Complete List of Text References
|
| Text | Site: Monument: Text Reference | Date of Monument | Date of Passage | Calendar Round | Julian Date | Event | Named? | Portrayed? | Comments |
|---|
| 1 | PAL: T.Cross, Tab Cross: Q5 | 9.12.18. 5.19 ? | 8.18. 0.13. 6 | 5 Kimi 14 K'ayab' | 30 Mar 397 | Birth | Y | - | 1,2 |
| 2 | PAL: T.Cross, Tab Cross: Q9 | 9.12.18. 5.19 ? | 8.19.15. 3. 4 | 1 Kan 2 K'ayab' | 10 Mar 431 | Accession | Y | - | 2,3 |
| 3 | PAL: Grp.XVI, K'an Tok Tab.: pA6-pB6 | 9.16.17.15. 4 | 8.19.19. 3. 0 | 7 Ajaw 18 Muwan | 13 Feb 435 | Inauguration of subordinate | Y | - | 4 |
| 4 | PAL: TI, Pier B | 9.12.11.12.10 ? | ?? | | ?? | Ancestral portrait | - | Y | 5 |
| 5 | PAL: TFC, Tab. Fol. Cross: E8-E9 | 9.12.18. 5.19 ? | -- | | -- | ?? | - | - | 6 |
| 6 | PAL: Grp.IV: Stone Incensario | ?? | -- | | ?? | Portrait head | - | Y? | 7 |
|
| Comments | |
|---|
| 1 | Karen Bassie-Sweet (1991:205, 261 notes 9,10) has argued that K'uk' B'alam I (she called him Kuk I) was the son of U Kokan Chan (called by her U K'ix Chan), and that he was a mythological figure from the 10th century, BC. Other researchers have placed him in the 4th century, AD, as I have here. |
| 2 | There are problems with the resolution of K'uk' B'alam I's birth and accession dates. Both the Long Count placements and the Calendar Round positions are open to dispute. |
| 3 | Only the K'uhul Toktan Ajaw emblem glyph is present in this passage—not K'uk' B'alam I's name. Most researchers (from Berlin 1965:337 on) have argued that the reference is to K'uk' B'alam I, who is named in the preceding passage. |
| 4 | K'uk' B'alam I's name does not survive, but the date and the pattern of the text of the K'an Tok Tablet (in which Palenque kings oversee the inauguration of subordinate nobles to office) indicates that he should have been named at A6-B6. Glyph B6 has the shape of an emblem glyph. |
| 5 | See Schele and Mathews (1998:99-100), for the argument that this is a representation of K'uk' B'alam I. |
| 6 | Although this is a clear reference to K'uk' B'alam I, the precise context of this passage is not clear. |
| 7 | This is possibly a portrait of the later king K'inich K'uk' B'alam II, but it is more likely that is portrays K'uk' B'alam I. |
|
|
