|
| Comments | |
|---|
| 1 | The 'birth' verb appears to be recorded at A11. Yax B'alam is not named, but the context of the inscription strongly implies that he was the individual born. If this interpretation is correct, then Yax B'alam would have been almost 16 years old upon his accession and 24 years old on 9.18.0.0.0. |
| 2 | A single glyph (B22) is recorded as explanation of this date. Teeple (1931:115) was the first to suggest that the date was a solar eclipse, and he suggested that the explanatory glyph described an eclipse event. In fact, a total eclipse of the sun was visible at Santa Elena Poco Uinic on 16 July, 790, Julian. This date has long been considered by many to be among the clearest supporting evidence for the so-called 'GMT' family of correlations between the Maya and European calendars. It should be noted that this date would involve a correlation one day later from that most commonly now favored and used in the Maya Dates Project. It may be that Santa Elena had a regional correlation offset by one day from the calendar used elsewhere in the Maya lowlands. |
| 3 | This date is implied by the Distance Number. It is not recorded, and either was carved on the Front of Stela 3 and is now weathered, or possibly we have here an example of a Maya 'circular argument', in which after the Distance Number we are meant to return to the top of the monument, to the Initial Series date. |
| 4 | Stela 1 of Santa Elena Poco Uinic has no surviving inscription. On stylistic grounds Stela 1 likely has a date close to that of Stela 3, and therefore could well be another monument of Yax B'alam. I mention it here and tentatively attribute the portrait of the standing ruler on Stela 1 as that of Yax B'alam. |
|
|
