The solution to the Denver Brussels inscription of Sak Ts´i´

The solution to the Denver Brussels inscription of Sak Ts´i´ by Jens S. Rohark and Mario Krygier independent researchers Uploaded to www.researchgate.net and academia.edu on 9th January 2024 Figure 1: The Denver and Brussels panels. Drawing by Alexander Safronov. The Denver panel and the Brussels panel originally formed one large panel, which later was cut into two pieces. Another part of the inscription is missing. The inscription mentions a local ruler of the Sak Ts´i´ (“White Dog”) polity, called K´ab Chan Te´. Epigraphists struggle with the fact that the initial portion of the inscription is missing, which probably would have allowed to fix the six Calendar Round dates of the text into the Long Count system. They are divided as to whether the last date corresponds to the year 641 or 693 AD. In this article, we will show which one of the scenarios – the earlier or the later one – is the correct one, based on numerological and astronomical grounds. Another trouble spot of this inscription is the connection between the first and second date. As is well known, the indicated distance number does not connect both Calendar Round dates correctly. So far, everybody has assumed that the dates are correct, and the distance number is wrong. However, we will demonstrate that this assumption is incorrect. The inscription starts with the name of the Piedras Negras ruler Yo´nal Ahk, a name which occurs three times at this site. Since the initial part of the inscription is missing, we do not know in which context he is mentioned here. He carries the title k´ihn ajaw, “the lord of the sun”, which is typical for Piedras Negras. In block A2 it says “it was the doing of/ it was overseen by”, followed by the title “lord of the second k´atun” in block B2, “ball player of the second k´atun” in block A3, and the name of K´ab Chan Te´, the ruler of Sak Ts´i´, in block B3. Block A4 indicates a distance number of 17 days, 0 winals and 5 k´atuns. Block B4 indicates the date 8 Chikchan 18 Kumk´u. The drawing by Linda Schele shows 13 Kumk´u. The drawings by Alfonso Arellano Hernández, John Montgomery and Alexander Safronow, as well as the photographs of the original Denver panel, show 18 Kumk´u. Block A5 says “and then came 13 Ik´”, followed by 5 Sip in the next block. Then follows the verb “fire was thrown/prepared”, which according to Alejandro Sheseña Hernández is not an expression of a belligerent act, but instead refers to a foundational ritual which includes burning incense. The next block, A6, mentions the protagonist of this ritual, Nik Ahk Mo´o, lord of Pepem Tun, which is the site known as La Mar. Block B6 provides us with the location of this ritual, which is “in the cave of K´ab Chan Te´”. It is unclear whether a literal cave or the place of White Dog is meant. Block A7 provides the titles Lord of White Dog, and Lord of the world for K´ab Chan Te´. Block B7 says “one day later, on day 1 Ak´bal…” The next two blocks look unusual. They seem to describe some destruction or beheading, either of some sculpture, or possibly of the La Mar lord himself, who is mentioned in the next block, C1. This act was the doing (block D1) of the 2 k´atun lord (block C2) K´ab Chan Te´ (block D2). Block C3 says “he is his lord of the sun”. This seems to imply that K´ab Chan Te´ considers himself to be the real overlord of Nik Ahk Mo´o, whereas Nik Ahk Mo´o might have considered his overlord to be the ruler of Piedras Negras. From this inscription alone it is not possible to conclude which the relationship was between Piedras Negras and the White Dog polity at that moment. Rohark and Krygier: The solution to the Denver Brussels inscription of Sak Ts´i´ – page 2 As it seems, K´ab Chan Te´ had taken revenge for the illicit ritual of Nik Ahk Mo´o, who had dared to perform an important ritual within the territory of K´ab Chan Te´. The inscription goes on to say that the next three days, 2 K´an and 3 Chikchan (block D3), as well as 4 Kimi (block D5), several people, either from the court of Nik Ahk Mo´o or allies of his, were taken captives and brought before the presence (block C8) of K´ab Chan Te´, lord of the White Dog place (block D8). One of the captives is Ek´ Mo´o of Ak´e´, which might refer to the site of Lacanja´ near Bonampak. The blocks from C6 to D7 list many people, either their names or their places of origin. When did all this quarrel take place? It is very important for the understanding of the regional history of the Usumacinta area, to fix those dates correctly with the Long Count system. In order to achieve that, we must investigate when the Piedras Negras ruler Yo´nal Ahk lived. Unfortunately, this name shows up three times. Yo´nal Ahk I ruled from 603 to 639 AD. We do not know his birth date. Judging from the title of 2 k´atun lord during his death, he must have died very young, less than 40 years old. Also, he must have accessed the throne at a tender age. There is a possibility though that the k´atun age title is not reliable. Yo´nal Ahk II was born in the year 665 AD, accessed the throne in 687 AD, and died in 729 AD. Yo´nal Ahk III accessed the throne in 758 AD and died in 767 AD. Let us calculate the possible Long Count dates for the last date of the inscription. The ritual was performed on a day 13 Ik´ 5 Sip. The first day of the White Dog ruler´s rampage was on the very next day, 1 Ak´bal 6 Sip. The next three days are 2 K´an 7 Sip, 3 Chikchan 8 Sip, and 4 Kimi 9 Sip. The following image shows us possible Long Count dates for this Calendar Round date 4 Kimi 9 Sip. Figure 2: Possible LC dates for the CR 4 Kimi 9 Sip. Program by Mario Krygier. Rohark and Krygier: The solution to the Denver Brussels inscription of Sak Ts´i´ – page 3 We can exclude the date 9.7.15.11.6. of the year 589 AD, because no Yo´nal Ahk was on the throne then. The next date, 9.10.8.6.6. in the year 641 AD is possible. Although Yo´nal Ahk I died in 639, the first date of the inscription is about 5 years before the last date. Therefore, the reference to Yo´nal Ahk I is possible. The next possible Long Count date for 4 Kimi 9 Sip is 9.13.1.1.6. in the year 693 AD. That would be during the reign of Yo´nal Ahk II, so it is also possible. The next date, 9.15.13.14.6. in the year 745, is not possible. The next date, 9.18.6.9.6. in the year 797 AD, is also not possible, because it is after the reign of Yo´nal Ahk III. Therefore, only two dates are possible, either in the year 641 and in the year 693 AD. By the way, it is also not possible to come to any conclusion investigating other inscriptions which mention the name of the ruler of Sak Ts´i´. It turns out that K´ab Chan Te´ was as popular a name in Sak Ts´i´ as was Yaxun Balam in Yaxchilán. The following table shows the two possibilities for the last 5 dates of the inscription. We are leaving out, for the moment, the first date, since the distance number is problematic. early set date # 1 2 3 4 5 6 Long Count ? 9.10.8.6.2. 9.10.8.6.3. 9.10.8.6.4. 9.10.8.6.5. 9.10.8.6.6. Calendar Round ? 13 Ik´ 5 Sip 1 Ak´bal 6 Sip 2 K´an 7 Sip 3 Chikchan 8 Sip 4 Kimi 9 Sip Julian date ? 14 April 641 AD 15 April 641 AD 16 April 641 AD 17 April 641 AD 18 April 641 AD event ? ritual beheading capture capture trial Julian date ? 1 April 693 AD 2 April 693 AD 3 April 693 AD 4 April 693 AD 5 April 693 AD event ? ritual beheading capture capture trial later set date # 1 2 3 4 5 6 Long Count ? 9.13.1.1.2. 9.13.1.1.3. 9.13.1.1.4. 9.13.1.1.5. 9.13.1.1.6. Calendar Round ? 13 Ik´ 5 Sip 1 Ak´bal 6 Sip 2 K´an 7 Sip 3 Chikchan 8 Sip 4 Kimi 9 Sip We will have a look now at the first date and the distance number. Blocks A4 to B5 state that 17 days and 5 years after 8 Chikchan 18 Kumk´u comes 13 Ik´ 5 Sip. Counting this distance from 8 Chikchan 18 Kumk´u, however, we arrive at 5 Ik´ 10 Kumk´u. This problem has been fixed by most experts by adding 3 winals to the distance number. Adding 0.0.5.3.17., successfully connects the first date with the second one. However, we must keep in mind that this step is not the only one possible. Whenever we Rohark and Krygier: The solution to the Denver Brussels inscription of Sak Ts´i´ – page 4 have a problematic connection between two dates, when date A + DN = date B does not add up, there are three possibilities. First: the DN is wrong. Second: date A is wrong. Third: date B is wrong. In most of these cases, the first possibility is true: the distance number is wrong. However, it need not be so. In the case of this inscription, it is unlikely that date B (13 Ik´ 5 Sip) is wrong, since it is being followed by 4 other consecutive days. However, the likelihood that date A is wrong, is just as good as the likelihood that the distance number is wrong. To mention another case where the distance number does not connect correctly between two dates, we can take a look at Stela N of Copán (see the article “Planetary formulae in the inscription of Stela N of Copán”). A thorough investigation shows that the distance number of 14.17.19.10.0.0. is indeed correct, expressing, by the way, a multiple of the synodic period of Mercury, since 42,908,400 days = 369,900 x 116 days. There is another inscription, where the distance number is correct. In the inscription of stela 31 of Tikal, there are two dates connected with an implied distance number of 262 days. The dates are written as 8 Men and 10 Kaban. The first date refers to Yax Nuun Ahiin leaving the Wiin Te Nah in Teotihuacan, the second one refers to his coronation in Tikal. Both dates are wrong, because they should be 3 Men and 5 Kaban, which we know thanks to other inscriptions. See also the article “La estela 31 de Tikal – una reinterpretación de sus fechas y sus implicaciones”. The Marcador of Tikal is another example, with the Calendar Round of the initial date given incorrectly as 11 Ehb 10 Mak (which should be 11 Ehb 15 Mak), connecting with a distance number of 0.0.3.13.12. to be counted backwards, to the coronation date of Spearthrower Owl on 8.16.17.9.0. 11 Ajaw 3 Wayeb. Again, the distance number is correct, date A is not. There are also numerological reasons, as well as astronomical ones, to come to the conclusion that the distance number in the Denver Brussels inscription is correct. Let us assume the second possibility here, for a moment. We assume that the distance number is actually correct. Counting backwards 0.0.5.0.17. from 13 Ik´ 5 Sip, we arrive at a Calendar Round of 3 Chikchan 13 Sip. Comparing this date with the other dates of the inscription, we see that the Tsolk´in date shows up again, in the fifth date, 3 Chikchan 8 Sip. The distance between both dates is exactly 1820 days. This number should ring a bell with every Maya expert. It expresses a well-known formula: 1820 = 7 x 260 = 5 x 364 Those 1820 days are equivalent to 7 Tsolk´in periods and 5 zodiac years of 364 days, which are 13 times 28 days. The formula shows up in the Dresden codex, explicitly mentioned, as 5 tun years and 1 winal, on plate 31 (55), in the eclipse table: Rohark and Krygier: The solution to the Denver Brussels inscription of Sak Ts´i´ – page 5 Figure 3: The 1820 day formula in the Dresden Codex. We do not think that this is a coincidence here. Since we have two possibilities for the first date, and an earlier and a later set of dates, there would be four possibilities for the first date altogether. We will first investigate the other 5 dates, in order to establish which set is likely the correct one. After that we will proceed to establish the first date. It is unusual that an inscription mentions five days in a row. The first date is a moment of an important ritual. This should coincide with some important astronomical event. We are certainly not expecting interesting astronomical events for 5 consecutive dates, but we would expect at least one important event for the first of those five dates, and preferably, also for the last date. We will now take a look at the night sky for the five dates of each set. 1 early set date # 1 2 3 4 5 Long Count Calendar Round Julian date event astronomical event ? 9.10.8.6.2. 9.10.8.6.3. 9.10.8.6.4. 9.10.8.6.5. ? 13 Ik´ 5 Sip 1 Ak´bal 6 Sip 2 K´an 7 Sip 3 Chikchan 8 Sip ? 14 April 641 AD 15 April 641 AD 16 April 641 AD 17 April 641 AD ? ritual beheading capture capture 6 9.10.8.6.6. 4 Kimi 9 Sip 18 April 641 AD trial ? nothing nothing nothing moon next to Mercury nothing later set date # 1 2 Long Count Calendar Round Julian date event astronomical event ? 9.13.1.1.2. ? 13 Ik´ 5 Sip ? 1 April 693 AD ? ritual 3 4 5 6 9.13.1.1.3. 9.13.1.1.4. 9.13.1.1.5. 9.13.1.1.6. 1 Ak´bal 6 Sip 2 K´an 7 Sip 3 Chikchan 8 Sip 4 Kimi 9 Sip 2 April 693 AD 3 April 693 AD 4 April 693 AD 5 April 693 AD beheading capture capture trial ? moon just passed Saturn nothing nothing nothing moon very close to Jupiter Rohark and Krygier: The solution to the Denver Brussels inscription of Sak Ts´i´ – page 6 Figure 4: The night sky of the date 9.10.8.6.5. 3 Chikchan 8 Sip according to 584,285.25 correlation Figure 5: The night sky of the date 9.13.1.1.2. 13 Ik´ 5 Sip according to 584,285.25 correlation Rohark and Krygier: The solution to the Denver Brussels inscription of Sak Ts´i´ – page 7 Figure 6: The night sky of the date 9.13.1.1.6. 4 Kimi 9 Sip according to 584,285.25 correlation The early set of dates shows no special astronomical events for the date of the ritual, performed by Nik Ahk Mo´o, lord of Pepem Tun. This is quite suspicious. There is barely one astronomical event during those five days for the early set of dates, the moon being more or less close to Mercury on the forth date. It looks much better for the later set of dates. Both the first and fifth date show very interesting astronomical events, precisely in those nights. We remember that the Maya date goes for the whole night. Therefore, we can conclude that the later set of dates must be the correct one. This is also more in accord with the style of the inscription, as observed by Peter Mathews, reported so by Péter Biró in „Sak Tz'i' in the Classic Period Maya Inscriptions“, p. 6. We must also bear in mind that stela 26 of Piedras Negras mentions the capture of a ruler K´ab Chan Te´ of Sak Ts´i´ sometime between 624 and 628 AD. If a ruler K´ab Chan Te was alive around 641 AD, then we must assume that he was released as a prisoner to occupy his throne again, which frankly sounds quite unlikely. Another K´ab Chan Te´ is mentioned between the years 717 and 726 AD on the Nuevo Jalisco and Zurich panels. This is likely the same ruler of the Denver Brussels panel. Now that we know that the later scheme of dates of the Denver Brussels panel is the correct one, we will proceed to establish the first date. As mentioned above, there are very good numerological reasons to assume that the distance number of 0.0.5.0.17. is actually correct, and that the first Calendar Round, given as 8 Chikchan 18 Kumk´u has Rohark and Krygier: The solution to the Denver Brussels inscription of Sak Ts´i´ – page 8 to be corrected to 3 Chikchan 13 Sip. Anyway, we will take a look at the night sky for both dates, to see if there is additional support for our reconstruction of the first date. In the later dating scenario, the original CR date of 8 Chikchan 18 Kumk´u would correspond to 9.12.15.15.5., which corresponds to 10th of February 688 AD in the Julian calendar. The corrected distance number would be 0.0.5.3.17. to connect with the next date, which is 9.13.1.1.2. 13 Ik´ 5 Sip. In the same dating scenario, the corrected CR date of 3 Chikchan 13 Sip would correspond to 9.12.16.0.5., which corresponds to 10th of April 688 AD in the Julian calendar. The original distance number 0.0.5.0.17. would connect with the next date, which is 9.13.1.1.2. 13 Ik´ 5 Sip. What did the sky look like during both dates? There is absolutely nothing interesting going on during the first night, from the 10th to the 11th of February 688 AD, Julian. This situation changes dramatically when checking the night of the second date. Figure 7: The night sky of the date 9.12.16.0.5. 3 Chikchan 13 Sip according to 584,285.25 correlation We will have to zoom in, in order to see what is going on. Then we realize that we have a very nice conjunction of Mars and Jupiter. The planets were very close to each other for about two weeks, approximately from the 6th to the 22nd of Abril 688 AD, Julian. Therefore, we can safely conclude that the date 9.12.16.0.5. 3 Chikchan 13 Sip is the intended first date of the Denver Brussels panel inscription. Rohark and Krygier: The solution to the Denver Brussels inscription of Sak Ts´i´ – page 9 Figure 8: The night sky of the date 9.12.16.0.5. 3 Chikchan 13 Sip according to 584,285.25 correlation Likeliest dates of the Denver Brussels panel inscription date # 1 Long Count or DN 9.12.16.0.5. Calendar Round Julian date event astronomical event 3 Chikchan 13 Sip 10 April 688 AD ? conjunction of Mars and Jupiter DN 2 0.0.5.0.17. 9.13.1.1.2. 13 Ik´ 5 Sip 1 April 693 AD ritual 3 4 5 6 9.13.1.1.3. 9.13.1.1.4. 9.13.1.1.5. 9.13.1.1.6. 1 Ak´bal 6 Sip 2 K´an 7 Sip 3 Chikchan 8 Sip 4 Kimi 9 Sip 2 April 693 AD 3 April 693 AD 4 April 693 AD 5 April 693 AD beheading capture capture trial moon just passed Saturn nothing nothing nothing moon very close to Jupiter 1 The approximate coordinates of Sak Ts´i´ are 16° 55´ North and 91° 19´ West, near Lacanja Tzeltal. See Golden et al (2019) for map. *** Rohark and Krygier: The solution to the Denver Brussels inscription of Sak Ts´i´ – page 10 Bibliography BELIAEV, Dmitri & Alexander Safronov: Saktz’i’, Ak’e’ and Xukalnaah: Reinterpreting the political geography of the Upper Usumacinta Region. 14th European Maya Conference (November 13–14, 2009) BIRO, Peter: The Classic Maya Western Region: A History. British Archaeological Reports (January 15, 2012) BIRO, Peter: Sak Tz'i' in the Classic Period Hieroglyphic Inscriptions. Mesoweb Publications. 2005 BOOT, Eric: The Updated Preliminary Classic Maya ‐ English, English ‐ Classic Maya Vocabulary of Hieroglyphic Readings. Mesoweb Resources. April 2009 GOLDEN, Charles, Andrew K. Scherer, Stephen Houston, Whittaker Schroder, Shanti Morell-Hart, Socorro del Pilar Jiménez Álvarez, George Van Kollias, Moises Yerath Ramiro Talavera, Mallory Matsumoto, Jeffrey Dobereiner & Omar Alcover Firpi (2019): Centering the Classic Maya Kingdom of Sak Tz’i’. Journal of Field Archaeology. December 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2019.1684748 KRYGIER, Mario & Jens Rohark: Anatomie des Mayakalenders. Hein-Verlag. 2017. ISBN 978-3944828-03-9. MARTIN, Simon, and Nikolai Grube: Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens. 2nd ed. Thames and Hudson, London. 2008 ROHARK, Jens: La estela 31 de Tikal – una reinterpretación de sus fechas y sus implicaciones. Academia.edu and researchgate.net, May 2022 ROHARK, Jens: Planetary formulae in the inscription of Stela N of Copán. Academia.edu and researchgate.net, January 2020 ROHARK, Jens and María Claudia Manzanilla Castro: Las fechas del panel 1 de Sak Ts´i´-LacanjáTzeltal y su significado astronómico. Academia.edu and researchgate.net, April 2021 SHESEÑA, Alejandro Hernández: Joyaj ti 'ajawlel – la ascensión al poder entre los mayas clásicos. Afínita Editorial México S. A. de C. V., Atizapán de Zaragoza Estado de México, 2015 TEUFEL, Stefanie: Die Monumentalskulpturen von Piedras Negras, Petén, Guatemala: Eine hieroglyphische und ikonographisch-ikonologische Analyse. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der Philosophischen Fakultät der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn, Bonn, 2004 www.lacambalam.de (website of the LACAMBALAM ACADEMY) http://research.famsi.org/uploads/montgomery/347/image/JM00906DenverMusPan.jpg www.wayeb.org/resourceslinks/wayeb_drawings.php www.stellarium.org Rohark and Krygier: The solution to the Denver Brussels inscription of Sak Ts´i´ – page 11