7 cormpressed into a single alyph block (FIGURE 6¢). One example includes the addition of the suffixK’U. After these com- binations come two phrases that complete the expression: fits, the name af deity (along with ‘some rare prepositional phrases); and second, the personal name of a rulor or noble. We in- terptet this expression as {it is) the imago of the famous “god”, followed by the name Of the ruler, lord, or lady who impersonates the god. As it happens, tracing this pattern ‘throughout the inscriptions leads to the iden- 'Sfication of several previously unknown Maya deities. Several deities mentioned in this ‘impersona- tion phrase’ are clearly identifiable, The Maize god occurs in several cases (FIGURK 7a), as does the Sun God (Ficure 7) and asinister-sounding deity named the ‘the black hole lord’ (FIGURE 7¢). Soveral of these phrases occur in direct association with portraits of rulers in the ac- tual guise of the named deity. Ficure 8 shows three examples. The first illustrates a corre- spondence between rulers folding staffs aud dressed in elaborate capes with agaathous Jag- ‘uars; jaguar markings oceur on the face of one figure (FIGURE 8). The god imporsonation glyphs show this deity is a being, the Jaguar God of ‘the Underworld, whose name in two cases here is preceded by the sign for smoke or fire. We suspect this god parallels ¢ central Mexican 5 The bennocihs signi denial oth motif Michael Govt35n0 10) ste ute pitt Sn day Kom bans che ara of verbal gods (Reonly Bae! 1994: figute 2:27} andone selpture of bay Claate dat shows ‘yout deity ws hngon slr vegcttion (Befonmens fi 208s: plate 368), We suspect hat the Mays thos dee Plteda perishable modiuo fare casual scrip, alder like the plea employed in india and southeest Auta (Gaus 38bt: 40, 0-33) The fot tat only numbers oncot oe rch egttion mage pel content pid cunllags unsccompenid by explanteny, agustc Stones. here dese noatonsundrine za note Doin tude by Pot Michalowsly (nds 214) for Mess Botan eri namely that were dllag ot with obs, unitary sottional stem, but wth many, ene potetialy ol diferent ongin and developmens etary 6 deity, Hughueteot, the old fire god (Nicholson 41971b: 412~13). Apparently, the Maya rituals Kindled fires with a lashed staff, pezhaps a cer-

    You might also like