A Study of the Classic Maya Kuh Concept (Book Chapter)

Wayeb Publication 1 Tiempo detenido, tiempo suficiente Ensayos y narraciones mesoamericanistas en homenaje a Alfonso Lacadena García-Gallo editado por Harri Kettunen Verónica Amellali Vázquez López Felix Kupprat Cristina Vidal Lorenzo Gaspar Muñoz Cosme María Josefa Iglesias Ponce de León Wayeb 2018 A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept christian M. PraGer University of Bonn ([email protected]) Abstract: This article concerns the concept of k’uh ‘gods’ in the religious conceptions and beliefs of the Classic Maya (ad 250–900). It explores the intracultural variation and stability of the concept, based on all textual attestations that were compiled, epigraphically evaluated, and interpreted in the context of religious history. At the forefront of this tempo-spatial research is the question of which cultural influences and dynamics promoted the stability of this deity concept or contributed to its variation, and how these phenomena were expressed in Classic Maya texts. To this end, the semantic domain of each attestation needed to be determined based on an analysis of distribution and equivalence class. Using so-called paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations, the linguistic usage of the term k’uh is tested to determine its lexical field and semantic domain, and thus to draw conclusions about the foundational concept with respect to its spatial and temporal dimensions. Resumen: El artículo se refiere al concepto de k’uh ‘dioses’ en las creencias religiosas de los mayas clásicos (250–900 d.C.). Se explora la variación y la estabilidad intracultural del concepto basándose en todas las evidencias textuales que fueron compiladas, epigráficamente evaluadas e interpretadas en el contexto de la historia de las religiones. El enfoque de esta investigación temporal–espacial ha sido la cuestión sobre las influencias y dinámicas culturales que promovían la estabilidad de este concepto de deidad; cuáles contribuían a su variación y cómo se expresaban estos fenómenos en los textos mayas clásicos. Para ello era necesario determinar el campo semántico de cada registro basándose en el análisis de la distribución y la clase de equivalencia. Utilizando las llamadas relaciones paradigmáticas y sintagmáticas, se probó el uso lingüístico del término k’uh para determinar su campo léxico y su campo semántico, y así llegar a conclusiones sobre el concepto fundacional con respecto a sus dimensiones espaciales y temporales. T he Maya region does not in any way manifest itself as a culturally homogenous or sharply delineated cultural sphere; on the contrary, there is clear evidence of intracultural and regional diversity (cf. Pelto and Pelto 1975; Lomnitz-Adler 1991), i.e. diversification, styles, and characteristic traits in settlement patterns, architecture, ceramic production, painting, and iconography, as well as in personal names and cosmological beliefs (Leventhal 1990; Bishop 1994; Reents-Budet et al. 1994; Lamb 1995; Webster 1998; Colas 2004; Carrasco 2010). Local developments and varieties are also attested in hieroglyphic inscriptions and methods of calendrical calculation (Graña-Behrens 2002). In addition, influences from other cultural areas such as Central Mexico or Honduras are only evident in art and Christian M. Prager 548 32vc 32vs 32vs 32vl 32vl Figure 1. Cluster types of the re-classified hieroglyph T32 or K’UH god, idol’ in Maya hieroglyphic writing. The letter codes refer to the new classification system of graph variants introduced by the project Text Database and Dictionary of Classic Mayan (drawings by Christian M. Prager, excerpted from Maya Hieroglyphic Font, Text Database and Dictionary of Classic Mayan). architecture from certain areas and time periods, rather than being a generalized cultural phenomenon (Braswell 2003). Pre-Hispanic Maya culture, which is fundamentally defined by congruent and temporally persistent cultural traits, is thus above all an analytical construct that reflects the sum of regional and temporally limited structures and processes of very different cultural characteristics in scientific and quotidian discourse. The basis of the present study is an epigraphic analysis of the entire corpus of Maya hieroglyphic texts with the goal of identifying, crystalizing, analyzing, and interpreting instances of the hieroglyph K’UH in its respective contexts of use (Figure 1). The goal is to establish conclusions regarding the cultural stability and diversity of the k’uh–‘god’ concept in Classic Maya religion. The Classic Maya term k’uh referring to the significant semantic field of ‘god, divinity, image, soul’ has first been identified by Thomas Barthel as k’u ‘god’ and was later independently deciphered by David Stuart, John Carlson and William Ringle (Barthel 1952: 94; Carlson 1988, 1989; Ringle 1988; Stuart 1988a). While the linguistic decipherment has been firmly established since, the discussion of the Classic Maya god concept(s) and its representation in text and image is ongoing (Taube 1992; Stuart and Houston 1996; Houston and Inomata 2009: 196–198; Baron 2013; Prager 2013: 21–30; Martin 2015). The complexity of this central term in Maya religion(s) becomes evident when referring to its use attested in sixteen (colonial and modern) Mayan languages (Yucatec, Lacandon, Itza, Ch’ol, Ch’orti’, Tzotzil, Tzeltal, Motozintleco, Jacalteco, Akateco, Tuzanteco, Kanjobal, Tojolabal, Chuj, Awakateko and Q’eqchi’): in those languages the roots k’uh- and its cognate ch’uh- are attested in more than 30 A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 549 different clusters comprising concepts like ‘heaven and heavenly objects, cedar, (Christian and indigenous) god(s), ghost, holy, cult, images of saints, images of supernaturals, temple, shrine, obligation towards religious objects, sanctification, white, bright, shiny, droplets’ and more (Prager 2013: 21–22, 667–711). In this study I focus on Classic Maya hieroglyphic inscriptions (Prager 2013). Conclusions will be drawn regarding the function and meaning of objects and agents referenced in the inscriptions with the term k’uh to reconstruct the belief system(s) of the Classic Maya Lowlands. The principal analytical layout is divided into two sections, one graphemic and the other epigraphic–historical. The latter section focuses on co-text and context analyses of the sign variants or allographs of K’UH that were isolated from the textual corpus and that are attested as so-called abbreviated and full variants, respectively. These were iconographically identified, examined in the light of the history of the field, and epigraphically interpreted in their respective sections. Identification of these spelling variants for the lexeme k’uh constitutes the basis for further analyzing the contexts of use in which the meaning of this term is imbedded, with the goal of thereby determining its basic meanings in each context of use. However, in my study, occurrences of K’UH in emblem glyphs are not taken into account, because a semantic analysis of each of the 50 occurrences that have been documented to date (Mathews 1991; Grube 2005; Graña-Behrens 2006; Tokovinine 2008) is beyond the scope of this study. Furthermore, due to the emblem glyph’s sociopolitical significance, such analysis would have contributed little to our understanding of the function and meaning of the supernatural agents who are designated as k’uh in Classic Maya religion. Similarly, this study does not engage in the intensive analysis or discussion of the so-called “God C” ajk’uhun title (Lacadena García-Gallo 1996: 199; Stuart and Jackson 2001) or of the hieroglyph for K’UH as it appears in calendrical–astronomical passages, for example in the proper names of the 18-month lunar calendar (Grube 2018). Graphematic study of K’UH hieroglyphs The basis of the graphemic analysis and epigraphic–historical interpretation consists of 1 415 identified instances of the graphemes for K’UH and their respective co-texts and contexts. The 26 typologi- Christian M. Prager 550 A B 1 2 3 Table 1. Five basic variants of sign 32 that represent complete or pars pro toto spellings of the two standard forms T32+1016 and T32. cally identified spelling variants of the grapheme K’UH can generally be reduced to five basic iconic variants that represent complete or pars pro toto spellings of the two standard forms T33+1016 and T33 (Table 1 and Table 2). Instances of K’UH are summarized in Table 3 according to site and frequency. The two standard forms, with 587 attestations, constitute the most frequently used k’uh variants in the text corpus. Maya scribes were calligraphically versatile in fashioning sculptures and texts, for which they drew on graphemic principles by using abbreviated and full variants of a grapheme. They also introduced sub-variants within these categories that, in turn, may be distinguished from each other by subgraphemic elements. In this manner, the pearl necklace- and droplet-like standard form (A1), the standard form with variable subgraphemes (A2), as well as the affix-less portrait variant (A3) can be differentiated within the category “Abbreviated Variants” (A) of the logogram K’UH. In the case of the first variant of the full form (B) of K’UH, the portrait sign T1016 of the standard form is pre- or superfixed (B1), and the second variant of the full version consists of the standard form with variable subgraphemes abutting against T1016 (B2). The earliest occurrence of the abbreviated version from category A1 that can be dated and sourced is found on Stela 31 from Tikal (9.0.10.0.0), whereas the latest datable example is written on Uxmal Capstone 1 (10.3.17.12.1). Examples in the three codices, which are only vaguely datable, are not taken into account here. With over a thousand attestations, the standard forms of category A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 551 A are statistically the most frequent variants of K’UH. Inspection of all occurrences reveals that the earliest example is that on the so-called Hauberg Stela. The latest context of use for k’uh was Diego de Landa’s colonial-period report on the Yucatan region (Landa 1566), whereas the latest Postclassic monument with an example of k’uh is Capstone 2 from Santa Rosa Xtampak, which bears the date 10.6.0.0.0 (Graña-Behrens 2002). Distribution analysis of all occurrences of k’uh indicates that the quantitatively most frequent form of the grapheme K’UH are those variants that are defined in this study as standard forms and summarized in the sign category A1. An additional 318 instances of this variant are found in the three extant Postclassic Maya codices, which were still in use at the time of the Spanish Conquest. The icon of this group depicts flowing blood, which is commonly represented in two parallel, pearl-, droplet-, and dot-like strands and which, due to its minimal iconic embellishment, functions as the standard variant of K’UH. The iconically more complex variant occurs much less frequently and features a variable subgrapheme in the shape of a hieroglyph (a so-called iconic marker) that partially overlies the droplet-shaped icon of the standard variant. In Thompson’s catalogue, this variant is registered as T14, T36–40, and T43, and it is included in the present study under the designations A2.1 to A2.12. Iconological analysis of this sign class demonstrates that the subgraphemic elements, such as bone, jade, gemstone, and floral icons, function as semantic markers for precious objects to emphasize the outstanding value of the kingly blood portrayed in this icon. The geographic distribution indicates, for instance, that, unlike the standard variant, the variant A2.3, or T36, is attested at only 27 sites, whereby an increase in occurrences of this variant can be observed in Palenque, Yaxchilan, Tonina, and Naranjo between 9.11.1.12.8 (PAL: Subterráneo, Tableritos) and 10.0.0.0.0 (ANL: Pan. 1). Variant A2.4, or T37, appears less frequently than A2.3 and is first attested on 9.11.0.0.0 (PAL: Palace, North Façade). The last occurrence is found on Stela 2 from Machaquilá and dates to 9.19.0.0.0. Distribution analysis of variant A2.5 indicates that it first appears in 9.9.1.13.11 at Tonina and is last attested on Stela 10 from Seibal. With 64 instances, this variant is most frequently attested in texts from Palenque, and it also occurs repeatedly at Copan, Yaxchilan, Tikal, Christian M. Prager 552 A1.1 A1.2 A1.3 A1.4 A1.5 A2.1 A2.2 A2.3 A2.4 A2.5 A2.6 A2.7 A2.8 A2.9 A2.10 A2.11 A2.12 A3.1 A3.2 B1.1 B1.4 B2.7 B2.10 B1.5 B2.1 B2.3 B2.5 Table 2. Two dozen main variants of the hieroglyph K’UH, excerpted from Thompson (1962) and Ringle and Smith-Stark (1990) (drawings by Christian Prager, Merle Greene Robertson, Linda Schele, Avis Tulloch, and Günter Zimmermann). A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept PAL YAX CPN TIK NAR PNG DPL TNA QRG CRC SBL CHN NTN BPK AGT PMT PUS CNC CLK MQL ALS TZB CRN TRT EKB PRU ALR AML LXT NMP PSD XUL YUL ARP CAY CML HLK IXL IXZ MLP MRL RSB SCL UAX YXH ALC ALH ANL CHL CKL CHP FLD KEN LAC LMN MAR NKM OXP PBX PNH PST RAZ SNT STR TAM TRS UCN UXM UXL XCL ZAP COD 553 A1 A2.5 A2.3 A2.1 B1.1 B2.1 A2.6 A2.7 B2.3 A3.1 A2.4 B2.7 A2.10 B2.5 A2.12 A3.2 B1.4 B1.5 A2.8 A2.11 A2.2 A2.9 B2.10 total var 19 64 21 1 9 12 7 3 1 5 4 2 3 2 1 1 155 16 27 17 48 1 2 9 104 6 19 21 9 16 1 8 3 2 9 4 92 10 18 13 7 13 9 2 62 6 9 12 21 4 1 1 48 6 31 8 2 3 1 1 46 6 10 10 9 6 1 1 3 40 7 9 7 13 1 1 31 5 5 8 8 1 2 1 25 6 17 4 2 1 24 4 4 10 3 1 1 19 5 9 6 1 16 3 3 2 10 15 3 1 4 5 2 1 13 5 4 4 2 10 3 2 8 10 2 7 3 10 2 7 2 9 2 7 1 8 2 2 1 2 1 2 8 5 5 1 6 2 6 6 1 4 1 5 2 2 1 1 1 2 7 4 1 3 4 2 3 1 4 2 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 318 134 83 31 566 4 587 197 158 134 86 83 31 27 27 21 17 11 9 6 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1415 Table 3. Distribution and frequency analysis of the allographs of K’UH. The last two columns indicate the total number of occurrences and number of intra-site variations. 554 Christian M. Prager Figure 2. Models for the hieroglyph K’UH? Images of Alouatta pigra (howler monkey) and Ateles geoffroyi (spider monkey) (photographs by Dave Johnson [left; CC-BY-2.0] and Harri Kettunen [right]). and Naranjo. According to the results of a distribution analysis of sign category A2, the scribes at these sites were particularly adept at creating calligraphically varied texts. The scribes were much less frequent in their use of the variant of K’UH that is listed in Thompson’s catalogue under T40 (A2.7 in the present study), which is first attested in 9.9.10.0.0 (CPN: St. P) and was last used around 10.2.10.0.0, on Altar 1 from Ixlu. An increase in occurrences at the sites of Palenque and Tikal is apparent in the case of this form as well. The variants A2.8, A2.9, and A2.10 of the hieroglyph K’UH were used only during a brief period of a few years and mainly in Palenque, Dos Pilas, and Caracol, so that they can be characterized as short-lived local variants. Similarly, A2.11 and A2.12 are A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 555 variants that were only briefly employed in Machaquila, Ek’ Balam, and Quirigua. The affixless portrait variants of K’UH, i.e. the portrait sign T1016 (variant A3.1), features the icon of a counterintuitive or supernatural agent, because it combines human and primate-like characteristics (Figure 2). The anthropomorphic nature of the sign is manifested by the subgraphemic “striped band” marker above the brow ridge. The monkey-like physiognomy of the muzzle and nose emphasizes its primate aspect. Its supernatural quality is indicated not only by the synthesis of human and animal traits, but is also expressed by so-called “god markers”, like the form of the mirror sign T617 that appears on the forehead of the full-figure variant of T38.1016. The earliest occurrence of this variant of the grapheme K’UH is found on the ballcourt marker of Tikal, which dates to 8.17.1.4.12. The latest attestation is carved on Lintel 1 from Yula, which bears the date 10.2.4.8.4, and even later appearances may be found in the three Maya codices. During this period, at least 21 occurrences of the variant A3.1 are attested, of which most stem from a closed, and securely datable text corpus in Palenque. Regional and local graphemic variation The significance of Palenque in the calligraphic tradition of the Maya Lowlands is also expressed in a variant of K’UH that was only used at Palenque, where it was part of the sign repertoire of local scribal schools for roughly one hundred years, from 9.12.18.5.19 until 9.17.13.0.7. It is registered in Thompson’s catalogue as T1007 and, instead of the primate-like portrait, displays a male face with an eye in the form of an axe, which presumably underscores the bloody aspect of this instrument (listed here under the designation A3.2, Table 2). It represents a local spelling of this lexeme, but the frequent addition of the affix T36 unequivocally integrates this form into the series of known blood-related subgraphemes that scribes used to graphically represent k’uh. The first representative of the full variant (B) is registered as B1.1 and comprises the combination of subgraphemic element T33 and T1016 that is listed in Thompson’s catalogue under the designation T41 (see Table 2 and Table 3). Over 86 occurrences are attested in texts from 21 sites from the period between 9.0.10.0.0 (TIK: St. 31) 556 Christian M. Prager and 10.3.0.0.0 (SNT: Cst. 2). Appearances of this variant on undated Early Classic texts on minor objects from Costa Rica, Kendal, Río Azul, El Encanto, and Dzibanche suggest that its period of use can actually be extended farther back into the past. If this is indeed the case, the complex grapheme T33.1016 or B1.1 could constitute the oldest variant of the lexeme k’uh and thus could have been a model for later forms that could be reproduced either as abbreviated or full variants. Variant B1.4 is a later innovation that represents a combination of variant A1.4 with the full variant B1.1 and was first used in the inscriptions of Tortuguero, Palenque, and Naranjo between 9.11.15.0.0 (TRT: Mon. 6) and 9.14.0.0.0 (NAR: St. 23). Variant B1.5 was similarly in use only for a short period of time. Results of a distributional analysis reveal that the Palenque scribes who were inclined towards calligraphic variation introduced this variant between 9.12.18.5.9 and 9.14.11.2.7. The distinct variant B2.1 was identified as a Late Postclassic codex variant of B2.5 and is attested with a total of 83 occurrences in the three codices, whereby the Codex Madrid demonstrates the greatest number of examples (73) and thus occupies a considerable segment of the epigraphic discussion in this study. The Classic variant B2.5 is only attested on monuments from Copan and Seibal that date to between 9.8.0.0.0 (CPN: Alt. Y) and 9.17.10.11.0 (CPN: Str. 9N-82). The tendency in the Maya writing system to use full variants less frequently than so-called abbreviated forms due to scribal economy, which was quantitatively proven in this study, also manifests itself in the frequency analysis of the variants B2.5 and B2.7, which are attested with a total of 6 and 11 examples in the entire corpus, respectively. The corresponding abbreviated forms of these graphemes are listed as A2.5 and A2.7 and register 197 and 27 occurrences, respectively. The scribes of Palenque, Copan, and Piedras Negras prove to be innovative in creating new spelling forms in the case of variant B2.3 as well. B2.3 is composed of T36 combined with T1016 and is even attested in full-figure form at Copan. The latest occurrence is from La Milpa and dates to 9.17.0.0.0 (Stela 1). With 12 occurrences, it is one of the four most frequent K’UH variants in the texts of Palenque, the site with a leading 155 occurrences and a total of 16 spelling variants of the grapheme (Table 2). The calligraphic playfulness of the Palenque scribes is also illustrated in Ruler 9.12.15.0.0 9.13.0.0.0 9.13.5.0.0 9.13.10.0.0 12 12 10 10 9.13.15.0.0 9.14.0.0.0 9.14.5.0.0 9.14.10.0.0 10 9 9 9 9.14.15.0.0 9.15.0.0.0 9.15.5.0.0 9.15.10.0.0 9.15.15.0.0 9.16.0.0.0 9.16.5.0.0 9.16.10.0.0 9.16.15.0.0 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 K’inich Ahkal Mo’ Naab III n 1 5 5 5 6 6 6 12 9.17.0.0.0 9.17.5.0.0 9.17.10.0.0 9.17.15.0.0 9.18.0.0.0 2 2 3 3 K’inich K’an K’inich Kan Joy Chitam II Bahlam II K’inich Janaab Pakal I 9.10.0.0.0 9.10.5.0.0 9.10.10.0.0 9.10.15.0.0 9.11.0.0.0 9.11.5.0.0 9.11.10.0.0 9.11.15.0.0 9.12.0.0.0 9.12.5.0.0 9.12.10.0.0 K’Inich K’uk’ Bahlam II B2.10 B2.7 B2.3 B1.5 B1.4 B1.1 A3.2 A3.1 A2.10 557 A2.9 A2.8 A2.7 A2.5 A2.4 A2.3 A1.X A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept Table 4. Temporal distribution analysis of the allographs of K’UH in the texts of Palenque. Horizontal dividing lines indicate the reigns of K’inich Janaab Pakal I, K’inich Kan Bahlam II, K’inich K’an Joy Chitam II, K’inich Ahkal Mo’ Naab III, and K’inich K’uk’ Bahlam II. their introduction of variant B2.10, which is exclusively attested in Palenque and in association with the date 9.12.11.12.10. Internal distribution analysis of the documented occurrences of K’UH in Palenque (Table 4) indicates that this site not only had the greatest number of attestations, but also simultaneously demonstrated the widest variety of signs in the local scribal tradition, with 16 allographs that have been identified at present. At the end of the reign of K’inich Janaab Pakal I and at the beginning of the rule of his son, K’inich Kan Bahlam II, during the period between 9.12.10.0.0 and 9.13.0.0.0, Palenque scribes used twelve allographs of K’UH . The analysis indicates that the breadth of this variation decreased with the accession of K’inich K’an Joy Chitam II to the throne. A notable 558 Christian M. Prager decline in the variety of allographs in use appears with the accession of K’inich Ahkal Mo’ Naab III to the throne, whose scribes used only between three and five allographs. The particularly revealing aspect of this observation is that both variants A2.8 and A3.1 were used only during the reign of K’inich Kan Bahlam II and his brother K’inich K’an Joy Chitam II. Variant A3.2 first appeared in 9.11.12.1.10 and thereafter was not used for a long period until 9.17.13.0.7, during the rule of K’inich K’uk’ Bahlam II. Whereas the variants from group A1, A2.3, and A2.5 are attested during the period between 9.10.15.0.0 and 9.17.15.0.0, the period during which variants A2.7, A2.8, A3.1, B1.1, B1.5, and B2.3 were used concludes with the end of K’inich K’an Joy Chitam II’s reign. This correspondence is probably related to this ruler’s capture in Tonina and his resultant loss of political influence (Stuart 2003). The political end of the ruler also spelled the end of a scribal tradition. During the regency of the new ruler K’inich Ahkal Mo’ Naab III, variability was re-introduced into the script and only the standard variants of K’UH A1, A2.3, and A2.5 were used, as in the rest of the Maya area. A second example that demonstrates a somewhat more complex relationship between rulership and scribal tradition is the variation in the use of a total of ten attested variants of the grapheme K’UH in Copan (Table 5). Distribution analysis indicates that the number of contemporary variants during the reigns of Rulers 12 and 13 was greatest, with up to seven allographs. Upon the accession of Ruler 12, or K’ahk’ Uti’ Witz’ K’awiil, the number of variants of the grapheme K’UH in simultaneous use was increased from three to seven. The date 9.11.0.0.0, which is associated with the introduction of new signs and variants, constitutes a notable turning point in scribal practice as the Maya script developed from a strongly logographic to a mixed, logo-syllabic system (Grube 1994: 11). At the same time, on the micro level, this date represents an important break in the biography of Ruler 12. After 24 years in office, the ruler had a series of stelae erected according to a cosmological plan in the center and periphery of Copan in the context of the period-ending 9.11.0.0.0, making his authority and power explicit with this stone cosmogram (Martin and Grube 2008: 201). At this point, Copan’s Ruler 12 was an influential agent in the southern Lowlands whose political authority was not just restricted to Copan; inscriptions from Quirigua and Ruler n B2.5 B2.7 A2.4 A3.1 B2.3 559 A2.7 B1.1 A2.3 A2.5 A1 A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 9.6.0.0.0 9.6.5.0.0 9.6.10.0.0 9.6.15.0.0 9.7.0.0.0 2 10 9.7.5.0.0 9.7.10.0.0 9.7.15.0.0 9.8.0.0.0 9.8.5.0.0 9.8.10.0.0 9.8.15.0.0 9.9.0.0.0 9.9.5.0.0 9.9.10.0.0 2 2 2 3 3 11 3 3 3 3 3 9.9.15.0.0 9.10.0.0.0 9.10.5.0.0 9.10.10.0.0 9.10.15.0.0 9.11.0.0.0 9.11.5.0.0 9.11.10.0.0 9.11.15.0.0 9.12.0.0.0 9.12.5.0.0 9.12.10.0.0 9.12.15.0.0 9.13.0.0.0 5 4 4 4 5 7 6 12 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 9.13.5.0.0 9.13.10.0.0 9.13.15.0.0 9.14.0.0.0 9.14.5.0.0 9.14.10.0.0 9.14.15.0.0 9.15.0.0.0 9.15.5.0.0 6 6 6 6 6 13 6 6 6 6 9.15.10.0.0 9.15.15.0.0 6 14 6 9.16.0.0.0 9.16.5.0.0 9.16.10.0.0 9.16.15.0.0 5 5 15 5 5 9.17.0.0.0 9.17.5.0.0 9.17.10.0.0 9.17.15.0.0 9.18.0.0.0 9.18.5.0.0 9.18.10.0.0 9.18.15.0.0 9.19.0.0.0 9.19.5.0.0 9.19.10.0.0 5 4 4 3 3 3 16 3 2 2 2 2 9.19.15.0.0 1 Table 5. Distribution analysis of the allographs of K’UH in the texts of Copan. Horizontal dividing lines indicate the reigns of Rulers 10 through 16 (Martin and Grube 2008: 191–213). The absolute number of contemporary variants of K’UH is given in the adjacent column. 560 Christian M. Prager Pusilha indicate that it also extended into the south-eastern area of the Maya Lowlands. This ruler’s accession and comprehensive stelae program resulted in the number of K’UH allographs spiking from four to seven variants. Upon his succession, variant A3.1 was first introduced into Copan as a variant of K’UH. Furthermore, the variants A2.5, B23, and A2.4 were added to the sign inventory as a consequence of the 9.11.0.0.0 stelae program. This trend correlates with the expansion of the Maya hieroglyphic sign inventory with numerous new signs and variants, a phenomenon that Nikolai Grube (1990a) previously identified for this period. Distribution analysis indicates that the successors of Ruler 12 took up this inventory and incorporated it into their own textual production. Whereas six variants were still in use during the reigns of Rulers 13 and 14, the number declined under Rulers 15 and 16, whereby the latter only used a maximum of four K’UH allographs, although he left behind an extensive stock of texts. Comparison of the distribution analyses of the K’UH grapheme in Palenque and Copan clearly demonstrates that, in the case of Palenque, dynastic change could serve as an innovative impetus for sign development. In contrast, continuity or stability characterize cultural transmission in Copan, where, at least in the case of K’UH, particular variants were used over multiple generations. The introduction of new allographs is not only linked to change of leader in the divine kingship. This phenomenon furthermore occurred in the context of important events, such as the ritual celebration of period-endings, which were accompanied in Copan with a program of construction and stelae erection. The vertical transmission of cultural representations functioned as a stabilizing mechanism, at least in the case of Copan, whereby this study established that new rulers integrated the patron gods (koknoom) of politically successful rulers into their own personal pantheon. This pattern of transmissions that is specific to Copan also manifests itself in the case of the grapheme K’UH, whereby the innovation or abandonment of sign variants did not necessarily accompany a change in the head of the ruling house. A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 561 Iconography of K’UH signs This graphemic discussion concludes by summarizing the results of the iconographic investigation of K’UH. Analysis of its allographs, which number more than 20, suggests that the icon in question represents flowing blood in the form of droplets ordered like a string of pearls (abbreviated form A). In the full variant, this blood icon was pre- or superfixed to the icon of a primate with human features (sign T1016) (sign category B), or it could also be combined with other head variants (T1007). The combination of human and primate features illustrated in sign T1016 has been characterized in cognitive science-oriented religious studies as a manifestation of so-called counterintuitive beliefs that constitute the cognitive basis for mental representations of supernatural agents (Boyer and Ramble 2001). From this perspective, it seems plausible to interpret the primate-like sign T1016 as the representation of such a supernatural agent. Over the course of the 9.11.0.0.0 expansion of the sign inventory observed by Grube, the simplest forms of the grapheme K’UH (sign variant A1, etc.) and its full variant T33.1016 (B1) were supplemented with subgraphemic, non-linguistic elements that marked the preciousness of blood as a vital substance through their meta-representative meaning. These subgraphemic elements are iconic representations of jade beads, bones, shells, obsidian, flowers, blossoms, and other floral objects. As luxury and prestige goods, all of these objects were part of the basic accoutrements of an elite grave and given to the deceased king for his journey into the underworld. Additional objects in this class included jewelry from various materials, utensils for ritual bloodletting, hematite, minerals for producing pigments, books, enema equipment, animals, incised bones, musical instruments, copal, tools and utilitarian objects, obsidian in various forms, and ceramic vessels with foodstuffs (Coe 1988; Fitzsimmons 2009: 83ff.). Many of these objects and materials were incorporated into iconography or served as the iconic model for a series of hieroglyphic signs. In iconography, these objects represented vital powers that were contained not only in the environment, but also in the blood of the king (cf. Stuart 1988b). Through ritual bloodletting, the king dispensed and spread this vitality, thus guaranteeing the fertility and continuity of the cosmos. The semantic meaning of k’uh should be classified in this thematic 562 Christian M. Prager context, and the plausibility of its linguistic interpretation should be oriented accordingly. Lexical entries in dictionaries of colonial-period and modern lowland languages suggest that the blood droplet-related iconography of the grapheme K’UH is maybe also linguistically represented. In Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Ch’orti’ and Chontal, for example, one of the many meanings of the root ch’ul- is ‘drip’ or ‘drops’ [CHN: ch’ul, ch’ulel (Knowles-Berry 1984); CHR: ch’ur (Wisdom 1950), probably related to Common Mayan *t’ur, and proto-Ch’olan *t’uj for ‘drip’ (Kaufman 2003: 538–539)]; ‘bloodstream’ or ‘bleed’ [TZO: <ghul / ghulogel> (Charencey 1885); TZE ch’ul (Berlin 1968)]. A cognitive theory of supernaturals The theoretical foundation of this work relies on cognitive approaches in the study of culture and religion (Prager 2010). Accordingly, the term culture refers to mental representations of relative similarity, which are attention-grabbing, easily memorable and, consequently, readily transmitted between the members of a community. According to this view (cultural) representations present an origo, or spatial and temporal coordinates, by means of which one can investigate the spatio-temporal positioning of representations, as well as processes and relationships, such as intracultural diversification, distribution, change, or stability (Sperber and Hirschfeld 2004). According to this understanding of culture, cultural representations are never copies; instead, they are interpretations, i.e. a chain of actions and results of understanding other public representations. As part of this cognitive process, variants of cultural representations arise that persist over the short, intermediate, or long periods in the network of public and mental representations. Cultural representations, including terms, ideas, and concepts, are incorporated into different realms of use within this network and are continuously re-interpreted in the cognitive, causal chain (Sperber 1993). This cognitive-scientific cultural understanding influences the traditional approach to reconstructing historical societies, especially the frequent question of change and continuity. Determining continuity and change in cultural traits and the transferability of representations of a particular origo to other time periods and spaces constitutes a foundational method in researching pre-Hispanic Meso- A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 563 american societies. Countless studies of cultural representations in Maya religion build upon the assumption that religious traits and their meanings and contents were passed down unchanged from the Classic to the Postclassic and into the colonial period, including the so-called major gods of the Postclassic, which were integrated into local religious systems in the lowlands as early as the Classic Period (Taube 1992). Other studies argue that the Maya realm is culturally homogenous and that the degree of cultural change over its 3000year history was insubstantial and fluid, if anything (Freidel et al. 1993). The strategy of articulating heterogeneous information and insights from spatio-temporally distinct sources has to be rejected in the context of the cognitive scientific approach towards defining culture and cultural sources. The relationship of the consulted sources to each other is often unclear and existing sources themselves are fragmentary and neither contemporary nor homogenous nor balanced. Investigating the religious belief system of Maya society, which was strongly influenced by local traditions, always requires gleaning local insights from detailed case studies, on the basis of which one can determine the relative degree of intracultural differences and commonalities, as well as of continuity and change (Riese 2004). In spite of shared characteristics, such as the writing system, the calendar, or divine kingship, the region in which the Classic Maya reached their height between ad 250 and 900 was in no way a culturally homogenous or clearly delineated cultural area. As such, the present study is construed as a detailed study that builds on these premises. On the basis of hieroglyphic texts and imagery, this study examines thematized beliefs concerning supernatural agents, with particular attention to the concept of k’uh, since this concept is the most frequent in the texts. In the analysis, attention was paid to spatial and temporal distribution in order to reconstruct forms, structures, processes, and contexts of the religious system of thought and beliefs. Experts in religious studies generally agree that religious representations are characterized by reference to agents who are not physically present (Jensen 1993; Fitzgerald 1997). Humans demonstrate the tendency to imagine non-physical agents and/or to search for signs of their existence, ascribe meaning to them, and socially 564 Christian M. Prager interact with them (Barrett 2000; Boyer 2003). Religious beliefs arise from the idea of the supernatural and are a byproduct of cognitive mechanisms—basically, they manifest a biogenetic inclination to interact with agents who are not present (Penner 1975). According to this perspective, religious ideas are beliefs in culturally-posited supernatural figures who acquire meaning through their everyday use (Whitehouse and Laidlaw 2007: 8). Continually recurring patterns in the diversity of religious beliefs in agents who are not physically present are explained from a cognitive scientific perspective on religion as the result of the human imagination being limited and produced from a small number of models from different ontological categories: animal, person, artifact, natural object, and plant (Barrett 2000). Each human acquires a prototypical image of these individual categories and accumulates knowledge of them over the course of his or her life. These cognitive models help to recognize, categorize, assess, and thus ascribe meaning to entities in the environment. This intuitive accumulation of experiences guides practical dealings with entities in the environment and thus serves not least as the motor of religious behavior. From this point of view, religious ideas thus differ from other ideas in that they contain information which is counterintuitively related to the activated category (e.g. a talking cross, an invisible agent, or an omniscient person) (Boyer 1994). Imagining agents that are not physically present as anthropomorphic and zoomorphic and interacting with them are some of the basic tendencies of humans. This behavior is engaged independently of cultural dimensions when the necessity arises to facilitate the portrayal or explanation of a contingent situation. Anthropomorphism in religious belief is determined by the notion of human and animal activity in general, according to Boyer (1994). In this context, activity is a quality of persons and animals that arises when pursuing personal goals of one’s own initiative as relates to energy use, self-reproduction, information use, and relationships between organisms (Rudolph and Tschohl 1977). Commonalities in religious beliefs are found not in the beliefs themselves, but rather in the cognitive models that they recall (Boyer 1994). Thus, supernatural concepts worldwide share five characteristics: 1) a lexical designation, 2) implicit classification in an intuitive, ontological category, 3) explicit representation of a violation of the intuitive expectation A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 565 of a category, 4) implicit basic expectations of the category, and 5) additional encyclopedic information (Barrett 2000). In the context of this study, it was established, for instance, that 1) Choch Yok Puy represents the personal name of a supernatural agent, who 2) was assigned to the category chanal k’uh, 3) constitutes a synthesis of bird and animal, 4) was a central agent who resided in the sky, and 5) was declared to be the highest deity in the cult of Chichen Itza (Boot 2005: 354; Prager 2013: 516ff.). This descriptive schema can also be applied to all other supernatural agents and categories in Classic Maya religion. A glance through the literature concerning Maya religion demonstrates that the concepts of the ‘divine’ or the ‘holy’ and their variations constitute central and pivotal points in the discussion and study of pre-Hispanic Maya religion. The existence of these two categories was presupposed sui generis in studies of Maya religion in order to identify and interpret agents or forces with the aid of these models (Schellhas 1892, 1897, 1904; Taube 1992: 8–9). A point in Maya research that has been long contested is the question of whether the Classic Maya had gods or deities and, if so, whether they comprised a pantheon that was theologically authoritative across the whole Maya region. Spanish clerics writing in the sixteenth century reported on the theistic belief and cult of idolatry in the Yucatan, so that there is essentially no doubt that the Classic Maya worshiped gods. Scientific discussion is often reduced to disputes over terminology for naming and categorizing supernatural agents based on European/occidental standards. These questions have arisen not because the source material on the history of religion among the Maya was and is deficient or fragmentary. Instead, they have arisen because the phenomenological approach to the study of religion and the Christian-theological orientation that has been advocated up through the present has projected a European/occidental image of religion onto a cultural area that corresponds only in certain areas to the contents of autochthonous religions systems. This interpretive problem opened the door wide for multiple readings of cultural representations. The result was a scientific dispute over whether the Classic Maya even had a theistic concept or, following the animistic approach in ethnology, worshiped embodied or personified natural forces or conceptual variations of them. 566 Christian M. Prager K’uh in Classic Maya religion: object or agent? This study focuses on the supernatural Classic Maya religious agents that are designated as k’uh in hieroglyphic texts. From a cognitive scientific point of view, humans, animals, and supernatural agents share the property of being initiators or agents, whereby supernatural causation differs from other objects by virtue of minimal counterintuitive properties (Pyysiäinen 2001). Accordingly, humans possess the tendency to assume causation also in those cases where the evidence for its existence appears ambiguous and blurry. In this context, agents who are not physically present and are non-human are contrived as probable initiators of an activity. From a cognitive scientific perspective, agents always possess causal creatorship or agency as an enduring characteristic—rather than being the main criterion for agency, animacy merely represents biological information about the corresponding objects. Insights from cognitive psychology prove that recognition of and reasoning about agency and causality represent evolved faculties that allow humans to distinguish agents from other physical objects in the environment. In contrast to familiar physical objects, agents possess mechanic traits and intentionality. They act of their own accord and possess an energy source or power that drives them (Leslie 1995: 122ff.). Leslie formulates that agents are equipped with the active ability to realize action. Initiators act actively and interactively. Goals are pursued of one’s own accord and in reaction to the environment. Intentionality and goal-oriented action requires agents to possess cognitive abilities. Thus, one may only speak of agents or initiators if they demonstrate “mechanical”, “teleological”, and “psychological” causalities. What is essential in this agent model is not the anthropomorphic or animated form, but rather the singularity that objects or agents that are not physically present resemble humans in being intentional agents. The special functionality of this cognitive thought process results in humans seeing causation, meaning, and intention in all possible activities and circumstances, in the environment, or even in the existence of the world itself. They search for evidence of causation and thereby infer causality and construct explanatory models. A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 567 I. According to this cognitive scientific conception of agents, mechanical, teleological, and psychological characteristics should also be demonstrable for objects that are designated as k’uh in the hieroglyphic texts. For this purpose, spatiotemporal co- and context analysis was conducted for those occurrences of k’uh in which the lexeme appears as the grammatical object or subject of a verbal hieroglyph and thus is named as the patient or agent of an action, respectively. II. The second investigative category is relevant for those occurrences in which the lexeme k’uh functions grammatically as the possessor of objects. Such constructions express a relationship between a possessor and an object, in which context alienable and inalienable possession are distinguished from each other. In Classic Mayan “otherworldly” is marked with -Vl. In the latter case, the possessor is an agent from the otherworld, such as a god, an ancestor, or the human personification of these agents. These possessor-possessed constructions can be cited as clues for determining a word’s semantic field. On the basis of these traits, human possessors can be differentiated from others and relevant semantic fields can be defined. In this manner, it can be determined whether objects designated as k’uh are conceptualized in the function of the possessor of an object as a person, as an object, or as part of another ontological category. III. The third investigative category addresses occurrences of the lexeme k’uh in conjunction with prepositions. In this manner, relationships between k’uh with persons, objects, and situations could be identified and their semantic meaning further illuminated. IV. The fourth and final analytical unit discussed those occurrences of the lexeme k’uh that are integrated into nominal constructions and have been straightforwardly described as god categories. Many of these cases are nominal compositions that serve as components of the nominal phrase for supernatural agents, as has previously been noted by some authors (Stuart and Houston 1996; Stuart et al. 1999: 40–44; Houston et al. 2006: 188). Christian M. Prager 568 b a c Figure 3. ubaah a’n k’uh ‘his person as k’uh manifestation’ from a) Seibal, Stela 6 (photograph by Teobert Maler), b) Unknown Provenance, Kerr 791, c) Unknown Provenance, Kerr 1728 (photographs by Justin Kerr). This investigative program helped to reveal a series of semantic fields in their spatial and temporal dimension and to determine the factors that influenced the stability or variation in the function and meaning of k’uh. K’uh as patient or agent of an action A total of 21 occurrences were identified in the examined corpus in which the lexeme k’uh or derivations of the same functioned as the agent or patient of an action. The greatest number of these attestations is found in several t’ol in the Madrid Codex, which thematize temple construction and the production and cultic worship of wood effigies, in addition to agricultural topics (Ciaramella 2004b; Prager 2010b). In the 21 verbal contexts that were examined, k’uh functioned as the agent in six cases and in the remaining 15 as the patient of actions. The earliest attestation of k’uh as the agent of an action occurs in conjunction with the so-called “deity impersonation expression” baah a’n k’uh ‘k’uh manifestation’ on Stela 6 from Seibal (Figure 3a). According to this monument, the costumed local ruler Ajaw Bot marked the 9.17.0.0.0 period-ending acting as a living image of “Heron-K’awiil”, who was a local tutelary god of Seibal rulers and A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 569 was categorized in Seibal as k’uh (see Stuart et al. 1999). Detailed analysis of the hieroglyph for “deity impersonation” indicates that this concept had an extensive temporal and spatial distribution, whereby the human protagonists were mostly acting in conjunction with calendrical rites, building dedications, and accession. As living images of supernatural beings, these agents possessed the essential ability to act intentionally and of their own accord (Pyysiäinen 2001: 14). Upon donning their costumes, the rulers were transformed into living images of the supernatural agents that they represented, who, by virtue of this act, were not only anthropomorphized, but also conveyed charisma and potency to the wearer and thus granted him status, agency, and identity. This belief in living images of deities appears centuries later as a central idea in fifteenth-century Aztec religion, as the concept of a living image of a god referred to as teotl ixiptla ‘god image’ (Hvidtfeldt 1958; Stuart and Houston 1996). Analysis of additional occurrences of the so-called “deity impersonation” expression underscores that living images of supernatural “beings” were in fact considered as agents with human traits that competed in the ball game, consumed alcohol, or were experts in the script. Two occurrences of the “deity impersonation” expression (baah a’n k’uh) on Late Classic ceramics from the so-called Ik’ ceramic complex (Kerr 791, Kerr 1728 ; see Nehammer Knub et al. 2009: 185–186) (Figure 3b and c) emphasize that, in this particular context of use, the term k’uh definitely functioned to designate categories, since k’uh was associated not only with Ichiw K’awiil, but also with Juun Ajaw and Mixnal Ihk’ Waynal, who have been identified as the players in a mythical ballgame (Tokovinine 2002). Analysis of all occurrences of k’uh shows that, beginning in the Early Classic, this category was expanded by at least two dozen sub-categories and contextually differentiated during the Classic over the course of sociopolitical developments and the resultant political complexity in the Maya Lowlands. An increase in the complexity of the religious belief system accompanied this intracultural differentiation and identity configuration of individual kingdoms and their rulers. Beliefs concerning bodily existence and the active ability to act are expressed in a series of scenes in the Dresden and Paris Codices, in which k’uh is described as the subject of root intransitive verbs and thus appears as the agent of the relevant action. Pages 13 to Christian M. Prager 570 a b c d Figure 4. K’uh as agent with bodily existence: a) Paris Codex (18b), b) Dresden Codex (4b), c) k’uh described as agent with cognitive abilities to hear (Palenque, House C, West Foundation, Panels) (drawing by Linda Schele [Linda Schele Drawing Archive, #168, http://www. famsi.org]), d) k’uh as consumer of food; Madrid Codex (81c) (Villacorta and Villacorta 1930). 18 of the Paris Codex (Figure 4a) approximately map a sequence of places in the natural and cultural environment in which k’uh occurs as an agent: temples and residences, as well as caves, sakbe, wells, ceibas, and the sky were considered places of residence and activity for k’uh, which is illustrated in bodily form in these sections of the A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 571 Paris Codex. A map of places of residence and activity for supernatural agents that is similar in content and structure is also found in the so-called Chahk-pages of the Dresden Codex (Barthel 1953; Lacadena 2004; Grube 2012). This almanac reports on foods, in addition to various tasks, that k’uh, in the case of the Paris Codex, or Chahk, as per the Dresden Codex, had to offer up. Clearly apparent here is the conception of God C or k’uh as an agent who felt hungry and thus wished to consume food. This conclusion is supported by a similar situation in pages 81 and 86 of the Madrid Codex, in which maize, water, and possibly also blood are part of the bill of fare for k’uh (Figure 4d). Unlike the Paris and Dresden Codices, in which k’uh is represented as an acting individual figure, i.e. that of God C, in the Madrid Codex, Gods A, D, and E are represented as agents consuming food and are declared to be k’uh in the text. One can observe here a nuance or intracultural variation in this thematic complex: whereas k’uh serves as a reference to an individual agent in the Paris Codex, in the Madrid Codex, it functions as a categorical term that refers to multiple agents that are described as gods in the literature. The meaning of k’uh as a “feeding” agent is important for the present discussion. Food and gifts were considered the currency of religious practice that valued interactions between the world of humans and that of supernatural agents, and thus regulated the dynamics of religious activities. Service and compensation, and presenting a victim as an offering, thus comprise a mode of religious practice which constitutes and motivates interaction and which is based upon a culturally negotiated value system. Attributing value to entities and negotiating this value are cognitive processes that participating parties must acquire and understand. In interactions between humans and agents that are not physically present, humans ascribe cognitive faculties to the latter, such as perception, memory, reason, and thus also the ability to value entities, or to plan and act purposefully (Guthrie 1993; Boyer 2008). For our study, thus, it is significant to have determined that the supernatural agent k’uh was ascribed reasons and motivation, on the basis of which those making sacrifices could assume that their gifts could elicit a service. The scribes and users of the Paris Codex thus considered God C or k’uh to be an individual agent who not only acted of his own accord, but also possessed cognitive capacities. The notion 572 Christian M. Prager Figure 5. Page 83b of Codex Madrid: Illustration and description of the birth of three divine beings referred to in this almanac with the term k’uh (Villacorta and Villacorta 1930). of k’uh as an agent with cognitive abilities and biological properties also manifests itself in the passages in the Dresden Codex (Figure 4b) with the transitive verb pek ‘summon, invoke, call’ (cf. Schele and Grube 1997: 96–100; Houston 2014), where k’uh and other agents are called upon as communication partners, and are thus portrayed as hearing and comprehending agents. Analysis of these three occurrences indicates that k’uh and other agents were ascribed the ability to acoustically discern and react to human language. In order for a speaker to call k’uh, he must implicitly have the conception of the addressee possessing the cognitive and communicative-social abilities necessary to be able to re- and interact. K’uh therefore must not only acoustically perceive that which is said, but also understand its contents, and convert the expected intention into action. Contextual analysis proves that, in Palenque around 9.12.0.0.0 and in the Dresden Codex, k’uh were considered to be agents capable of acoustically discerning and cognitively processing language (Figure 4c). For instance, when scribes used the word pek ‘summon, invoke, call’—a word that was actually intended for human ears—the gods were summoned. Consequently, k’uh thus became an agent with a believed active capability for action and the psychological capacity A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 573 for acting of their own accord according to the cognitive understanding of agency (Leslie 1995: 123). Anthropomorphic conceptions of k’uh are expressed in the Madrid Codex with the intransitive verb sihyaj ‘be born’ (Prager 2018a) (Figure 5). According to the Madrid Codex, various supernatural agents, designated here with the categorical term k’uh, were born out of a shell, an event described through the verb sihyaj which was usually used in monumental inscriptions for the birth of historic figures. According to a conception widespread in Mesoamerica, shells were portals into the watery underworld, where, for instance, rain clouds were born and entered into the world through cave openings. Hence, snail shells and sea shells represented the water region of the world and its inhabitants, who were often associated with the Earth, birth, and rebirth in these worldviews (Thompson 1950: 133). In this context, it is important to recognize that, in this system of religious beliefs, k’uh agents were not only thought to possess the anthropomorphic inclination towards consuming food, but were also believed to be born like their human counterparts. Material gods: Tracking Classic Maya concepts of agency Students of religion advocate the notion that the Classic Maya believed in monism and animism. According to this belief there is no separation between a spiritual and physical domain, rather a “single principle suffuses the universe” (Houston 1999: 52), meaning that there is one divine being who has many manifestations. According to this view man finds the presence of spirit and agency in every object surrounding him. The best and most cited example from Classic Maya religion are living hills, animated altars, and hungry buildings that needed to be fed (Stuart 1997; Houston 1999: 22). However, according to the cognitive science of religion, animacy alone cannot be the criterion for agency; instead, it simply represents biological information about objects (Leslie 1995: 121). From the cognitive perspective, agents constitute a class of objects that possess causal agency as a permanent property. If visual or textual indications of mechanical, teleological, and cognitive causality are lacking, for instance, it cannot fundamentally be assumed that an object with human or animal physiognomy was in fact considered to be an agent. The decisive point is not anthropomorphic form, but rather 574 Christian M. Prager Figure 6. Proper name of Tikal ruler Jasaw Chan K’awiil, attested on Tikal, Stela 5 (drawing by Christian M. Prager, excerpted from Maya Hieroglyphic Font, Text Database and Dictionary of Classic Mayan). the fact that humans recognize the objects as intentional agents. The analysis of this cognitive phenomenon indicates that the representation of a personified object in Maya art cannot be equated with animacy and agency without taking the context into account. Only by examining text and image together can one shed light on which objects the Classic Maya considered to be agents. In this context, it helps to analyze the personal names of kings. All kingly names are comprised of nouns that denote objects, animals, or the names of supernatural agents, and are combined either with other nouns, adjectival nouns, or verbs to create a static or verbal noun phrase (Grube 2002: 326ff.; see Colas 2004). Examination of all occurrences of names composed of verbal sentences in Pierre Colas’ dissertation (2004: 96–141) indicates that only the personal names of supernatural agents are used in the position of the subject, including yopaat, k’awiil, chahk, and k’inich (Grube 2002: 334–340). In contrast, lexemes referring to animals, such as jaguars, wild boars, saurians, or snakes, and references to objects, including obsidian, fire, stone, bone, cloud, etc., appear exclusively in so-called word names composed of nouns and adjectival nouns. Examination of personal names offers a point of departure for reconstructing conceptions of agents and agency and, in view of his information, to research emic perspectives on cause and effect. The personal name jasaw chan k’awiil ‘K’awiil, who clears or opens the sky / K’awiil clears in the sky’ (Figure 6), for instance, proves the existence of the belief that K’awiil was the agent responsible for a cloudless sky, instead of cloud covering arising on its own. In the personal name of the fourteenth ruler of Copan, K’awiil is he who fills the sky with fire (k’ahk’ joplaj chan k’awiil); hence, he is considered the creator of dusk A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 575 and dawn or maybe thunderstorm and lightning. According to this reading, a red sky or a cloudy sky were not themselves interpreted as agents; rather, their existence can be traced back to the effect of K’awiil and other supernatural agents. In view of this information, the thesis that the Classic Maya believed that entities in the underworld possessed a soul and were animated is incomplete and must be supplemented with causal cognitive theories about agency. Consequently, animacy is not a necessary, but instead just an adequate condition for defining agency. Personification of objects may indicate anthropomorphization, but only contextualization, as well as analysis of text and image, can shed light on whether an object was viewed as an agent or actor by the Classic Maya, or whether it was only considered to be the patient of an action. Touching and holding: materiality of k’uh Whereas k’uh functions as the agent of an action in the occurrences under discussion and thus denotes an individual agent (Paris and Dresden Codices) or a group of agents (Madrid Codex), the term k’uh refers much more frequently to a material object from reality, in which case it represents the patient of an activity. A multitude of such occurrences are attested in the Madrid Codex and can be found, among other contexts, in sections that address the production and worship of wooden idols (Ciaramella 2004). Additional contexts are attested in Late Classic monumental texts that highlight the conjuration of supernatural agents (tzak k’uh) or are linked to the installation of kings (ch’am k’uh). The materiality of k’uh is further expressed in the Madrid Codex (Figure 7a), for instance, in the hieroglyphic sequence pak’ k’uh, which translates to ‘fabrication of k’uh from clay’. The corresponding scene illustrates frogs that are designated in the hieroglyphic text as k’uh and are being shaped by God A and another agent whose name is unknown. The lexeme k’uh denotes an object in reality that is being modeled from clay—and thus a physical object that can be picked up with the hands. The materiality and physical presence of k’uh is also expressed in other text passages from the Madrid Codex that mention the decoration and interment of k’uh (muk + k’uh) (Figure 7b). The text and image on page 84b of the Madrid Codex (Figure 7c), for instance, portray standing deities Christian M. Prager 576 a b c Figure 7. Scenes from the Madrid Codex exhibiting the materiality of k’uh: a) modelling k’uh from clay (101d), b) burying of k’uh (109b), c) accoutering them (84b) (Villacorta and Villacorta 1930). A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 577 (Gods D, A, and B), each of whom is stretching a piece of clothing in front of himself and is about to put it on (Prager 2018b). In this case, k’uh probably refers to statues or images of supernatural agents. Even in present times, clothing, outfitting, and tending to statues of saints, crosses, and other religious cult objects is a central component of the religious service that the members of a congregation realize in honor of their saints (Guiteras Holmes 1961: 96; Thompson 1970: 371). Garnishing images is also thematized in the first almanac of the Dresden Codex, which addresses weaving robes and clothing representations of deities. Only after the robes had been woven and their representations had been clothed in them did the gods become ritually active and began to line up and to speak—it is not until they have donned their clothes that the gods become potent (Ciaramella 1999). Additional evidence for the materiality of k’uh is expressed in scenes in the Madrid Codex that concerns the interment of k’uh (Figure 7b). The relevant scene on pages 109 and 110 shows figures of gods from the Schellhas list that use their hands to cover the icon of k’uh with earth. According to the caption, the image mirrors the ‘interment of k’uh’, and semantic analysis of this hieroglyph shows that it concerns objects from reality that are being buried in the ground. Previous contextual analysis of k’uh in the Madrid Codex indicates that, at least in this codex, k’uh probably refers to statues or idols that generally represent supernatural agents in their material form. The aforementioned case concerns instructions for ritually interring idols that are described as k’uh in the text. An additional scene on page 61 of the Madrid Codex furthermore presents evidence that k’uh designates an object that was not only a material, but also portable. The illustrations in this almanac depict the figures of three gods that hold ropes in which the hieroglyph K’UH is strung. The caption records that k’uh is being wrapped in cords or in a bundle. This scene probably depicts the transfer of completed idols to their owner, for which reason they are being wrapped in cloth, like the ritual practice that Diego de Landa, for instance, documents among contact-period Maya in eastern Yucatan. The manipulability and mobility of k’uh are also revealed in an almanac on page 105 of the Madrid Codex, in which the figures of various gods escort or transfer an object described as k’uh. In this case, too, k’uh denotes an Christian M. Prager 578 a c b d Figure 8. Images from the Madrid Codex exhibiting the process of producing and handling k’uh: a) carving the wooden k’uh (97b), b) drilling holes or opening the eyes of the k’uh (98c), c) and d) storing the k’uh in vessels to stay moist (ja-wa or jaw ‘to become soft’) (96c and 100d) (Villacorta and Villacorta 1930). A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 579 object from reality that is being carried or transferred to a place. Various almanacs in the Madrid Codex thematize the process of producing wooden idols, in which context they utilize the hieroglyph T1016 as the icon for an idol (Förstemann 1902; Ciaramella 2004) (Figure 8). The steps for producing these idols involved Figure 9. The hieroglyph CH’AM-K’UH grasp k’uh’ (drawing by Christian M. chopping wood (Madrid 89a-c), storing ‘to Prager, excerpted from Maya Hieroand preparing it in a hut (Madrid 97a), glyphic Font, Text Database and Diccarving idols from it (Madrid 97b-98b), tionary of Classic Mayan). and endowing them with life by boring or opening the eyes (Madrid 98c-99c). In order for the wood to stay moist for as long as possible, idols currently under production were stored in vessels that were covered with cloths. This measure is illustrated and described on page 96. Page 100d addresses exclusively the dedication of the completed idol. The scene shows how the idols stored in clay vessels, which are marked by the icon T1016 painted on the outer wall, are stored in a wooden hut and ritually treated with rattlesnake-shaped objects. Employing the hieroglyph T1016 as the iconic representation of an idol reinforces the idea that k’uh in the Madrid Codex is the linguistic representation of a portable object that could be sculpted from wood or formed from clay and the conclusion that it generally represents the image of a supernatural agent. The analysis of the occurrences of k’uh in the Classic inscriptions underscores the fact that the term k’uh denotes an object from physical reality, an object that humans can hold in their hands or transport (ch’am) (Figure 9). In Oxpemul and Seibal, k’uh described a portable object, probably made from stone, wood, or cloth, which could be grabbed and which was utilized in the context of period-endings and calendrical rituals. In this case, k’uh refers to an object that constitutes a semantic field together with the term k’awiil and that, in this context, refers to portable objects that functioned as images of supernatural agents. Contextual analysis of all occurrences of the transitive verb ch’am ~ k’am in the Classic inscriptions evinces that the objects associated with this verb ‘to grab’ are Christian M. Prager 580 Figure 10. Contrasting the terms k’uh and k’uhuul in monumental inscriptions (drawings by Christian M. Prager, excerpted from Maya Hieroglyphic Font, Text Database and Dictionary of Classic Mayan). mobile objects, such as palanquins, figurines, headdresses, headbands, cloth, clothing, staffs, and flowers, which could be picked up with the hands at enthronements and period-ending celebrations. Contrasting k’uh and k’uhuul Moreover, the materiality of k’uh that is attested in the Postclassic and Classic is expressed in contexts that thematize the conjuration and invocation of a supernatural agent in the context of ritual blood-letting (Figure 10). The idea of touching and grasping is expressed in the transitive verb tzak. Accordingly, the ‘conjuring of k’uh’ mentioned in the hieroglyphic texts means that k’uh could be touched—these cases, at least, articulate the idea that k’uh and k’uhuul represent an object from physical reality that represents on one hand the concept and on the other hand the image of a supernatural agent. An analysis of tzak expressions in the inscriptions shows that touching the image of a supernatural underlies the act of conjuring. Representation of this action in the Dresden Codex emphasizes that the invocation and conjuring of a supernatural agent was not merely a speech act, but that it also included the grasping of an image that is described in the inscriptions as k’uh A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 581 and k’uhuul (Wichmann 2006: 287). In the inscriptions of Palenque, conjuring the image of supernatural agents is tantamount to ritually activating them after they have been molded from clay, fired in the oven, and transported to their place of installation, where they were dedicated by ritual specialist. In the aforementioned context, both k’uh und k’uhuul functioned as generic descriptions for these images. Contextual analysis of all instances of the hieroglyph for ‘k’uh-conjuring’ shows that the expression appears in the context of ritual activation of images of gods and temple dedications (Palenque), as part of ancestor cults (Piedras Negras), and at political-religious celebrations (Tikal), for which the presence of supernatural agents was necessary or their action was required. Conjuring or touching k’uh appears thus to represent a ritual action for which the physical presence of a supernatural agent was essential. However, texts from Tikal indicate that the act of conjuring was also effected by ritual blood-letting itself. The form k’uhuul, which is attested only for the Classic period, arises from the phonemic spelling <K’UH-li> and was interpreted by Wichmann as cognate to the Ch’olti’ word <chuul>, which Morán translated as ‘idol’ in the seventeenth century (Wichmann 2006: 287). Accordingly, k’uhuul describes statues, images, or symbols that were possessed by supernatural agents and whose public figurations they represented. Linguistic analysis indicates that the lemma k’uhuul is derived from k’uh, whereby the morpheme k’uhuul ‘deity’ in the codices describes a supernatural agent, as well as its figurative representation, and the derived form expresses only the term ‘image of a god’. Substitutions on the Tablets of the Temple of the Cross and the Temple of the Sun in Palenque document its inclusion in a common semantic class, according to which k’uh and k’uhuul described the supernatural agent or his figurative representation as cognates of the Ch’olti’ term <chuul> ‘idol’. Epigraphic analysis of the tzak hieroglyph (T714) in the Classic inscriptions additionally indicates that objects from reality, and not just the personal names of supernatural agents, could be associated with this transitive verb. This situation reveals that supernatural agents and physical objects constitute a common semantic field that provides insight into beliefs concerning the materiality and physical presence of supernatural agents. The relevant evidence includes 582 Christian M. Prager Figure 11. Grasping of the ko’haw or war helmet by Ruler 2 in the presence of the k’uhuul of the Piedras Negras tutelary deities (drawing by David Stuart). occurrences of the hieroglyph TZAK that are associated with the lexeme k’awiil. K’awiil is the personal name of a supernatural agent also known as “God K”, which nonetheless refers in the case at hand to a material object that can be picked up with the hands or touched. The expression ch’am k’awiil commonly used in the inscriptions manifests in some occurrences an object-incorporating structure in which no nominal phrase can be embedded. In this case, k’awiil cannot be the personal name of a deity; instead, it must refer to an object—presumably to the material manifestation of K’awiil in the form of a statue (Wichmann 2004: 332–333). K’awiil, along with Chahk and Yopaat, was considered a “weather god” who was associated with thunder and lightning. K’awiil was held for the embodiment of the heavenly forces of nature with which he was closely associated. This agent not only personified agricultural fertility; furthermore, he was also associated with the life cycle and the rebirth of gods and ancestors (Taube 1992: 69ff.). Rulers sought ties to K’awiil as the personification of fertility and the power of nature, which was particularly palpable in weather phenomena. Kingly power was thus related to the concept of ‘grasping K’awiil’. The authority of divine kings was particularly expressed in the personification of the natural force K’awiil, whose proximity and bond were constructed and sought in rituals. After summarizing the insights into K’awiil, it becomes clear that the expression tzak k’awiil expresses the concept of ‘summoning’, ‘grasping’, and ‘controlling’ a natural force that is causally associated with fertility and abundance, a force that is manifested in weather phenomena and is conceived of as an agent who is described as K’awiil. A comparable, meta-representative meaning A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 583 can also be expected for the term k’uh, since it also denotes an object that was picked up or touched in the context of a conjuring ritual in order to elicit a particular effect. The thoroughly anthropomorphic traits, forces, and meta-representative fields of meaning ascribed to objects with the name k’uh and k’uhuul are expressed in text passages in which human activities were explicitly realized in the bodily presence (-ichnal) and with the attendance and authority (-ita) of k’uh and k’uhuul. A useful example comes from Piedras Negras Lintel 3 (Figure 11). The text explains that Ruler 2 of Piedras Negras grasped the war helmet in front of the k’uhuul of Yaxha’ Chahk, Hun Banak, Waxak Banak und Ik’ Chuwaaj, the four tutelary deities. From a sociopolitical perspective, the term -ichnal describes the field of activity and interaction of people and supernatural agents (Houston and Cummins 2004: 371). Numerous accounts of ritual activity from the Classic period between 9.11.15.0.0 (PNG Lnt. 3) and 9.17.15.0.0 (MAR St. 1) reveal that kings conducted ritual activities before (-ichnal) supernatural agents, as well as in the presence of the k’uhuul of these agents, such as enthronements, period-ending celebrations, the transfer of stately insignia, sacrifices, and ritual blood-letting. The systematization of all occurrences of -ichnal indicates that the presence of supernatural agents was sought as part of these acts—functionally speaking, the latter case concerned the tutelary or patron gods of a king or a royal dynasty. -ichnal is an inalienable noun for describing a human body part that means ‘front side’, and which meta-representatively expresses the concept ‘presence, field of vision, front view, bodily presence’ or visible authority (Stone and Zender 2011: 58–69). Only individuals from the highest social ranks and supernatural agents could exhibit visible, bodily authority, according to the belief system of the time. Syntactic analysis of all known textual passages with the term -ichnal clearly indicate that only a) historical personalities, b) supernatural agents or their personal names, or c) k’uhuul could be connected with the bodily metaphor -ichnal ‘front side, front side of the body’. According to the text passages examined, supernatural agents possessed a k’uhuul in whose field of vision and interaction the king acted. The epigraphic evidence indicates that the term k’uhuul refers to the material presence or figurative representation of a 584 Christian M. Prager supernatural agent in whose presence the king was acting with the goal of achieving supernatural legitimation. In this context, it becomes clear that k’uhuul must be a generic term for an idol or the image of a supernatural agent—a meaning that has survived in Colonial Ch’olti’ (Wichmann 2004: 332–333)—because distributional analysis of all occurrence shows that the relevant local deities from various city states were generally described in such ritual accounts as k’uhuul. Textual statements that kings realized actions in the presence of supernatural agents or their k’uhuul imply that these agents not Figure 12. Acting with (yitaj) the k’uhuul of the Tortuguero tutelary deities Ihk’ K’ahk’ Ti’ only represented concepts of indiHix and Yax Suutz’ as recorded on Tortuguero, viduals; rather, they also belonged Monument 6 (drawing by Ian Graham). to a shared ontological category by virtue of their use. From this perspective, a k’uhuul did not merely refer to a material object that was meaningful in cultic contexts or to the figuration of a supernatural agent—it was that supernatural agent. Only this understanding of the relationship between object and meta-representation is able to explain why kings ascribed authority and power to images of supernatural agents and their figurations. This phenomenon is primarily expressed in Late Classic text passages from the Maya Lowlands in which the acts of human agents are accompanied and authorized by supernatural power. A series of texts reports, for instance, that kings did not just act in the presence of supernatural agents or their k’uhuul; they also acted together with them in order to achieve something collectively. This is expressed in inscriptions in which ritual attendance by supernatural agents is represented by the root -itaaj. In contrast to the rather passively applied -ichnal ‘in the presence of’, -itaaj connotes cooperation between multiple agents for the purpose of achieving a partic- A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 585 ular status through collective action. Robert Wald writes on this topic: “Having the gods marked as companions during a particular event helps to establish its importance and validity. Having another person marked as a companion could enhance the status of either or both of those joining in the important event” (Wald 2007: 412–413). Texts in Copan and Piedras Negras record that the respective rulers celebrated period-endings with the participation of the k’uhuul of the so-called Paddler Gods (CPN Altar to Stela I; PNG St. 12, St. 15). When examining these occurrences, it becomes clear that k’uhuul was not simply considered to be a material-artificial object. It was incorporated into the ritual actions of the king as acting figurations of supernatural agents. This potency ascribed to the k’uhuul is also expressed in a longer passage on Monument 6 from Tortuguero. The monument records that the local king Ihk’ Muy Muwaan installed rulers in office and conferred ritual potency to three objects. These actions were executed with the participation of the k’uhuul of supernatural agents named Ihk’ K’ahk’ Ti’ Hix and Yax Suutz’ (Gronemeyer and MacLeod 2010: 55). The text makes explicit that the installations and ritual actions were sanctioned by these two agents, who themselves are categorized in the text as k’uhuul and are illustrated in the subsequent passage as agents who established time and the first world in the mythical past. According to Gronemeyer and MacLeod’s interpretation, the king of Tortuguero authorized his religious and sociopolitical actions through the presence and cooperation of the k’uhuul of these two supernatural agents. They were the supernatural authorities through whom the king legitimized his action and thus declared his status as divine king. Through the power of language, the object with the designation k’uhuul was ascribed an identity and was charged with history, meaning, and potency, by means of which the king was able to legitimize his political and religious actions. The resemblance of the terms k’uh and k’uhuul also manifests itself in the context of the so-called Paddler Gods, who often appear in the context of period-endings as supernatural escorts of kingly rituals, which themselves are usually described as -atij. Examination of the syntax of these ritual narrations indicates that the term can be replaced by the term -itaaj ‘accompaniment, authority’ (Table 6). Whereas -itaaj is associated exclusively with k’uhuul, only k’uh or the personal names of the Paddler Gods appear with -atij. If only 586 Christian M. Prager Monument Dedication Event date Cotext date Cotext PNG St. 15 9.17.15.0.0 PNG St. 12 9.18.5.0.0 TRT Mon. 6 9.11.15.0.0 CPN Altar of St. 1 IXL Alt. 1 9.12.0.0.0 TNA Mon. 139 10.2.10.0.0 9.13.10.0.0 9.17.15.0.0 u k’al tuun k’inich [Ruler 7] kaloomte’ k’uh yokib ajaw 9.18.5.0.0 u k’al tuun k’inich [Ruler 7] ‘aj ? baak k’uh way ajaw 9.11.15.0.0 alay i ekwan wak naah T1084 wak mulubaj 1M2 u k’uhul k’aba ... k’uhul bakal ajaw u baah u chit ch’ab ix wan-... ix bakal ajaw u nich u kopem ... k’uhul bakal ajaw i pikul ajawniy bolon hiniy k’annalaw XGF-yi ACB sak AM1 ik’ 9.12.0.0.0 tzutzeem u 12 winikhaab yi-ta-ji u K’UH-li ST7, SNC, PT3 yi-ta-ji u K’UH-li ZZ7, ZZ6, PT3-na yi-ta-ji u K’UH-li ik’ bahlam yax sotz’ haa xa-a-he-cha yohl waxak ? bak-?-bi emach u ma-YM4wa yax tzutz pik yax ?-kab-nal ma-a- ... k’an tuun u mam u yon ya-ti-ji K’UH ZZ7, ZZ6 10.2.10.0.0 u k’alaw tuun u chokow ya-ti-ji ch’aaj aj winik baak k’ak’il jasaw chan k’awiil? ka-? k’uhul mutul ajaw waxak ... 9.13.10.0.0 k’a[h]laj ... ya-ti-ji K’UH ZZ7, ZZ6, k’an tuunil Chahk SBB ajaw naah jo’ chan ajaw ZZ7, naah jo’ chan ajaw u K’UH-li K’inich Baknal Chahk Yajawte’ pitziil k’uh popo’ ajaw Table 6. Substitution patterns between yitaj and yatij in Classic Maya inscriptions. the personal name occurs, the scribes in Tonina, for instance, specified that the named Paddler Gods were the local ruler’s k’uhuul. In Tonina, at least, the semantic boundaries blur between k’uh as a generic term for describing supernatural agents, on one hand, and k’uhuul on the other hand, which refers here to the material figuration of the general term agent. The examination of all occurrences of k’uh proves that no terminological difference was made in the northern Yucatan peninsula during the Postclassic between the supernatural agent and its public representation in the form of an idol. Scribes used the term k’uh for both semantic fields. During this period, intracultural variation of this concept can be observed in that most occurrences of the term k’uh in the Paris and Dresden Codices describe a specific, individual deity (God C), whereas further semantic fields that had already being conveyed in the Late Classic are attested in the Madrid Codex. In the latter, k’uh not only refers to an individual manifestation of a deity (God C); in addition, it functions as a categorical term for supernatural agents that can refer to various, singular divine figures (Schellhas 1892, 1897, 1904; Zimmermann 1956; Taube A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 587 1992). Furthermore, the texts and images of the Madrid Codex show that k’uh undoubtedly described images. Although relevant textual references in the Dresden Codex are scarce, the conception of k’uh as a denotation for ‘idol’ can also be proven, even though, from a statistical perspective, k’uh as it appears in this codex more often indicates the personal name of a specific and individually presented supernatural agent. In cases in which the iconography was intended to illustrate an idol of the image of an unnamed supernatural agent, the scribes used the hieroglyph T1016 as an icon K’UH (Figure 13). The conclusion that the term k’uh described the supernatural agent as well as its image at the end of the Late Classic and the beginning of the Post- Figure 13. The full-figure variant of the hieroclassic is supported by so-called glyph K’UH fulfilling an iconographic function by illustrating temple statues in two scenes possessor-possessum relations in from the Dresden Codex (26c) (Villacorta and which the lemma k’uh or k’uhuul Villacorta 1930). functions grammatically as the possessor of another object. These contexts express a relationship between a possessor and an object in which alienable and inalienable possession are differentiated (Houston et al. 2001: 26). One distinguishes here between a part-of relation (partitive) and “otherworldly” expressions of possession, in which case the possessum is marked with the suffix -Vl. When a human possesses an object, this suffix is absent. On the basis of this trait, one may distinguish humans from other possessors and identify evidence for conceptions of k’uh and k’uhuul. 588 Christian M. Prager Analysis indicates that objects from religious cults in particular were grammatically possessed by the lexeme k’uh or k’uhuul. In addition to buildings used for the cult and for safeguarding images, such as an otoot ‘domicile’, pibnaah ‘underground room’, or wayVb ‘resting place’, portable objects especially are associated k’uh or k’uhuul. Clothing and paraphernalia that were presented to the k’uhuul as part of a k’atun celebration were called pik; sab denotes the coal or black color probably used for painting k’uh, according to the Madrid Codex; sas ‘stucco’ was also presumably used for painting k’uh; and tutaal ‘gift’ and utzil ‘goods, presents’ both refer to objects that were given or presented to k’uh. It can be generally observed that k’uhuul seldom functions as the grammatical possessor of an object, and that only in Late Classic inscriptions from the western Lowlands (Palenque and Comalcalco). In the Terminal Classic and Postclassic, scribes used only the lemma k’uh in possessor-possessum relations. On the basis of the co- and context analyses, it can be argued that the lexeme k’uh in the Postclassic and contact period could refer to supernatural agents, as well as to their figurative representations in cultic contexts. In Late Classic texts, scribes more often used k’uhuul to indicate public representations of supernatural agents. Analysis of the possessor-possessum relations substantiates in this context of use as well the religious belief that supernatural agents possessed a k’uhuul, i.e. a material representation that humans could produce and manipulate, primarily in cultic contexts. The lemma k’uhuul as used in the Late Classic described not only the bodily manifestation or figuration of supernatural agents—the material representations were agents per se. Power to the k’uh It has previously been argued that, from a cognitive scientific perspective, agents are characterized by mechanical properties, self-propulsion, and intentionality (Leslie 1995). Objects are identified as agents if they act purposefully of their own accord and possess a propelling source, energy or power. These characteristics are attested for k’uh in those cases in which k’uh supervises or guides the action of other agents. This situation is represented by the agentive expression kab-, which is usually denoted in the texts with the hieroglyph A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 589 T526. This expression is located between two noun phrases and functions as an agentive expression in passive constructions. The hieroglyph is semantically interpreted as meaning ‘by the action of’ (Schele and Grube 1994: 17–18). Substitutions on Chocholá ceramic vessels provide evidence that the only logographic value of T526 is KAB (Grube 1990b: 326), and according to Stephen Houston, this expression from the hieroglyphic inscriptions is preserved in the transitive verb chabi in Tzotzil (Schele et Figure 14. Balun Okte’ K’uh as agent as recorded on al. 1998: 44). This verb means Palenque, Temple XIV, Panel (photograph by Jorge Pérez de Lara, published in http://www.mesoweb. ‘govern, guard, watch over’ com/palenque/monuments/TXIV/TXIV.html). (Laughlin 1988: 184–185) and is paraphrased in Classic Mayan as ‘survey, supervise’ (Martin and Grube 2008: 19). According to the attested monumental texts, k’uh was believed to be an agent who influenced the actions of other agents. According to the present analysis, this property is principally ascribed to the k’uh agents Balun Okte’ K’uh, Chanal K’uh, and Kabal K’uh. Balun Okte’ K’uh is intimately associated with the theme of war and is twice given as a sobriquet of the king K’inich Janaab Pakal (Eberl and Prager 2005). This king’s reign is characterized by military activity that resulted in the king extending Palenque’s political influence eastward in the direction of the San Pedro Mártir river. According to the inscription on the Hieroglyphic Stairway of the palace at Palenque, the capture of a dignitary of this region is described as a ‘deed’ of Balun Okte K’uh, who functioned as the tutelary deity of and was likely embodied by the king K’inich Janaab Pakal. Interestingly, the king does not appear as a living image of this agent, as was usually expressed by the hieroglyphic expression u baah a’n. Instead, in several cases, the name of this agent is a component of the nominal phrase of K’inich Janaab 590 Christian M. Prager Pakal. Hence, K’inich Janaab Pakal possessed the properties of Balun Okte’ K’uh, who was part of his royal identity. The king thereby exhibited not just human traits: Balun Okte’ K’uh comprised a symbiotic part of this identity and, when the king acted, so did Balun Okte’ K’uh. This symbiosis of human-supernatural agent is attested in inscriptions from Altar de Sacrificios as well, not just from Palenque. According to these inscriptions, human and supernatural agents co-acted as one person—the king gave the god mechanical abilities, and Balun Okte’ K’uh, on the other hand, transferred potency, strength, and authority to his ‘companion’, allowing him to successfully act as a king equal to the gods. Examination of the texts from Palenque indicates that Balun Okte’ K’uh was a significant agent in the local religious belief system who was not only capable of potently acting in “symbiosis” with K’inich Janaab Pakal. Moreover, according to mythical narratives, he was conceived of as a creative agent in the primordial past. According to an inscription from Temple 14, for instance, Balun Okte’ K’uh gave his power to the co-essence of K’awiil, who was named Sak Baak Naah Chapaht ‘white bone house centipede’. This agent, in turn, was identified as the co-essence of the ruler of Palenque (Grube and Nahm 1994; Stone and Zender 2011: 178–179). The centipede Sak Bak Naah Chapat was considered a military symbol and, because of its habitat in underground and in caves, meta-represented the concept of transformation and rebirth. According to a reading of the present text, Sak Bak Naah Chapat, as the co-essence of K’awiil, transferred his military and fierce traits to K’awiil, who was considered the “deity” of royal and dynastic power. The inscription on the main panel of Temple XIV at Palenque records that the strengthening or charging of K’awiil’s way was realized by means of the action of Balun Okte’ K’uh in the north. Balun Okte’ K’uh grasped K’awiil. These actions were described as primordial acts of creation that had occurred far back in the past and thus were charged with great cultural meaning for the rulers of Palenque. As the symbol of the ruling dynasty of Palenque, K’awiil had in the ‘white bone house centipede’ a way being whose power was derived from the original action of Balun Okte’ K’uh, who strengthened the being with many more times the usual amount of power. The potency expressed by the lexeme -kab- is ascribed in the texts of Copan to k’uh agents who bear the attribute chanal ‘heavenly’ and A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 591 Figure 15. Glyphs for chanal k’uh kabal k’uh ‘heavenly k’uh, earthly k’uh’ (drawings by David Stuart). kabal ‘earthly’, and hence were associated with those realms of the cosmos (Figure 15). The inscriptions from Rulers 11, 12, and 13, from Copan display the highest concentration of occurrences of the hieroglyphic sequence chanal k’uh kabal k’uh. Records of this expression are tied to round calendar dates or period-endings and are found in contexts of ritual-public actions, such as stela erections, stone-bindings, or ritual blood-scattering, that were conducted in the context of calendrical ceremonies (Stuart 1996). Copan, Stela 7, erected by Ruler 11, mentions that the Paddler Gods and the wind god together bound a stone and completed the period of time. According to the inscription, they acted by virtue of the power of chanal k’uh kabal k’uh as well as chante’ ajaw and balun k’awiil, who served as patron deities of Ruler 11. The authority to act that is ascribed to these agents is also expressed on Copan Stela 12, which was erected to commemorate the 9.11.0.0.0 k’atun ending during the reign of Ruler 12. The inscription records that the 11th k’atun was ended by the authority of chanal k’uh, kabal k’uh, and other agents, making clear that the ruler was continuing the religious traditions of his predecessors and thus continued the cult of veneration of chanal k’uh and kabal k’uh as central agents of the cosmos. The third ruler to legitimate the period-ending with the presence of chanal k’uh kabal k’uh was Waxaklajuun Ubaah K’awiil, who acceded to the throne shortly after the death of his predecessor in office around 9.13.3.6.8 and reigned until his death in 9.15.6.14.6. A detailed analysis of the texts from Copan shows that the three successive Rulers 11, 12, and 13 realized period-endings with aid from the potency of chanal k’uh and kabal k’uh—the heavenly and earthly k’uh. Epigraphic evidence suggests that the construction chanal k’uh kabal k’uh as used in ritual discourse refers to a collective of supernatural agents who were associated Christian M. Prager 592 Figure 16. The hieroglyphic bench of Copan, Temple 10L-11 exhibiting the koknoom of Copan (drawing by Linda Schele [Linda Schele Drawing Collection, SD-1049, http://ancientamericas. org/collection/aa010047#]). with the sky and the earth (Houston et al. 2006: 188). If the complex expression was serving as a title for specific supernatural agents, it followed that agents’ personal names, in keeping with the nominal syntax of Classic Mayan, as is attested on Copan Stela 1 or in the texts of Chichen Itza, for instance. The koknoom of Copán The various modes of the cultural transmission of religious concepts and the mechanisms and processes that contribute to the stability and variation of cultural representations can be reconstructed for the Classic Period using the example of the so-called koknoom or ‘guardians’, who served as patron gods for the kings of Copan and were used over several generations of rulers. The sixteenth ruler of Copan, Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat, mentions 14 different koknoom in his texts, of whom Chante’ Ajaw, Balun K’awil , K’uy T533, Mo’ Witz Ajaw and Tukun Witz Ajaw were most frequently named. These agents had already functioned as dynastic koknoom for his predecessors. Bolon K’awiil was known as early as the era of Ruler 7. Rulers 11 and 12 integrated this tutelary deity into their individual pantheons and added Chante’ Ajaw as an additional koknoom agent. Texts from the reign of both kings record evince that Chante’ Ajaw and Bolon K’awiil were the most frequently mentioned tutelary deities of this period. + Ch’ajoom T588 Ma’ul T217d-la-ka + + + + + + + + Koknoom Yu-ku-?-ma + + Ki-T756-ti + + + + Chaywal + + + + Xiban + + + + Sa-?-ma ?-xa K’awiil + + + + Bolon K’awil Tukun Witz Ajaw + + + Mo’ Witz Ajaw + + 593 K’uy T533 Temple 11 Galery 16 Altar R Temple 11 Panel Temple 21 Bench Altar U Stela 29 Altar J’’ Temple 26, Step 56 15 Altar of Stela E 13 Stela B Stela 4 Stela C QRG Stela I Stela D Stela I Stela J Temple 22, CV36 Stela 12 12 Stela 13 Stela 2 Altar X 11? Stela 7 11 Stela P Ante Step 7 Chante’ Ajaw Monument Ruler # A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Table 7. Intra- and interdynastic comparison of the koknoom or tutelary deities of rulers 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16 from Copan. Ruler 13, Waxaklajuun Ubaah K’awiil, adopted Bolon K’awiil and Chante’ Ajaw into his repertoire of personal tutelary gods and expanded the group of koknoom by adding the two agents K’uy T533 and Mo’ Witz Ajaw. The fifteenth ruler, K’ahk’ Yipyaj Chan K’awiil, listed Chante’ Ajaw, K’uy T533, Mo’ Witz Ajaw, and another agent as protective patrons of his rulership on the great Hieroglyphic Stairway of Temple 26. The number of tutelary deities increased to at least 14 during the reign of Ruler 16, who integrated the koknoom of Rulers 15, 13, 12, 11, and 7 into his own repertoire of agents and added further ones. From the perspective of Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat, Rulers 7, 11, 12, and 13 must have been important personalities whose lives and deeds were 594 Christian M. Prager exemplary. Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat saw himself as the successor to these historically significant figures and, in addition to summoning the aforementioned royal ancestors at his enthronement celebration, also conjured their tutelary deities and made them his own, so that they would be just as well-disposed towards him and would protect his reign. Analysis of these occurrences indicates that the guardians or koknoom of politically successful rulers were incorporated into the pantheons of new rulers (Table 7). In summary, this cumulative-selective strategy—adopting the patron deities of successful predecessors into the pantheon of a new king, together with the addition of new koknoom—served as an essential factor in stabilizing local, cultural transmission. Personal, local and regional k’uh Epigraphic analysis reveals that the term k’uh as it appears in monumental contexts primarily refers to supernatural agents who were believed to have mechanical, cognitive, and teleological attributes. Later during the Postclassic, the images of supernatural agents were also described with this term. The occurrences in stone inscriptions clearly indicate that k’uh was fundamentally used as a categorical term for supernatural agents and was in many instances supplemented by nominal constructions of an epithetic or attributive character, for instance to indicate the k’uh agent’s function or area of influence. A total of 30 different occurrences were identified. Systematization of these cases shows that they are primarily nouns referring to places, natural phenomena, humans, the body, the social world, or agents from mythical narratives, or making quantitative statements about the number of k’uh agents. Distributional analysis indicates that k’uh agents can be differentiated according to whether the temporal and spatial extent of their distribution was wide or whether they were only used locally. The k’uh agents with a wide temporal and spatial distribution who were specified with attributes include ux T597 k’uh (21 instances: 8.17.0.0.0–9.15.0.0.0), chanal k’uh and kabal k’uh (21 instances: 9.0.0.0.0–10.3.0.0.0), ixik k’uh (over 50 instances: 9.2.0.0.0–10.3.0.0.0), ohlis k’uh (13 instances: 9.5.0.0.0–10.2.0.0.0), chit k’uh (23 instances: 9.9.10.0.0–10.0.0.0.0), balun okte’ k’uh (26 instances: 9.10.0.0.0 until A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept a 595 b c d e g j m p f h k i l n o q Figure 17. A selection of k’uh agents (drawings by Barbara Fash, Merle Greene Robertson, Ian Graham, Christopher Jones, Linda Schele, Paul Schoenmakers, David Stuart; photographs by Justin Kerr). 596 Christian M. Prager the colonial period), ik’ k’uh and polaw k’uh (8 instances: 9.10.0.0.0– 9.16.0.0.0), and k’ahk’ k’uh (3 instances: 9.11.0.0.0–9.15.0.0.0). The earliest evidence for a sub-categorization or thematic specification of k’uh agents occurs in Early Classic texts. In addition to chanal k’uh and kabal k’uh (‘heavenly and earthly k’uh agents’) (Figure 15), references were also made during this early phase to k’uh agents who were designated with the hieroglyph T597, which referred to a trinity of supernatural agents, but whose reading remains insecure. Analysis of all occurrences of the expression chanal k’uh kabal k’uh emphasizes that it described a category of supernatural agents, rather than individual ones, whose members shared the properties chanal ‘heavenly’ and kabal ‘earthly’. In early texts from Tikal and Copan, this expression occurs in conjunction with juun pik (k’uh) ‘8000 (k’uh)’ in place of lists of supernatural agents. These expressions are typically followed by additional hieroglyphs that indicate categories of k’uh agents, and the list was eventually concluded with the personal names of individual supernatural agents. Thus, it is likely that these “god lists” express hierarchies within the “pantheon” and emphasize the nearly endless number of supernatural agents to which a king could refer. The spatially and temporally widespread tradition of locating supernatural agents in earthly and heavenly space highlights the significant meaning of this space as a “theological” frame of reference for divine kings, who were considered to be rulers over time and space (Grube 2010). Numbers played an outstanding role in the sacral geography of divine kingship (Grube 2010: 22–23), so it is not surprising that supernatural agents were associated with them as well. Dualities (juun ajaw k’uh / yax baluun k’uh), trinities (ux T597 k’uh, ux ahaal k’uh), pluralities (uxte’, bulukte’, uxlajuunte’ k’uh, balun tz’apal k’uh), and even infinities (juun pik k’uh) of supernatural k’uh agents are attested in Classic Maya religion. The earliest occurrences of k’uh variants with numeral attributes are in the hieroglyphic sequence ux T597 k’uh. In the context of this study, it could be proved that the hieroglyphs 3-T597-ti K’UH were embedded in a cosmogonic context and always described a group of agents who were associated with creative events. In Palenque, the three supernatural agents dubbed GI, GII, and GIII were described as ux T597-ti k’uh during the reign of K’inich Kan Bahlam II and K’inich Ahkal Mo’ Nahb III. Other rulers of the A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 597 same site applied this epithet to other agents as well. Assuming that insights acquired from the Dresden Codex or two ceramic vessels of unknown provenience about the vague meaning and function of <3-T597-ti K’UH> can also be applied to other occurrences of these glyphs, one may postulate that these supernatural agents are closely associated in their respective religious belief systems with the beginning of time and the creating and ordering of space. The phonetic spelling 3-lu-ti K’UH in the Dresden Codex may be a phonetic version of the hieroglyphic sequence 3-T597-ti K’UH, which can be provisionally read as ux luut k’uh and interpreted as ‘three/many united k’uh agents’ (Schele 1992: 127–128; Villela 1993; Mathews and Bíró 2006). The early contexts of k’uh occurrences emphasize that the ideology of divine kingship was intended from an early stage to govern time and space and that knowledge about the beginning and the structure of the world constituted foundational, “theological” instruments of Classic-period divine kingship which were disseminated supra-regionally, not just locally. This situation is expressed, for instance, by the numerous variants of cosmogonic narratives that have been preserved in texts from Palenque, Quirigua, Coba, and other sites (Looper 1995; Carrasco 2010). Whereas early attestations of k’uh were often associated with space and time, beginning in 9.5.0.0.0, one encounters attestations of k’uh agents as ohlis k’uh, chit k’uh, or nuk jol k’uh that were connected with the human body. By far the most frequent attestations were agents from the category ohlis k’uh. Ohlis was a body part in the human chest that is most accurately translated using the Western concept ‘heart, reason, spirit, life essence’. Hence, an ohlis k’uh was a ‘life essence-k’uh’ and related thus to supernatural k’uh agents who were associated with the ohl-, or the heart, reason, or inside (of a human and his or her life essence) (Stone and Zender 2011: 100). Analysis of all occurrences produces a rather diffuse picture of the function and meaning of this group of agents. In Palenque, ohlis k’uh functioned as a categorical term that encompassed a series of supernatural agents in whose presence the young successor K’inich K’an Joy Chitam II realized his first blood-letting. According to the so-called Pasadena Tracing, an inscription of unknown origin with references to Palenque, K’inich Janaab Pakal I was born in the presence of an ohlis k’uh. In Palenque, at least, a more or less clear association between young people and 598 Christian M. Prager ohlis k’uh is attested, which may describe the supernatural agents who acted as the personal tutelary deities of kings and who accompanied the ruler throughout his entire life, although they were not way or koknoom. This interpretation could also explain the cases in Yaxchilan in which the local ruler named “Knot-Eye Jaguar” waged war against and captured a vassal of the king in the process. This action is declared to be the ‘work’ of ohlis k’uh. It is possible that this context expresses the belief that ohlis k’uh represent the supernatural agents that served as an internal source of power for the king and were transferred to him at birth. While ohlis k’uh may have given the king power, the ruler had to offer blood to his ohlis k’uh as an offering in return. This situation is expressed in the texts of Palenque and Comalcalco in which the king, or in the case of Comalcalco, the highest priest, sacrificed blood in the presence of the images (k’uh) of the ohlis k’uh. The existence of such images becomes plain upon examining the inscription on an earring that was dropped into the cenote of Chichen Itzá as a sacrifice and is declared to be jewelry for ohlis k’uh. Finally, an example on the so-called Dumbarton Oaks Panel shows that female gods could also belong to this category of supernatural agents. However, this is a singular attestation from which no general pattern can be inferred until additional cases have been identified. Supernatural agents also functioned as the social partners of kings. Analysis of the temporally and spatially widespread hieroglyphic phrase chit k’uh ‘partner k’uh’ evinces that the personal names of these agents were primarily enumerated as components of kingly anthroponymic phrases in the context of birth and calendar rituals (CRN Panel 3, MRL St. 4; CRN Msc. 2). Theonyms that were associated with the categorical term chit k’uh are individual and were always associated with a specific historical figure, whereby kings maintained not only one, but rather multiple agents as supernatural companions. This pattern indicates that chit k’uh refers to a category of supernatural agents whom they believed demonstrated a close and personal relationship to historical agents. These agents were thus intimately associated with the concept of way agents and of koknoom ‘guardians’, which, in turn, is attested only in Copan. In addition to appearing as an attribute of k’uh, chit also functions as a facultative component of the personal name of the A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 599 so-called Water Lily Monster or Water Serpent juun witz’ naah kan (Colas 2004: 194). It is a theonym that typically appears as a component of male and female names and represents the personal name of a supernatural agent who, according to the corresponding images, acts independently, but whom the hieroglyphic sources record only as a component of anthroponyms. This snake-like agent was considered by the Classic Maya to be a representation of running water and often constitutes part of the regalia that kings wore at period-ending rituals and through which they personified this agent (Stuart and Houston 1996: 299; Stuart 2007; Houston 2010). Snakes were guardians of water who rested during the dry period and provided water and sustenance during the rainy season (Houston 2010: 72). The Water Serpent guaranteed water for the yearly rains and was simultaneously the figuration of the seasonal rains, landslides, and floods. Rulers described these snakes as partner gods or partner k’uh and identified themselves with this creative force of nature, as is clearly expressed in the texts of Copan and Yaxchilan. To ensure that the yearly rains, and thus bounty and sustenance, returned, the ruler and his ‘partner god’ conducted period-ending rituals either as the personification (u baahil a’n) or the partner (chit) of this supernatural agent and thus acting as the mythical Water Serpent. The k’uh agents who were associated with war and conflict had supra-regional significance: balun okte’ k’uh and the pair ik’ k’uh and polaw k’uh, which were considered personifications of wind and hydraulic powers. Analysis of all instances of ik’ k’uh and polaw k’uh indicates that they, like balun okte’ k’uh, also constitute the personal names of individual supernatural agents, and not, as was proven for chanal k’uh and kabal k’uh or other agents, a categorical term or classes of supernatural agents. This pairing most frequently occurs in texts from archaeological sites on the Usumacinta. These supernatural agents’ primary sphere of action and occupation is the mythical ballgame, in which they functioned as aides to the great Water Serpent, which likewise participated in the ballgame and, in the case of Yaxchilan, was personified by the ruler himself. The inscriptions from Yaxchilan emphasize that ik’ k’uh and polaw k’uh were lowerranking supernatural agents that were personified only by subordinates to the king with the rank of sajal or by young princes (ch’ok ajaw). 600 Christian M. Prager The ritual ballgame can be understood as a metaphor for the death and rebirth of maize. All natural forces involved in these phenomena participated in this game concerning the life and death of the maize god: ik’ k’uh and polaw? k’uh as figurations of the rain-bringing land and sea breezes, and the great Water Serpent as a personification of the essential rain showers. In this context, one may also refer to the hieroglyphs for ux ahaal k’uh ‘three conquest k’uh’, attested only at Palenque. This problematic term is associated with war, the ballgame, and death, and, according to linguistic analysis, can be interpreted as meaning ‘three conquests’. Ball courts named ux ahaal refer to three mythical ballgames that ended in the death of the maize god and other supernatural agents. According to the inscription on the central panel of the Temple of the Foliated Cross in Palenque, the supernatural agent ch’ok unen k’awiil or GII bore the designation T121 yax muut k’awiil winik ‘shining green bird-K’awiil-person’ and the epithet ux ahaal k’uh. This may indicate that, according to local beliefs, ch’ok unen k’awiil was one of the supernatural agents who met his death during the “divine” game, descended into the underworld, and was born again at the beginning of the current era. The belief in generations of gods or age groups is particularly embodied in the hieroglyphic texts of Rulers 11, 12, and 13 from Copan. According to these sources, the so-called Paddler Gods are identified as mam k’uh ‘grandfather/ancestor k’uh’ and sakun k’uh ‘older brother k’uh’, and thus as the grandfathers and older brothers of the koknoom ‘guardians’. The results of epigraphic analysis emphasize that these are categorical descriptions, not theonyms. According to the inscription on Stela P, mam ajaw ‘ancestor father ruler’ shaped an object from clay in an act of creation. The text recounts a blood sacrifice by Ruler 11 for the benefit of the Paddler Gods, who symbolized the opposition between day and night and who transported the deceased into the underworld with their canoe. The inscription records that they are mam k’uh ‘ancestor gods’ who are described as the older brother gods of chante’ ajaw, bolon k’awiil, yax k’ab kuy, and yemal itzam. These latter figures were koknoom ‘guardians’ who served as the patron deities of the ruler “Butz’ Chan”, or Ruler 11. Much evidence indicates that supernatural agents were interpreted as older, divine brothers of the ruler whose duty was to protect the king as their younger brother. Consequently, the text on Stela P A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 601 provides insight into a local “theology”, which facilitates drawing conclusions concerning supra-regional beliefs concerning profiles of action and “social structures” among supernatural agents. The Paddler Gods represented the opposition of day and night and were included among the venerable and aged agents in Classic Maya religion who functioned as creator deities at the beginning of the current era and who paddled the dead into the underworld in their canoe or moved clouds in the sky (Schele and Miller 1986: 269–271; Looper 1992; Freidel et al. 1993; Stuart et al. 1999: 169–171; Mathews 2001; Bassie-Sweet 2002; Stone and Zender 2011: 51, 129). Iconographic evidence makes clear that this pair of gods was connected with collecting water and with procuring rain-filled clouds in the sky (Stephen Houston, in: Wright 2011: 69). Their personal names have yet to be deciphered, but their epithet, which often follows the Paddler Gods’ personal names, is read chan itz’at ‘artists/wise men in the sky’ (Barbara MacLeod, in: Schele 1992: 257–259) The relationship to the sky that is made explicit in these agents’ epithet (chan itz’at ‘artists/wise men in the sky’) is iconically expressed in Terminal Classic images on stelae from the central Peten, in which this pair of supernatural agents observe from their place in clouds or plumes of smoke scenes that often show the ruler executing cultic activities in conjunction with period-endings. By burning his blood or other ritually significant liquids, the ruler induced smoke plumes and thus gave birth to the Paddler Gods, who in return rowed over the rains necessary for the growth of vegetation (Stone and Zender 2011: 51). The rulers periodically reenacted this creation event in an established sequence of cultic actions. Epigraphic analysis of all occurrences confirms that mam k’uh ‘ancestor k’uh’ and ‘older brother k’uh’ were closely associated with the cycle of life and death. The great authority of this creator pair is expressed in numerous passages, according to which the Paddler Gods were present at period-ending rituals or themselves conducted the ceremonies via a ruler’s personification. The presence or authority of the Paddler Gods at these period-ending rituals is expressed with the relational phrases yitaj ‘with the authority’ and yichnal ‘in the presence of’. The latter emphasizes that period-ending rituals were realized in the presence of images of these agents. 602 Christian M. Prager Female k’uh agents were also identified over the course of this study. They are primarily found in the context of the so-called vase title whose central component is the still-undeciphered hieroglyph T182. Analysis of this “vase title” produces a complex picture of the relationship between women and divine kingship. The bearers of this epithet, which was intimately connected to the female moon goddess, were high-ranking, female nobles who bore the male progeny of a dynastic line or could assume rule during a dynastic crisis until a male successor reached an appropriate age and could assume his place on the throne. As personifications of the moon goddess, women conveyed dynastic power and could transmit it to male heirs. Mythical narratives from Palenque document the local belief that in mythical, primeval times the moon goddess in the guise of K’awiil transferred kingly power to the divine ancestors of the kings of Palenque. An additional point of importance is the correspondence between the moon goddess and war. All illustrations of so-called warrior queens show women as personifications of the moon goddess, who appears in Postclassic images in particular as the destroyer of the world by spilling water. The best-known example is preserved on page 74 of the Dresden Codex. According to this image, all Maya queens were personifications of this destructive goddess, who on the other hand was associated with birth and thus with the beginning of life. The opposition of birth and death is clearly expressed in this supernatural k’uh agent, according to which the bearers of the vase title were considered to be female k’uh (ixik k’uh or ix k’uh) who, in addition to bearing male heirs for the dynastic lineage, as personifications of the old and young moon goddess represented her militant and also simultaneously live-giving aspect. The earliest of the occurrences that can be dated and localized is on Yaxchilan Lintel 22 (9.4.11.8.16), which has been insecurely dated to 9.2.0.0.0, and the latest is on Jimbal Stela 2 (10.3.0.0.0). Analysis indicates that the vase title is the personal name of an individual supernatural agent who was categorized as a female k’uh agent. A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 603 Summary Examination of attestations of k’uh in the Classic-period inscriptions reveals a multifaceted and complex picture of this religious phenomenon, which has been summarized in this article. This study used co- and context analysis to study the form, function, significance, and usage contexts of supernatural agents who are addressed in the inscriptions with the term k’uh. It aimed to examine them in their temporal and spatial depth and distribution and, on the basis of this information, to draw conclusions about the stability and variation of this cultural representation, in order to identify the mechanisms and dynamics that influenced cultural variation or contributed to their stabilization. Changes at the head of politically successful dynasties and kingdoms were not visible in local “theology” until two generations later—in Copan, for instance, successors adopted the tutelary deities of politically successful predecessors and also added to this pantheon of reputable gods their own agents, whom they venerated in a cult on various occasions. Stability in composing dynastic pantheons also manifests itself in the case of Palenque in the western area of the Maya realm. The pantheon remained constant and represented the center of the local cult from about 9.9.2.4.8 until 9.15.5.0.0, from the accession of K’inich Janaab Pakal I to the throne until the reign of K’inich Ahkal Mo’ Nahb III. Whereas kings often included their own tutelary gods in their name phrases—K’inich Janaab Pakal I, for instance, saw himself as a manifestation of the war god Balun Okte’ K’uh—the combination of the so-called triad of gods never changed. The concept of a trinity of gods at the center of the local “state cult” was probably adopted from the central and eastern Peten, where at Tikal and Caracol a multiplicity of dynastic deities were venerated in war beginning in 8.17.0.0.0. The case of Caracol at least demonstrates that it did not always exclusively consist of a trinity; instead, it was also possible for a multiplicity of supernatural agents to occupy the focus of the religious cult. The great numbers of k’uh agents who have only been attested once to date and who were more important on a local level and only for a brief period time provide evidence for the existence of local, intracultural beliefs. Furthermore, due to their contexts of use, they imply the existence of a supra-regionally significant, theological framework which gave structure to the Classic-period religious system while also permitting a range of variation. 604 Christian M. Prager Acknowledgements: I thank Mallory Matsumoto (Brown University) for translating and commenting an earlier version of this paper. I also thank Harri Kettunen and Felix Kupprat for further comments and suggestions. Any errors, omissions, and opinions are, however, my own doing. For Alfonso! References Baron, Joanne P. 2013 Patrons of La Corona: Deities and Power in a Classic Maya Community. PhD dissertation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Barrett, Justin L. 2000 Exploring the Natural Foundations of Religion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4(1): 29–34. Barthel, Thomas S. 1952 Der Morgensternkult in den Darstellungen der Dresdener Mayahandschrift. Ethnos 17(1–4): 73–112. 1953 Regionen des Regengottes. (Zur Deutung der unteren Teile der Seiten 65–69 in der Dresdener Mayahandschrift). Ethnos 18(1–2): 86–105. Bassie-Sweet, Karen 2002 Maya Creator Gods. In: Mesoweb. http://www.mesoweb.com/features/bassie/ CreatorGods/CreatorGods.pdf (accessed: 2018–10–10) Berlin, Brent 1968 Tzeltal Numeral Classifiers, a Study in Ethnographic Semantics. Janua Linguarum Series Practica 70. The Hague: Mouton. Bishop, Ronald L. 1994 Pre-Columbian Pottery: Research in the Maya Region. In: Archaeometry of Pre-Columbian Sites and Artifacts, edited by David A. Scott and Pieter Meyer: 15–65. Marina del Rey: Getty Conservation Institute. http://www.getty.edu/ conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/pdf/archaeometry.pdf (accessed: 2018-12-05). Boot, Erik 2005 Continuity and Change in Text and Image at Chichén Itzá, Yucatán, Mexico: A Study of the Inscriptions, Iconography, and Architecture at a Late Classic to Early Postclassic Maya Site. CNWS Publications 135. Leiden: CNWS Publications. Boyer, Pascal 1994 The Naturalness of Religious Ideas: A Cognitive Theory of Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2003 Religious Thought and Behavior as By-Products of Brain Function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(3): 119–124. 2008 Religion: Bound to Believe? Nature 455: 1038–1039. Boyer, Pascal and Charles Ramble 2001 Cognitive Templates for Religious Concepts: Cross-Cultural Evidence for Recall of Counter-Intuitive Representations. Cognitive Science 25: 535–564. Braswell, Geoffrey (ed.) 2003 The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction. Linda Schele Series in Maya and Pre-Columbian Studies. Austin: University of Texas Press. A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 605 Carlson, John B. 1988 The Divine Lord: The Maya God C as the Personification of k’u Divinity, Spirit and the Soul. Paper presented at the 46th International Congress of Americanists, Amsterdam. 1989 The Divine Lord: The Maya God C as the Personification of k’u: Divinity, Ancestral Spirit and the Soul Residing in the Blood. Unpublished manuscript. Carrasco, Michael D. 2010 From Field to Hearth: An Earthly Interpretation of Maya and Other Mesoamerican Creation Myths. In: Pre-Columbian Foodways: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Food, Culture, and Markets in Ancient Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Staller and Michael D. Carrasco: 601–634. New York: Springer. Charencey, Hyacinthe de 1885 Vocabulaire de la langue tzotzil. Caen: Le Blanc-Hardel. Ciaramella, Mary A. 1999 The Weavers in the Codices (Los Tejedores de Los Codices). Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 44. Washington, D.C.: Center for Maya Research 2004 The Idol-Makers in the Madrid Codex. Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 54. Washington, D.C.: Center for Maya Research Coe, Michael D. 1988 Ideology of the Maya Tomb. In: Maya Iconography, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson and Gillett G. Griffin: 222–235. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Colas, Pierre R. 2004 Sinn und Bedeutung klassischer Maya-Personennamen: typologische Analyse von Anthroponymphrasen in den Hieroglypheninschriften der klassischen Maya-Kultur als Beitrag zur allgemeinen Onomastik. Acta Mesoamericana 15. Markt Schwaben: Verlag Anton Saurwein. Eberl, Markus and Christian M. Prager 2005 B’olon Yokte’ K’uh: Maya Conceptions of War, Conflict, and the Underworld. In: Wars and Conflicts in Prehispanic Mesoamerica and the Andes, edited by Peter Eeckhout and Geneviève Le Fort: 28–36. BAR International Series 1385. Oxford: John and Erica Hedges. Fitzgerald, Timothy 1997 A Critique of “Religion” as a Cross-Cultural Category. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 9(2): 91–110. Fitzsimmons, James L. 2009 Death and the Classic Maya Kings. The Linda Schele Series in Maya and Pre-Columbian Studies. Austin: University of Texas Press. Förstemann, Ernst W. 1902 Commentar zur Madrider Mayahandschrift (Codex Tro-Cortesianus). Danzig: L. Saunier. Freidel, David A., Linda Schele and Joy Parker 1993 Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the Shaman’s Path. New York: W. Morrow. Graña-Behrens, Daniel 2002 Die Maya-Inschriften aus Nordwestyukatan, Mexiko. PhD dissertation. Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität. http://hss.ulb.uni-bonn.de/2002/0102/0102.pdf (accessed: 2018–12–01). 2006 Emblem Glyphs and Political Organization in Northwestern Yucatan in the Classic Period (A.D. 300–1000). Ancient Mesoamerica 17(1): 105–123. Gronemeyer, Sven and Barbara MacLeod 2010 What Could Happen in 2012: A Re-Analysis of the 13-Bak’tun Prophecy on Tortuguero Monument 6. Wayeb Notes 34: 1–68. 606 Christian M. Prager Grube, Nikolai 1990a Die Entwicklung der Mayaschrift: Grundlagen zur Erforschung des Wandels der Mayaschrift von der Protoklassik bis zur spanischen Eroberung. Acta Mesoamericana 3. Berlin: Von Flemming. 1990b The Primary Standard Sequence in Chocholá Style Ceramics. In: The Maya Vase Book, Volume 2, edited by Barbara Kerr and Justin Kerr: 320–330. New York: Kerr Associates. 1994 Observations on the History of Maya Hieroglyphic Writing. In: Seventh Palenque Round Table, 1989, edited by Virginia M. Fields: 177–186. The Palenque Round Table Series 9. San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute. http://www. mesoweb.com/pari/publications/RT09/Observations.pdf (accessed: 2018–12–05). 2002 Onomástica de los gobernantes mayas. In: La organización social entre los mayas, edited by Vera Tiesler Blos, Merle G. Robertson, and Rafael Cobos: 321–353. Memoria de la Tercera Mesa Redonda de Palenque. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 2005 Toponyms, Emblem Glyphs, and the Political Geography of Southern Campeche. Anthropological Notebooks 11(1): 87–100. 2010 Das Gottkönigtum bei den Klassischen Maya. In: Herrscherkult und Heilserwartung, edited by Jan Assmann and Harald Strohm: 19–47. München: Fink. 2012 Der Dresdner Maya-Kalender: Der vollständige Codex. Freiburg: Herder. 2018 The Forms of Glyph X of the Lunar Series. Textdatenbank und Wörterbuch des Klassischen Maya Research Note 9. http://doi.org/10.20376/IDIOM-23665556.18. rn009.en. Grube, Nikolai and Werner Nahm 1994 A Census of Xibalba: A Complete Inventory of Way Characters on Maya Ceramics. In: The Maya Vase Book, Volume 4, edited by Barbara Kerr and Justin Kerr: 686–715. New York: Kerr Associates. Guiteras Holmes, Calixta 1961 Perils of the Soul: The World View of a Tzotzil Indian. New York: Free Press. Guthrie, Stewart 1993 Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press. Houston, Stephen D. 1999 Classic Maya Religion: Beliefs and Practices of an Ancient American People. BYU Studies 38(4): 43–72. 2010 Living Waters and Wondrous Beasts. In: Fiery Pool: The Maya and the Mythic Sea, edited by Daniel Finamore and Stephen D. Houston: 66–79. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2014 Pehk and “Parliaments.” In: Maya Decipherment. http://decipherment.wordpress. com/2014/10/07/pehk-and-parliaments/ (accessed: 2018–12–05). Houston, Stephen D. and Tom Cummins 2004 Body, Presence, and Space in Andean and Mesoamerican Rulership. In: Palaces of the Ancient New World. A Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks 10th and 11th October 1998, edited by Susan Toby Evans and Joanne Pillsbury: 359–398. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Houston, Stephen D. and Takeshi Inomata 2009 The Classic Maya. Cambridge World Archaeology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Houston, Stephen D., David Stuart, and John Robertson 2001 Quality and Quantity in Glyphic Nouns and Adjectives. Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 47. Washington, D.C.: Center for Maya Research. http://www. mesoweb.com/bearc/cmr/RRAMW47.pdf (accessed: 2018–12–05). A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 607 Houston, Stephen D., David Stuart, and Karl A. Taube 2006 The Memory of Bones: Body, Being, and Experience among the Classic Maya. Austin: University of Texas Press. Hvidtfeldt, Arild 1958 Teotl and Ixiptlatli. Some Central Conceptions in Ancient Mexican Religion. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Jensen, Jeppe Sinding 1993 Is a Phenomenology of Religion Possible? On the Ideas of a Human and Social Science of Religion. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 5(2): 109–133. Knowles-Berry, Susan M. 1984 A Descriptive Grammar of Chontal Maya (San Carlos Dialect). PhD dissertation. New Orleans: Tulane University. Lacadena, Alfonso 1996 A New Proposal for the Transcription of the A-k’u-Na/a-k’u-Hun-Na Title. Mayab 10: 46–49. 2004 On the Reading of Two Glyphic Appellatives of the Rain God. In: Continuity and Change: Maya Religious Practices in Temporal Perspective, edited by Daniel GrañaBehrens, Nikolai Grube, Christian M. Prager, Frauke Sachse, Stefanie Teufel, and Elizabeth Wagner: 87–98. Acta Mesoamericana 14. Markt Schwaben: Verlag Anton Saurwein. Lamb, Weldon W. 1995 Tzotzil Maya Cosmology. Tribus 44: 268–279. Landa, Diego de 1566 Relación de las cosas de Yucatán / Fray Di[eg]o de Landa: / MDLXVI, Signatura 9/5153. Madrid: Biblioteca de la Real Academia de Historia. Leslie, Alan 1995 A Theory of Agency. In: Causal Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Debate, edited by Dan Sperber, David Premack, Ann James Premack, and Fyssen Foundation Symposium: 121–141. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Leventhal, Richard M. 1990 Southern Belize: An Ancient Maya Region. In: Vision and Revision in Maya Studies, edited by Flora S. Clancy and Peter D. Harrison: 125–141. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Lomnitz-Adler, Claudio 1991 Concepts of the Study of Regional Culture. American Ethnologist 18(2): 195–214. Looper, Matthew G. 1992 The “Canoe Gods”. Texas Notes on Precolumbian Art, Writing, and Culture 31. Austin: Center of the History and Art of Ancient American Culture, Art Department, University of Texas at Austin. http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/ handle/2152/15730/TN%20No.%2031.pdf?sequence=2 (accessed: 2018–12–05). 1995 The Three Stones of Maya Creation Mythology at Quiriguá. Mexicon 17(2): 24–30. Martin, Simon 2015 The Old Man of the Maya Universe: Unified Aspects to Ancient Maya Religion. In: Maya Archaeology 3, edited by Stephen D. Houston, Charles W. Golden, and Joel Skidmore: 186–227. San Francisco: Precolumbia Mesoweb Press. Martin, Simon and Nikolai Grube 2008 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering the Dynasties of the Ancient Maya. 2nd edition. London: Thames and Hudson. 608 Christian M. Prager Mathews, Peter 1991 Classic Maya Emblem Glyphs. In: Classic Maya Political History: Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence, edited by T. Patrick Culbert: 19–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001 Notes on the Inscriptions on the Back of Dos Pilas Stela 8. In: The Decipherment of Ancient Maya Writing, edited by Stephen D. Houston, Oswaldo ChinchillaMazariegos, and David Stuart: 394–415. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Mathews, Peter and Péter Bíró 2006 Maya Hieroglyph Dictionary. In: Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. http://research.famsi.org/mdp/mdp_index.php (accessed: 2018– 10–10). Nehammer Knub, Julie, Simone Thun and Christophe Helmke 2009 The Divine Rite of Kings: An Analysis of Classic Maya Impersonation Statements. In: The Maya and their Sacred Narratives: Text and Context in Maya Mythologies, edited by Geneviève Le Fort, Raphaël Gardiol, Sebastian Matteo and Christophe Helmke: 177–195. Acta Mesoamericana 20. Markt Schwaben: Verlag Anton Saurwein. Pelto, Pertti J. and Gretel H. Pelto 1975 Intra-Cultural Diversity: Some Theoretical Issues. American Ethnologist 2(1): 1–18. Penner, Hans H. 1975 The Problem of Semantics in the Study of Religion. In: Methodological Issues in Religious Studies, edited by Robert D. Baird: 49–66. Chico: New Horizons Press. Prager, Christian M. 2010 Die Kognitionswissenschaftliche Erforschung von Religion. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 135(2): 219–232. 2013 Übernatürliche Akteure in der Klassischen Maya-Religion: Eine Untersuchung zu intrakultureller Variation und Stabilität am Beispiel des k’uh “Götter”-Konzepts in den religiösen Vorstellungen und Überzeugungen Klassischer Maya-Eliten (250–900 n. Chr.). PhD dissertation. Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität. http://hss. ulb.uni-bonn.de/2014/3539/3539.htm (accessed 2018–10–10). 2018a The Signs 740 and 812 for SIH “Gift”: Representation and Meaning in the Maya Codices. Textdatenbank und Wörterbuch des Klassischen Maya Research Note 10. http:// dx.doi.org/10.20376/IDIOM-23665556.18.rn010.en. 2018b The Lexeme potz “to wrap, cover” in Classic Maya Hieroglyphic Texts. Mexicon 50(1): 4–7. Pyysiäinen, Ilkka 2001 How Religion Works: Towards a New Cognitive Science of Religion. Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill. Reents-Budet, Dorie, Ronald Bishop, and Barbara MacLeod 1994 Painting Styles, Workshop Locations and Pottery Production. In: Painting the Maya Universe: Royal Ceramics of the Classic Period, edited by Dorie Reents-Budet: 164–233. Durham: Duke University Press. Riese, Berthold 2004 Maya-Religion: Ziele und Wege ihrer Erforschung. In: Continuity and Change: Maya Religious Practices in Temporal Perspective, edited by Daniel Graña-Behrens, Nikolai Grube, Christian M. Prager, Frauke Sachse, Stefanie Teufel, and Elizabeth Wagner: 25–30. Acta Mesoamericana 14. Markt Schwaben: Verlag Anton Saurwein. Ringle, William M. 1988 Of Mice and Monkeys: The Value and Meaning of T1016, the God C Hieroglyph. Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 18. Washington, D.C.: Center for Maya Research. Rudolph, Wolfgang and Peter Tschohl 1977 Systematische Anthropologie. München: Wilhelm Fink. A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 609 Schele, Linda 1985 The Hauberg Stela: Bloodletting and the Mythos of Maya Rulership. In: Fifth Palenque Round Table, 1983, edited by Virginia M. Fields: 135–149. The Palenque Round Table Series 7. San Francisco: The Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute. http://www.precolumbia.org/pari/publications/RT07/Schele1985-OCR.pdf (accessed 2018–10–10). 1992 Notebook for the XVIth Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop at Texas, March 14–15, 1992; Palenque: The Group of the Cross. Austin: Department of Art and Art History, the College of Fine Arts, and the Institute of Latin American Studies. Workbook distributed at the 26th Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop at Texas. Schele, Linda and Nikolai Grube 1994 Notebook for the XVIIIth Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop at Texas, March 13–14, 1994; TlalocVenus Warfare: The Petén Wars 8.17.0.0.0–9.15.13.0.0. Austin: Department of Art and Art History, the College of Fine Arts, and the Institute of Latin American Studies. Workbook distributed at the 28th Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop at Texas. 1997 Notebook for the XXIst Maya Hieroglyphic Forum at Texas, March, 1997. Austin: Department of Art and Art History, the College of Fine Arts, and the Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas at Austin. Workbook distributed at the 21st Maya Hieroglyphic Forum at Texas. Schele, Linda, Nikolai Grube, and Simon Martin 1998 Notebook for the XXIInd Maya Hieroglyphic Forum at Texas, March, 1998. Austin: Department of Art and Art History, the College of Fine Arts, and the Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas at Austin. Workbook distributed at the 22nd Maya Hieroglyphic Forum at Texas. Schele, Linda and Mary E. Miller 1986 The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. New York: George Braziller. Schellhas, Paul 1892 Die Göttergestalten der Maya-Handschriften. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 24: 101–121. 1897 Die Göttergestalten der Mayahandschriften: Ein mythologisches Kulturbild aus dem alten Amerika. Dresden: Richard Bertling. 1904 Representation of Deities of the Maya Manuscripts. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 4. Cambridge: Harvard University. Sperber, Dan 1993 Interpreting and Explaining Cultural Representations. In: Beyond Boundaries: Understanding, Translation and Anthropological Discourse, edited by Gísli Pálsson: 162–183. Oxford, Providence: Berg. Sperber, Dan and Lawrence A. Hirschfeld 2004 The Cognitive Foundations of Cultural Stability and Diversity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(1): 40–46. Stone, Andrea and Marc Zender 2011 Reading Maya Art: A Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Maya Painting and Sculpture. New York: Thames and Hudson. Stross, Brian 2008 K’U: The Divine Monkey. Journal of Mesoamerican Languages and Linguistics 1(1): 1–34. Stuart, David 1988a Letter on the Decipherment of the God C Hieroglyph as K’U. Unpublished Letter. 1988b Blood Symbolism in Maya Iconography. In: Maya Iconography, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson and Gillett G. Griffin: 175–221. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1996 Kings of Stone: A Consideration of Stelae in Ancient Maya Ritual and Representation. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics (29/30): 148–171. 610 Christian M. Prager The Hills Are Alive: Sacred Mountains in the Maya Cosmos. Symbols (Spring): 13–17. Longer Live the King: The Questionable Demise of K’inich K’an Joy Chitam of Palenque. The PARI Journal 4(1): 1–4. 2007 Reading the Water Serpent as WITZ’. In: Maya Decipherment. http://decipherment. wordpress.com/2007/04/13/reading-the-water-serpent/ (accessed: 2018–10–10). Stuart, David and Stephen D. Houston 1996 Of Gods, Glyphs and Kings: Divinity and Rulership Among the Classic Maya. Antiquity 70(268): 289–312. Stuart, David and Sarah Jackson 2001 The Aj K’uhun Title: Deciphering a Classic Maya Term of Rank. Ancient Mesoamerica 12(2): 217–228. Stuart, David S., Stephen D. Houston, and John S. Robertson 1999 Notebook for the XXIIIrd Maya Hieroglyphic Forum at Texas, March 1999: Recovering the Past—Classic Mayan Language and Classic Maya Gods. Austin: Department of Art and Art History, the College of Fine Arts, and the Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas at Austin. Workbook distributed at the 23rd Maya Hieroglyphic Forum at Texas. Taube, Karl A. 1992 The Major Gods of Ancient Yucatan. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology 32. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Thompson, J. Eric S. 1950 Maya Hieroglyphic Writing. An Introduction. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 589. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington. 1970 Maya History and Religion. The Civilization of the American Indian Series, 99. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Tokovinine, Alexandre 2002 A Classic Maya Term for Public Performance. In: Mesoweb. www.mesoweb.com/ features/tokovinine/Performance.pdf (accessed: 2018–12–05). 2008 The Power of Place: Political Landscape and Identity in Classic Maya Inscriptions, Imagery, and Architecture. PhD dissertation. Cambridge: Harvard University. Villacorta C., José Antonio and Carlos A. Villacorta (eds.) 1930 Códices mayas: Dresdensis, Peresianus, Tro-Cortesianus. Guatemala: Tipografia Nacional. Villela, Khristaan D. 1993 Quirigua Zoomorph P and Three “Stones of Creation”. Texas Notes on Precolumbian Art, Writing, and Culture 59. Austin: Center of the History and Art of Ancient American Culture, Art Department, University of Texas at Austin. http://repositories.lib. utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/15935/TN%20no.%2059.pdf?sequence=2 (accessed: 2018–12–05). Wald, Robert 2007 The Verbal Complex in Classic-Period Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions: Its Implications for Language Identification and Change. PhD dissertation. Austin: The University of Texas. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/13134/ waldr55205.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y (accessed: 2018–10–01). Webster, David 1998 Classic Maya Architecture: Implications and Comparisons. In: Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture: A Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks, 7th and 8th October 1994, edited by Stephen D. Houston: 5–47. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Whitehouse, Harvey and James Laidlaw 2007 Religion, Anthropology, and Cognitive Science. Durham: Carolina Academic Press. 1997 2003 A Study of the Classic Maya k’uh Concept 611 Wichmann, Søren 2004 The Grammar of the Half-Period Glyph. In: The Linguistics of Maya Writing, edited by Søren Wichmann: 327–337. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. 2006 Mayan Historical Linguistics and Epigraphy: A New Synthesis. Annual Review of Anthropology 35: 279–294. Wisdom, Charles 1950 Materials on the Chorti Language. Microfilm Collection of Manuscripts on Middle American Cultural Anthropology, 28. Chicago: University of Chicago. Wright, Mark A. 2011 A Study of Classic Maya Rulership. PhD dissertation. Riverside: University of California.