Comments for Maya Decipherment

Comment on REPORT: Tonina’s Curious Ballgame by Nick Hopkins

Nick Hopkins — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:14:15 +0000

I agree with that last statement, David. One of the paradoxes of Maya epigraphy is that we can agree on the essential meaning of a phrase without agreeing on why it means that.

Comment on REPORT: Tonina’s Curious Ballgame by David Stuart

David Stuart — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:27:13 +0000

I’m not sure about “all the major epigraphers” (is there a club I’m unaware of?) but I would translate baah based on its attested meanings – “persona, body, self” and sometimes “image.” When u baah is used to introduce a figure caption it’s simply a stative expression, and any of these translations would work fine, but I find “his/her image” a pretty good parallel. Certainly there are examples of u baah embedded in longer texts that don’t serve as captions per se, but the function isn’t all that different, as in u baah u huntahn, “his body/person is the precious one of…” . Those ti- or ta- constructions are elaborations on the same idea, adding a prepositional phrase with a verbal noun. English doesn’t have a straight literal translation for these phrases (u baah ti ak’ta, “his persona in the act of dancing,” sounds kind of forced and awkward), so “dancing is so-and-so” would certainly be an OK translation in my book. So whether we classify them auxiliary verbs, stative expressions, or whatever, I think we all agree on what they do.

Comment on REPORT: Tonina’s Curious Ballgame by Nick Hopkins

Nick Hopkins — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:55:52 +0000

Lorna (et al.)– While all the major epigraphers have adopted the “his image” reading for the “u ba(a)h” phrases, I (among others) continue to take it as an auxiliary verb in a “ti construction,” as discussed in the 4th Palenque Round Table report (1985). There are instances of “u bah” in texts where there is no image, but where the auxiliary verb role would be appropriate. From this point of view, the sentence can be read as “Playing ball is So-and-so.”

Comment on REPORT: Tonina’s Curious Ballgame by lornahuff

lornahuff — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 03:17:43 +0000

HI David, Thank you for this interesting report. I’m curious about the manner in which the two Tonina players on bent knees stare intently at the ball at near eye level. This stance is evident in other ball game scenes such as on a La Corona staircase riser where one of the players is leaning on one elbow on the ball court floor staring directly at the ball on a bottom stair. Several Yaxchilan hieroglyphic stair panels show the players (eg.Bird Jaguar, his father, his grandfather) on their hands and knees staring at the ball near eye level. It seems the large ball on M.171 is the focal image of the scene although it is apparently devoid of design or in-fixed glyphs seen in other ball depictions. You mentioned the event phrase in the caption above the ball reads, u baah ta pitz, ” (it is) his image (in the act) of ball playing”. It seems the text describes the action of the Tonina rulers who are portrayed as looking at ” his image” (of their common Calakmul overlord?) on/in the ball?

Comment on REPORT: Tonina’s Curious Ballgame by David Stuart

David Stuart — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:13:06 +0000

That name phrase with the 1 k’atun title, etc. is pretty much identical to the one used on that “kot” wall with the stucco glyph column, and with dates falling right in the reign of K’inich Baaknal Chahk. So I’m pretty sure its the same guy here on M.171.

I have wondered too about that IL-ni glyph, right before the name in the central text, but could it be something else besides “witness” (which is usually spelled differently as ila’)? One possibility is that it’s a demonstrative element, “now” or “this one here.” In Ch’olan we have these forms, all based in the “see” root:
CH’OL ili – este, esta
CH’ORTI’ irah – here, this place, now, present moment, moment of time
CH’OLTI’ ila – este, esto; aquel, aquello
Perhaps there was an earlier form ili(n) with similar functions? It’s a rare glyph, but one example on the Pomona “k’atun panels” is fascinating, spelled IL-ni-ya and paired with the pronoun ha’i in reference to an early ruler who reigned ca. 9.4.0.0.0. Maybe this can be in fact a verb, then, some sort of anti-passive derivation, ha’i il-n-iiy.

Comment on REPORT: Tonina’s Curious Ballgame by Stephen Houston

Stephen Houston — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 23:24:43 +0000

Useful discussion, with two small morsels for thought: (1) the IL-ni, il-n-i, “he sees,” at your B3, presumably in reference to the ruler of Calakmul as a witness; and (2) a vacant span some 20 yrs after Chapaat’s reign. Given the 1 “k’atun” reference to the right, is there a chance that this young fellow is simply a namesake who recycles an earlier royal name? …i.e., someone after Ruler 5 who is otherwise unattested? Of course, there is a little evidence, as at BPK, for tanist-like usage of k’uhul titles.

Comment on REPORT: Tonina’s Curious Ballgame by Nick Hopkins

Nick Hopkins — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:02:01 +0000

For the record, my suggestion of u-majchil ‘the relative of’ is based on the Chol term in Aulie and Aulie, “majchil, s., 1. pariente; 2. clan (Tila), familia extendida.” This is a reflex of the now defunct patrilineal clan system that I have discussed elsewhere (6th Palenque Round Table, Estudios de Cultura Maya 17:87-121). While now defunct, the clan system is still reflected in the language: The question “Who (is he)?” is majch-ki?, literally “what clan?.” The relationship doesn’t have to be close; two people with the same surname can be considered to be kinsmen somehow.

Comment on Unusual Signs 1: A Possible Co Syllable by Jens Rohark

Jens Rohark — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:12:05 +0000

is probably tso

Comment on REPORT: Tonina’s Curious Ballgame by David Stuart

David Stuart — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 03:18:26 +0000

We will need far more evidence to posit a reading for the logogram in D1 (U-ma-?-li). Before any word value can be confidently assigned to it, we’ll need a much better sense of the sign’s semantic range. The handful of examples we have don’t really allow for that. All we can say on M.171 is that it expresses some sort of relationship where Yich’aak Chapat is the “owner” (i.e., the referent of the possessive pronoun). Keep in mind, too, that the term need not relate the two people named; it could just as easily refer to the ballgame event in some way, connecting it to the Tonina king.

The other one or two Tonina inscriptions I’ve seen with this same unusual glyph still remain hidden away in the site bodega, but they should eventually help us out once they see the light of day. Also, the sign in question has a strong visual resemblance to the so-called” bone-throne,” a curious motif that can be a seat or surface for offerings, among other uses. That may eventually enter into the mix of evidence as well.

As far as phonetic clues, the ma- superfix is perhaps a phonetic complement. In at least one other example, in a personal name, it shows a -na suffix (CHAK-?-na). I’ve considered MAN “buy” or MATAN “gift” as possible values, but I can’t really see how these readings would work in the case of M.171.

For me, it’s simply a case of needing more examples in order to make any compelling line of argument for the sign’s value.

Comment on REPORT: Tonina’s Curious Ballgame by Jens Rohark

Jens Rohark — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 02:14:35 +0000

I believe that D1 reads u ma-MAMAK-il, for “u mamakil”. The main sign MAMAK seams to be a woven structure, like a spiders web or woven cloth. But “mamakil” means “relative”. Just as Nick Hopkins has suggested a while ago… only with another, but similar vocabulary….
Look at these entries of the Diccionario Porrua: mambil – primo hermano, mam – primos hermanos, mamak – trama de la tela, urdimbre, mamaktah – tejer la tela de la araña, mamakil – pariente en afinidad, consanguíneo o pariente, mi pariente.
So my guess is, that the contemporaneous rulers Took´ K´awiil of Calakmul and K´inich Yich´aak Chapat of Tonina were cousins.