See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/382849582

The Long Mexican Supremacy: A New Look at the Relations of Teotihuacan with
Tikal, Piedras Negras, and the Snake Kingdom in the Second Half of the 5th and
Early 6th Centuries

Article · June 2024

CITATIONS READS
0 71

2 authors:

Maksym Styuflyaev Marie Stadnik

V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
3 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Maksym Styuflyaev on 03 August 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Glyph
Dwellers
Report 91 June 2024

The Long Mexican Supremacy: A New

Look at the Relations of Teotihuacan
with Tikal, Piedras Negras, and the
Snake Kingdom in the Second Half of
the 5th and Early 6th Centuries
Maksym Styuflyaev
MA in History, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Ukraine. [email protected]

Marie Stadnik
PhD student in History, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine. [email protected]

In this article, we address the problem that remains one of the most interesting and complicated in the
study of the history of Early Classic Mesoamerican civilizations. The controversy regarding the nature of
the influence of the powerful Mexican city-empire of Teotihuacan on the Maya lowlands has not subsided
for decades and has long led to a polarization of views among researchers (Braswell 2003; Canuto, Auld-
Thomas, and Arredondo Leiva 2020; Proskouriakoff 1993:4–10; Schele and Freidel 1990:146–147; Stone
1989; Stuart 2000:467–490; Stuart 2024). Recent archaeological discoveries have confirmed that
connections between the two parts of Mesoamerica were bilateral and complex (see Houston et al. 2021;
Sugiyama et al. 2020). They had been established long before 378 and took different forms over several
centuries (Canuto, Auld-Thomas, and Arredondo Leiva 2020:376–384). However, there is a lack of
comprehensive study on various aspects and phases of these relations. Scholars have mostly been focused
on the arrival of Sihyaj K’ahk’s army in Peten in 378 or the journey of the first Copan king, K’inich Yax K’uk’
 Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

Mo’, to Central Mexico. In this article, however, we explore other important questions: how long did the
political domination of foreigners last? And what were the consequences of its end?

The evidence presented in the article illustrates that Teotihuacan’s supremacy over Tikal and other Maya
cities was much longer and deeper than traditionally believed (see also Bíró 2017:48–49; Martin 2020:80–
81). Structurally, the work is divided into several parts. In the first section, “Tikal and Teotihuacan after
468: Enemies or Allies?”, we will argue that the idea of a confrontation between Tikal and Teotihuacan in
the second half of the 5th century that is pervasive in the literature lacks reliable grounds. Inscriptions
from this period from various Peten sites (Tikal Stela 40, El Peru Stela 16, and Uaxactun Stela 22) strongly
indicate that between 468 and 504, the region remained within Teotihuacan’s sphere of influence.
Another important piece of evidence of Tikal’s friendly political and cultural contacts with Central Mexico
at the time is the murals of Tetitla at Teotihuacan itself.

The strongest evidence of Teotihuacan’s active participation in Classic Maya political life in the early 6th
century comes from the Usumacinta region. The analysis of the inscriptions of Yaxchilan Lintel 37 and
monuments from Piedras Negras and Tonina confirms that Tikal kings remained vassals or allies of the
Mexican empire until at least 508. The section entitled “Yaxchilan and Piedras Negras in the Politics of
Hegemons” is devoted to this topic.

Finally, in the concluding part of the article entitled “The New Era”, we analyze how the concept of a long
Teotihuacan dominance affects the current understanding of the pivotal events that determined the
course of Classic Maya history in the middle of the 6th century, namely the weakening of Tikal and the
rise of the Snake (Kanul) kings. 1 Some circumstantial evidence suggests that during the era of Teotihuacan
supremacy, Tikal and Dzibanche were allies and represented the interests of the Mexican metropolis in
their respective regions. However, in the middle of the 6th century, Teotihuacan faced significant internal
difficulties and apparently could no longer control the distant periphery. This resulted in a vacuum of
supreme power in the Maya lowlands. Both Mutul and Kanul rulers tried to occupy the vacant position of
the hegemon. Our conclusion is based, among other things, on the occurrence of the titles kaloomte' and
“western K’awiil” in the inscriptions. The “western K’awiil” title might have emphasized the role of Tikal
rulers as Teotihuacan representatives in the Maya area. On the other hand, the title kaloomte' was
considered the most prestigious in the Maya political hierarchy and, between 378 and 518, belonged
exclusively to Mexican foreigners. Its almost simultaneous adoption by the rulers of Tikal and Dzibanche
became a clear manifestation of both dynasties’ claims to leadership. The competition between them led
to a series of devastating wars.

Tikal and Teotihuacan after 468: Enemies or Allies?

The analysis of numerous hieroglyphic inscriptions gives a clear indication that Teotihuacan played a
leading role in Maya political life from at least the end of the 4th century. Monuments and murals from
Tikal, Uaxactun, El Peru, Naachtun, La Sufricaya and other sites describe the same pivotal event – the
arrival of an army of strangers led by Sihyaj K’ahk’ in Peten (Estrada-Belli et al. 2009; Martin 2003:11–15;
Martin and Grube 2008:29–31; Nondédéo, Lacadena García-Gallo, and Cases Martin 2019; Safronov and

1
For the reading of the emblem glyphs of Tikal and the Snake Kingdom as Mutul and Kanul see Helmke and Kupprat
(2016:39–44) and Stuart (2023).

Page | 2
 Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

Beliaev 2017; Stuart 2000:467–490; Stuart 2024:9–21). The invaders deposed the previous ruler of Tikal
and replaced him with their protégé, Yax Nuun Ahiin I, the son of the Mexican lord Jatz’oom Kuy (Fig. 1). 2
Over the following several decades, kings either originated from Teotihuacan or sanctioned by the
Mexican metropolis came to power in numerous Maya cities. Jatz’oom Kuy and his successors presided
over such subordinate lords and held the highest title in the Maya political hierarchy, “western kaloomte'”
(Estrada-Belli and Tokovinine 2016:159–161; Martin 2020:241–245). 3

2
For more details on the decipherment of the syllable tz’o, see Davletshin (2024:115–119); however, see also Stuart
(2024:58-62) for remaining problems with the phonetic reading of the “Spearthrower Owl” name.
3
On the recently discovered El Peru Stela 51, Jatz’oom Kuy also bears the “Mutul lord” Tikal emblem glyph (block
M5). This could mean the family ties between Teotihuacan’s emperor and the Tikal dynasty were much stronger
than traditionally believed (Kelly, Freidel, and Navarro-Farr 2024:25, 33; Stuart 2024:13–14). In our opinion, another
possible example of the use of the Tikal dynastic title by Mexican hegemons is recorded on the right side of Tikal
Stela 31. Short captions on both lateral sides of this monument mention characters with foreign names who probably
arrived in Peten from Central Mexico (Beliaev 2019; for full analysis and translation of inscriptions on Tikal Stela 31
lateral sides see Davletshin 2024:126-129). One of them was a military commander (uyajawte’) under the direction
of a person of high status who held the titles of kaloomte' and “holy? Mutul lord” (blocks P2-P3). The name of the
overlord is omitted in the text. We believe that he was the son of Jatz’oom Kuy, who took the Teotihuacan throne
after his father’s death. Alternatively, it could be a posthumous mention of Jatz’oom Kuy himself. The son of Jatz’oom
Kuy with Mexican name is referenced in the caption on the left side of Tikal Stela 31 (blocks K2-L4).

Page | 3
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

Fig. 1. Tikal Stela 4. Portrait of Yax Nuun Ahiin I in Central Mexican attire. Photo by Yuriy Polyukhovych.

Page | 4
 Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

Although the decisive role of Teotihuacan in the transformation of the Classic Maya political regime is
beyond any doubt today, many controversial issues remain unresolved. Little is known, for example, about
how the invaders managed to maintain dominance over vassals for a long time. Teotihuacan was located
far from the Maya area, preventing it from exerting direct control (see also Canuto, Auld-Thomas, and
Arredondo Leiva 2020:394). Mechanisms of indirect control differed depending on the time and
circumstances. In the first decades after the entrada, Sihyaj K’ahk’ played the role of a reliable overseer
and representative of Teotihuacan’s interests in Peten. However, nothing is currently known of the heirs
of this military leader. He has no traditional emblem glyph in the texts, which means he never founded a
dynasty of his own. After the death of Sihyaj K’ahk’, the rulers of Tikal, who were related to Jatz’oom Kuy
and his descendants through family ties, likely became Teotihuacan’s leading allies (Beliaev 2003; Martin
2003:15–17).

Long journeys to Central Mexico made by Maya kings became an important way to demonstrate loyalty
to the new regime. There, the vassals of the “western kaloomte'” received symbols of authority that
legitimized their status as lawful rulers. We believe that this practice was initiated by the coronation of
Yax Nuun Ahiin I, which, according to the text of Tikal Stela 31 (fig. 2), happened on September 14, 379 4
at the place called Wiinte’naah (UH-ti-ya wi-TE’-NAAH, blocks F14-E15; on the reading Wiinte’naah, see
Estrada-Belli and Tokovinine 2016:159-161). The toponym Wiinte’naah is one of the designations for
Teotihuacan in Maya inscriptions. It is possible that Sihyaj K’ahk’ bears the title aj wiinte’naah on the Tikal
Marcador, which means he originated from this place (Beliaev, Galeev, and Vepretskii 2016:169). Yax
Nuun Ahiin I was also there before moving to Tikal. It is mentioned on the carved bone MT35 from the
burial of Mutul king Jasaw Chan K’awiil I (682-734) that on December 27, 378, Yax Nuun Ahiin I “descended
from Wiinte’naah”. According to a common interpretation, this brief statement means that the Mexican
prince departed from Wiinte’naah to Tikal (Martin 2020:407, n.18; Stuart 2000:508, n.9; Stuart 2024:36).
If so, the coronation of Yax Nuun Ahiin I must have only taken place after his arrival in the Maya lowlands,
although the place of the ceremony is clearly named Wiinte’naah on Tikal Stela 31.

Simon Martin, in his bid to resolve the obvious contradictions, suggested that in the case of Stela 31,
Wiinte’naah was equated with a temple in Tikal which copied a similar prototype structure from
Teotihuacan (Martin 2020:241-242), which seems unlikely to us. Some temples in Late Classic Copan do
imitate Teotihuacan symbols, but by that time the great city’s former glory was only a memory (Stuart
2000:495–498; Taube 2004). During the Early Classic, mentions of Wiinte’naah usually refer to actual
Central Mexico. Moreover, the inscriptions give no reason to identify the “descent” of Yax Nuun Ahiin I
with the beginning of his journey to Tikal. As the son of the Mexican emperor Jatz’oom Kuy, the young
lord would have been born at Teotihuacan. On December 27, 378, he left his hometown but came back
(“ascended to Wiinte’naah”) in September of the next year (see Tikal Stela 31, blocks E5-E7). It remains
to be seen where and why Yax Nuun Ahiin I traveled.

We agree with Alexandre Tokovinine’s notion that the “descent” of Yax Nuun Ahiin I from Wiinte’naah
and his “ascent” were pre-coronation rites performed by the young prince (Fash, Tokovinine, and Fash
2009:217; Tokovinine 2020:264–265; see also Stuart 2024: 36). However, we disagree with his
identification of Wiinte’naah as the Adosada platform of the Sun Pyramid in Teotihuacan. In our opinion,
the best analogy to the actions of Yax Nuun Ahiin I are initiation ceremonies of Maya princes, which are

4
In this article, Maya calendar dates are converted to the Gregorian calendar according to the 584286 version of the
GMT correlation proposed by Simon Martin and Joel Skidmore (Martin and Skidmore 2012).

Page | 5
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

well known from Late Classic inscriptions from Palenque and La Corona (Davletshin and Vepretskii 2017;
Polyukhovych 2012:136; Stuart 2006:130). As shown by Albert Davletshin and Sergei Vepretskii, during
their initiation ritual, the heirs to the throne went to a certain place where they remained in isolation for
a long time. Therefore, the authors suggest referring to this action as the “ritual seclusion of princes”
(Davletshin and Vepretskii 2023).

Fig. 2. Tikal Stela 31. Hieroglyphic text on the back of the monument. Photo by Yuriy Polyukhovych.

Page | 6
 Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

The text on the main tablet from the Temple of the Cross at Palenque reports that on June 18, 641, the
local six-year-old prince Aj Pitzil Ohl (the future king of Palenque K’inich Kan Bahlam II) “ascended to an
enclosed place surrounded by a wooden wall.” The “ritual seclusion” of Aj Pitzil Ohl lasted 537 days, after
which the prince “descended” on the day 9.10.10.0.0, 13 Ajaw 18 K’ank’in (December 7, 642). The
duration of the initiation could vary but was usually tied to the calendar, namely important Long Count
positions or 260-day tzolk’in cycles. In La Corona, the rite lasted 520 days, exactly two 260-day cycles
(Davletshin and Vepretskii 2023:58-66).

In this context, it is important that 261 days passed between the “descent” of Yax Nuun Ahiin I and his
coronation, which is roughly equal to one tzolk’in. Unfortunately, the date of his “ascent” is not exactly
known due to lacunae and problems with the chronology of the text on Tikal Stela 31. In block E7 of this
monument, the tzolk’in day-sign 8 Men is used, probably related to the “ascent” event. It is important
that it is immediately followed by the date of the coronation of Yax Nuun Ahiin I in blocks F8-F9, which is
recorded on Stela 31 with an obvious error in the tzolk’in day: 10 Kaban rather than 5 Kaban. It is logical
to assume that the author of the text recorded the previous date with a similar coefficient error, that is,
Yax Nuun Ahiin I finished his 259-day ritual seclusion and returned to Teotihuacan on day 3 Men, two days
before the accession ceremony. 5 If our reconstruction is correct, this is the earliest known example of the
initiation of a Maya prince. The rite itself probably originated from Teotihuacan (see also Davletshin and
Vepretskii 2023:67-68). Therefore, we believe that the accession of the new ruler of Tikal took place in
Teotihuacan, and he was sent to the Maya lowlands somewhat later, when the situation in Peten had
been stabilized.

The probable participation of Yax Nuun Ahiin I in the initiation rite forces us to re-examine the issue
concerning the age of this ruler at the time of his coronation. Unfortunately, the exact date of his birth is
unknown, but Yax Nuun Ahiin I bears the title “k’atun lord” on Tikal Stela 31 in connection with the period
ending ceremony in 396 (blocks E16-E20). On this basis, the opinion that Jatz’oom Kuy’s son was born no
earlier than 376 and was no more than three years old at the time of his accession was firmly established
in the literature (Grube and Martin 2000:118-119; Stuart 2024:34). Such an age seems too young for ritual
seclusion. However, in our opinion, the meaning of k’atun-count titles in the Early Classic was somewhat
different in comparison with later examples. On Tikal Stela 31, Yax Nuun Ahiin I is again named “k’atun
lord” in the caption to the portrait on the left side of the monument (blocks I2-J3). This posthumous
mention would have to consider the full length of life or reign of the Mutul king. Yax Nuun Ahiin I acceded
in 379 and probably died in 404 (Tikal Stela 31, F20-E22). Thus, he ruled for twenty-five years, more than
one twenty-year period. If the k’atun-count title on Stela 31 indicated the full age of this king, then Yax
Nuun Ahiin I would have to bear the title “2-k’atun lord,” but this is not the case. The same “error” could
be seen in another Early Classic inscription, on El Zapote Stela 5. This monument was erected in 435 and
it contains a mention of the son of Yax Nuun Ahiin I, Sihyaj Chan K’awiil II, who is similarly named “k’atun
lord” (El Zapote Stela 5, D4-D5; see Beliaev, Vepretskii, and Galeev 2017:79–83, 201–202). Sihyaj Chan
K’awiil II was crowned in 411, which means he had reigned for more than twenty-four years when El
Zapote Stela 5 was dedicated. These examples allow us to conclude that the title “k’atun lord” did not
mean that the king was less than twenty years old in the 5th century. Interestingly, in other early texts (El
Peru Stela 9, pA2; Tikal Stela 2, pA7), the title “k’atun lord” is also written without any numeral

5
A possible scribal error in the date on Tikal Stela 31, E7 was previously noted by Sergei Vepretskii.

Page | 7
 Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

coefficients. Its use may have meant that the ruler had reached the age of twenty years and had become
an adult. If so, Yax Nuun Ahiin I may have been older than traditionally believed. However, we agree that
he had to be a young boy at the time of the entrada events, as evidenced by the late death of his father
Jatz’oom Kuy in 439. We posit that Yax Nuun Ahiin I may have been about six or seven years old in 378-
379, which is the usual age of initiation for Maya princes. 6

Yax Nuun Ahiin I’s accession at Teotihuacan set a precedent that other Maya kings sought to emulate.
About half a century later, on September 7, 426, the founder of the Copan dynasty, K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’,
“takes K’awiil” at Wiinte’naah (Schele 1992; Stuart 2004:227–240; Stuart 2005:383–384). The rite of
taking a scepter with the image of the lightning god K’awiil was traditionally one of the stages of the
complex enthronement ceremony of Maya rulers (Martin 2020:110-111). K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’ originated
from Caracol, but he did not return to his homeland after being legitimized in Teotihuacan (Stuart 2007a).
Instead, he settled in Copan, where he began to rule. The story of K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’ is very similar to
Sihyaj K’ahk’s arrival to Peten in 378. Tikal probably played an important role in his relocation to the
southeastern periphery of the Maya lowlands. The rulers of Caracol at the time were vassals and probably
relatives of Mutul kings (Looper and Polyukhovych 2016:4–5). Thus, having contributed to the
establishment of their ally in Copan, Tikal significantly expanded the boundaries of their influence.

There is no consensus among scholars as to how long Tikal remained in Teotihuacan’s orbit. A popular
view is that the domination of foreigners was relatively short and lasted for some sixty years (Bíró 2011:81;
Stuart 2024:121). Such conclusions are based on the gradual reduction of signs of direct Mexican presence
in Tikal. In the first decades after the entrada, the invaders acted aggressively, as is characteristic of
occupying regimes. Attempts were made to destroy the memory of the past, and ancient monuments
were broken or moved to the outskirts (Martin 2000:57–59). On Tikal Stela 4, Yax Nuun Ahiin I is depicted
as a typical foreigner dressed in Mexican attire (Fig. 1). However, during the reign of the next king, Sihyaj
Chan K’awiil II (411-456), a course for the reconciliation of the two traditions was set. Tikal Stela 31, dated
445, is considered the best embodiment of the new policy. It is a monument where the local king is shown
both as a descendant of Jatz’oom Kuy and a legitimate heir of the old dynasty that ruled in Mutul before
the arrival of Sihyaj K’ahk’ (Martin and Grube 2008:34-35) (Fig. 2, 3).

6
Our conclusion contradicts the results of the osteological analysis of the skeletal remains of the young individuals
buried in Tikal Burial 10, the supposed tomb of Yax Nuun Ahiin I. Study of the teeth, which were hypothesized to
belong to the adult owner of the tomb, has shown that he was born in Peten rather than Central Mexico (Wright
2005:97–98). However, as we have already mentioned, bodies of other individuals besides the king were found in
Burial 10. Unfortunately, shortly after the discovery of the tomb their skeletal remains had been mixed up and even
partially discarded in the field (Wright 2005:93-95). Because of this, today it is impossible to say with certainty that
the teeth studied really belonged to Yax Nuun Ahiin I.

Page | 8
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

Fig. 3. Tikal Stela 31. Portrait of Sihyaj Chan K’awiil II on the front of the monument. Photo by Yuriy
Polyukhovych.

Under the reigns of Sihyaj Chan K’awiil II and his son and successor K’an Kitam (458-485), Tikal flourished.
It is evidenced by the active construction of new temples and the creation of monumental sculptures–

Page | 9
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

each a masterpiece in its own right–such as Stelae 31 and 40 (Guenter 2002:26–27; Martin and Grube
2008:35–37). The political influence of the Mutul rulers, strengthened by dynastic marriages, extended to
most of central and eastern Peten, as well as other regions. K’an Kitam’s wife originated from Naranjo
(Tokovinine and Fialko 2007:10–13). Other influential allies or vassals of Tikal were Caracol, Xultun,
Ucanal, and possibly Naachtun (Nondédéo, Lacadena García-Gallo, and Garay 2018:334–340). The
growing power of Mutul rulers naturally led to their achieving greater political independence and affected
relations with Teotihuacan. The reduction of foreign influence is visible in the remains of material culture,
the iconography of stelae, and the content of inscriptions. For example, although the tomb of Sihyaj Chan
K’awiil II, now known as Burial 48, shares many features with that of his father Yax Nuun Ahiin I, it contains
far fewer Mexican-style objects (Martin and Grube 2008:35). This trend continued and intensified under
K’an Kitam. On Tikal Stela 40, dedicated in 468, he still wears the Mexican mosaic headdress, but on the
later Stela 9, he is shown as a typical Maya ruler (compare Fig. 4, 5). Likewise, the hieroglyphic texts
created by the Early Classic successors of Sihyaj Chan K’awiil II contain no direct references to Teotihuacan
or the subordinate status of Mutul kings.

Fig. 4. Tikal Stela 40. Portrait of K’an Kitam in Fig. 5. Tikal Stela 9. Portrait of K’an Kitam as
Central Mexican headdress. Photo by Yuriy typical Maya lord. Photo by Yuriy Polyukhovych.
Polyukhovych.

Page | 10
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

How does one interpret these obvious changes? A common point of view in relevant literature is that Tikal
gained independence from Teotihuacan in the second half of the 5th century. Stanley Guenter even
suggested that K’an Kitam became an enemy of the Mexican empire around 470 and tried to link these
changes to internal struggles in Teotihuacan itself (Guenter 2002:24-26). Dmitri Beliaev also mentions a
“final break” of Tikal with Teotihuacan and dates this event to the reign of K’an Kitam or his son and
successor Chak Tok Ich’aak III (485-508) in several studies (Beliaev 2003; Beliaev 2019). Such conclusions
seem too far-reaching to us. Firstly, when we evaluate evidence for a connection with Teotihuacan in
Maya monumental art, it is wrong to consider Tikal in isolation from other Peten cities. For example, El
Peru Stela 16, decorated with an image of a warrior dressed in Mexican fashion (possibly a posthumous
portrait of Sihyaj K’ahk’ himself), is known to have been dedicated in 465 or 470 (Freidel and Escobedo
2006:805; Freidel, Escobedo, and Guenter 2007:197–203; Guenter 2014:151–154; Stuart 2024:28–29).
The rulers of Uaxactun preserved the memory of the strangers even longer; events related to the entrada
are retrospectively described on local Stela 22, dated 504 (Proskouriakoff 1993:8). Apparently, the
memory of Sihyaj K’ahk’ remained a source of legitimacy for the kings of El Peru and Uaxactun more than
a hundred years after the conquest. In this context, it seems highly unlikely that K’an Kitam or Chak Tok
Ich’aak III would have risked a break with Teotihuacan when their neighbors to the west and north were
loyal to the Mexican hegemon.

An important piece of evidence of the duration of Tikal’s cultural and political contacts with Central
Mexico is the murals of Tetitla, one of the residential compounds of Teotihuacan, situated west of the
Avenue of the Dead. They represent a mixture of Mexican and Maya motifs (Helmke and Nielsen 2013;
Taube 2003). The murals were created by a Teotihuacan artist or a team of artists well-versed in Maya
writing, art, and mythology. Among other things, a Maya hieroglyphic text, which may have originally
come from Tikal, was copied onto the walls. Unfortunately, only small fragments of the inscription survive
today, but Christophe Helmke was able to recognize in it the name of Sak Hix Muut, the divine ancestor
and patron of the “holy Mutul lords” (Helmke and Nielsen 2013; see also Stuart 2007b). We do not know
exactly how craftsmen from Teotihuacan obtained the references for their work. Theoretically, they could
reproduce some text known to them on their own. According to another version, the prototype of the
Tetitla inscription was created by a scribe from Tikal who resided in Central Mexico at the time. Either
way, the text told the audience at Teotihuacan of events that were important from the point of view of
Mutul kings (Helmke and Nielsen 2013). Based on paleographic analysis, the paintings are dated to
approximately 472-539, and their appearance means that friendly relations between Teotihuacan and
Tikal were maintained at that time.

Thus, the available sources give no evidence of a confrontation of Tikal with Teotihuacan in the 5th century
whatsoever. In our opinion, the disappearance of Mexican motifs from Tikal monumental art is a normal
consequence of the cultural assimilation of strangers and their absorption into Maya society. It was a long
and gradual process. Mutul rulers tried to organically combine the Mexican tradition with the local one at
first and made a logical choice in favor of the latter further on. Teotihuacan was located far from Peten,
so members of the foreign elite could not rely only on military backing to maintain long-term control. To
retain power, they had to seek a mutual understanding with the local population. However, the
assimilation of Teotihuacan natives in and of itself does not indicate that they were politically hostile to
their former homeland. On the contrary, Tikal kings remembered and took pride in their descent from
Jatz’oom Kuy as late as the 8th century (Martin and Grube 2008:45; Stuart 2000:490).

Page | 11
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

Yaxchilan and Piedras Negras in the Politics of Hegemons

Important events that took place between 508 and 518 in the Usumacinta River Valley located west of
Peten shed light on the nature of Teotihuacan’s relationship with Tikal and other Maya cities. There,
hostilities between two powerful opponents, Yaxchilan and Piedras Negras, had lasted for decades. In
particular, the seventh Yaxchilan lord Jatz’oom Jol and his successor Yaxuun Bahlam II won victories over
the Piedras Negras ruler Itzam K’an Ahk I and a military commander of the latter in the second half of the
5th century (Martin and Grube 2008:140; Styuflyaev 2023; Styuflyaev and Stadnik n.d.). Not only did the
regional conflict on Usumacinta fail to stop, but it also attracted new participants in the following
generation. Evidence for this appears in the text of Yaxchilan Lintel 37, which lists the successes of the
ninth local king “Knot-eye” Bahlam I (for the reading of his name, see Martin 2004a:4, n. 10) (Fig. 6). First,
“Knot-eye” Bahlam I captured Chak Mat Yax Ukuum, a military leader subordinate to the Ak’e’ ruler,
sometime before 508. In the 8th century, the Ak’e’ emblem glyph was held by Bonampak kings, but the
early seat of this dynasty is currently unknown (Beliaev and Safronov 2009; Mathews 1980:61). The next
victim of the Yaxchilan king was K’an Tok Lakam Ixiim? Wayaab, a warlord who served a ruler named Yat
Ahk (Lopes 2005). The latter has no emblem glyph on Yaxchilan Lintel 37, so various assumptions have
been made in the literature about where he ruled. Linda Schele and Peter Mathews believed Yat Ahk had
been an Ak’e’ king (Schele and Mathews 1991:239; see also Bíró 2011:87), but this interpretation does
not seem convincing. The prisoner from Ak’e’ is clearly distinguished from the next captive in the
hieroglyphic text, so Yat Ahk must have ruled somewhere else. It is known that king Yat Ahk II ruled in
Piedras Negras around the same time. There is hardly any doubt that it is he who is mentioned on
Yaxchilan Lintel 37. Thus, “Knot-eye” Bahlam I defeated the alliance of Ak’e’ and Piedras Negras (Martin
and Grube 2008:120). He built on the success of these first triumphs and captured Aj Bahlam K’ojbaal
Ohlis K’uh (for the reading of his name, see the Maya Hieroglyphic Database, Mayadatabase.org; see also
Stuart 2020), a military commander of Tikal king Chak Tok Ich’aak III, on August 10, 508. Interestingly,
Chak Tok Ich’aak III himself had died only two weeks earlier; as David Stuart has shown, his death is
mentioned on Tonina Monument 160 (Graham et al. 2006:95–101; Martin 2003:17; Tokovinine 2013:96).
It is unlikely that we have a coincidence here. Most likely, Chak Tok Ich’aak III arrived with his army to the
Usumacinta region as an ally of Piedras Negras and Ak’e’ but was defeated and killed in one of the battles.

The defeat of Tikal probably created a threat to Teotihuacan’s position in the Maya lowlands and
motivated the Mexican hegemon to support his allies more actively. As Piedras Negras Panel 2 says, Yat
Ahk II took the Mexican mosaic helmet ko’haw in the presence of “western kaloomte'” Tajoom Uk’ab Tuun
on November 14, 510 (blocks O1-V2; see Stuart 2000:499). Such headdresses made of worked shells are
among the elements of Mexican warriors’ equipment on Maya monuments (Taube 2000:271–273).
Besides Piedras Negras Panel 2, Yat Ahk II taking the helmet is mentioned on a wooden box found in a
cave in Tabasco. Unfortunately, key fragments of this second text are lost, but it calls Tajoom Uk’ab Tuun
the “lord of Wiinte’naah” and the ko’haw-taking ritual is preceded by a distance number of 155 days
(Anaya Hernández, Guenter, and Mathews 2001; Skidmore 2002; Zender 2007). It is logical to assume
that, like K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’ before, the Piedras Negras king made a long 155-day journey to
Teotihuacan, where he received an important symbol of military power (Martin 2020:243-245). Yat Ahk II
took a helmet rather than a scepter because he was not crowned, but he started preparing for war at that
time.

Page | 12
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

Fig. 6. Yaxchilan Lintel 37. Drawing by Marie Stadnik.

Page | 13
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

We do not know how exactly Tajoom Uk’ab Tuun helped Yat Ahk II, but Teotihuacan’s intervention
drastically changed the course of the conflict. The Yokib lord won a great victory soon after that. Piedras
Negras Panel 12 shows four bound captives. Three of them are kneeling before the triumphant enemy,
who is called a “vassal of the western kaloomte'” in the text (Fig. 7). It follows from the captions to these
figures that the Yaxchilan ruler “Knot-eye” Bahlam I was among those captured by Piedras Negras (Beliaev,
Galeev, and Vepretskii 2016:144–147; Martin and Grube 2008:141; Schele and Mathews 1991:229). Thus,
Yat Ahk II or his successor took full revenge on his opponents for the failures of the previous years. The
exact date of the new successful war is unknown. Panel 12 was dedicated in 518, but its retrospective text
begins with a reference to events occurring in 514, so the battle might have taken place during that period.
It is worth adding that “Knot-eye” Bahlam I probably continued to rule in Yaxchilan after 518, so he
retained the throne in exchange for the recognition of the political supremacy of Piedras Negras and
Teotihuacan (Stuart 2007c). The Panel 12 scene vividly demonstrates the Yokib lords’ superiority over
their neighbors. Owing to the support of “western kaloomte'” Tajoom Uk’ab Tuun, Piedras Negras became
a regional hegemon and dominated upper Usumacinta for a time.

Fig. 7. Piedras Negras Panel 12. Photo by Yuriy Polyukhovych.

Thus, Teotihuacan remained powerful enough to intervene in the conflicts between Maya kingdoms and
help its vassals in the early 6th century. Researchers have interpreted the rise of Piedras Negras in
different ways. According to Stanley Guenter, Tikal had already gained independence from Teotihuacan
by that time, so Yat Ahk II became the new defender of the Mexican empire’s interests in the Maya
lowlands (Guenter 2002:47-49). Building on these ideas, Dmitri Beliaev suggested that the Piedras Negras
king acted as a vassal of Chak Tok Ich’aak III during the first war against Yaxchilan but defected to Tikal’s
opponents after his death and received the mosaic helmet at Teotihuacan because of that (Beliaev 2003).
Such interpretations seem dubious to us. According to the sources, the rulers of Tikal, Piedras Negras and

Page | 14
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

Teotihuacan acted as allies in the fight against common enemies, mainly the Yaxchilan king “Knot-eye”
Bahlam I, in 508-518. In our opinion, this means that a broad, Tikal-led coalition of Maya kingdoms
recognizing Teotihuacan’s supremacy continued to exist as of 508 (see also Bíró 2017:49). Probably
defeated in the war with Yaxchilan, Yat Ahk II first turned to Tikal for support. Chak Tok Ich’aak III tried to
help his ally but was also defeated and killed during the campaign on Usumacinta. A period of internal
turbulence began in Tikal and a young girl took the throne after that (Martin 1999; Martin 2014). Yat Ahk
II then had no choice but to seek help in Central Mexico. His journey to Teotihuacan ended successfully,
with Tajoom Uk’ab Tuun contributing to the victory over the enemies. In response, the grateful Piedras
Negras king pointed out on triumphal Panel 12 that he was a vassal of the “western kaloomte'”.

To sum up, we believe that researchers have mistakenly considered Tikal’s prosperity in the 5th century
to be a sign of it leaving the tutelage of the “western kaloomte'”. We do not fully understand the nature
of the relationship between the subordinate lords and the Mexican hegemon after the entrada yet.
However, it would be a simplification to imagine the era of Teotihuacan dominance only as a time of
oppression of Maya kingdoms by a powerful empire, a unilateral extraction of resources from a region of
southeast Mesoamerica rich in valuables. Apparently, Sihyaj K’ahk’ relied on the support of a large
community of Maya elites. One should not forget that Yax Nuun Ahiin I was only half foreign; as the text
of Tikal Stela 1 suggests, his mother was probably of the old Mutul dynasty (Martin 2020:417, n. 8). The
Maya rulers did not hide their political dependence. On the contrary, the memory of Sihyaj K’ahk’ and
Teotihuacan remained a source of legitimacy for many dynasties, such as for the Copan kings, throughout
the centuries. It is also telling that the 5th century, a time of active contact with Central Mexico, saw the
heyday of some Maya kingdoms. Luxurious Rio Azul tombs, exquisite ceramics from El Zotz, massive
sculptures from El Peru, and artistic masterpieces such as the Tikal Marcador or Stela 31 indicate
subordinate rulers’ wealth and influence. The relations between the Maya elite and Teotihuacan were
mutually beneficial.

The New Era

One might think the potential threat to Teotihuacan supremacy was eliminated owing to the triumphs of
the Yokib rulers, but Piedras Negras Panel 12 is the last known example of the Mexican empire’s direct
involvement in Maya political affairs. The western hegemons suddenly disappeared from the scene after
518. The reasons for this should probably be sought in the changes that took place in the very heart of
their domain. According to archaeological data, an unknown enemy burned the structures in the central
part of Teotihuacan around 550-575 (Beramendi-Orosco et al. 2021:1082). The largest city of pre-
Columbian America never fully recovered from that blow. Research has shown that both the perpetrators
of the disaster and the defeated belonged to the same Teotihuacan culture. Thus, we can talk about either
an internal political conflict or an uprising of neighboring communities dissatisfied with the power of the
metropolis (López Luján et al. 2006:28–32). We do not know the details of this profound crisis, but if one
assumes that the weakening of Teotihuacan was gradual, control over distant peripheries such as the
Maya lowlands may have been lost even before the burning of the city itself.

It is plausible that these fatal changes in Central Mexico became the catalyst that shook the foundations
of the Maya political system (see also Bíró 2017:48–50; Willey 1974:422–423). Teotihuacan’s withdrawal
inevitably weakened the position of its main allies, primarily the “holy Mutul lords.” Tikal plunged into a
dark transitional period for three decades after the death of Chak Tok Ich’aak III, most likely due to internal

Page | 15
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

instability and power struggles among various factions within the ruling dynasty. Piedras Negras also went
through hard times during that era; we hardly know anything about its history in the second half of the
6th century, but archaeological excavations show that the palace and other buildings at the site were
sacked and burned around 550 (Houston et al. 2000:101–102). Recent studies of Copan texts show that
the middle of the 6th century was a period of deep crisis there as well (Bíró 2017; Tokovinine 2017). Thus,
we have enough reasons to conclude that the rulers of Teotihuacan lost their position as hegemons and
the alliance created under their supremacy was disintegrated.

Instability in some kingdoms coincided with the rise of a new powerful force, the “holy Kanul lords,” whose
seat was then located at Dzibanche (Martin and Velásquez García 2016). In parallel with the worsening
crisis at Tikal, they launched a large-scale expansion in Peten after 520. Over the following decades, the
key Tikal allies or vassals (El Peru, Naranjo, Caracol, and others) fell one by one under the auspices of Kanul
kings. Finally, Tikal ruler Wak Chan K’awiil suffered a crushing defeat in a war against Kanul in 562 (Martin
2020:245–248; Vepretskii 2021). All these events, which changed the course of Maya history, have been
well known for a long time. It is less clear how the rise of Kanul rulers was related to the end of the era of
Teotihuacan’s dominance.

Stanley Guenter once presented Kanul and Teotihuacan as irreconcilable antagonists (Guenter 2002).
Such a view is indeed not entirely groundless. Dzibanche rulers clearly took advantage of the weakening
of the Mexican empire and took the now-vacant position of hegemon in the Maya lowlands (Martin
2020:245). However, we have no reliable evidence of their hostility towards Teotihuacan. On the contrary,
Kanul rulers, like other Maya kings, used Mexican symbols and heritage for their own legitimation (see
also Stuart 2024:107-108). One of the members of this dynasty bears the posthumous title of “person
from Wiinte’naah” on the lid of a vessel of unknown provenance now kept in the Museum zu Allerheiligen
(Schaffhausen, Switzerland) (Prager 2004:36–38; Tokovinine 2013:78–79). Moreover, Wiinte’naah is
recorded as a toponym in the inscription on Dzibanche Fragment 7 (Stuart 2024:4-5). In addition,
Dzibanche’s largest pyramid, the Temple of the Cormorants, was built with Mexican talud-tablero
architectural elements, and its facade is decorated with both Teotihuacan and Maya symbols (Canuto,
Auld-Thomas, and Arredondo Leiva 2020:383; Estrada-Belli 2011:138; Nalda 2003). Besides that, on Late
Classic Stela 1 and Element 33 from La Corona, the name of the Kanul lord Yuknoom Yich’aak K’ahk’ is
preceded by the unusual additional epithet Waxaklajuun Ubaah Chan (“18 images of serpent”), which was
the name of the Teotihuacan War Serpent deity whose cult was brought to the Maya area from Central
Mexico after the entrada (Stuart 2012; Taube 2000). Finally, Alexandre Tokovinine recently discovered
the mention of Sihyaj K’ahk’ on the Hieroglyphic Stairway at El Resbalon, a site that was located only 12
km north of Dzibanche and was within his sphere of influence during the Early Classic (Tokovinine and
Balanzario 2023). These facts make one wonder whether the Kanul kings were likewise vassals to
Teotihuacan and, accordingly, allies of their future enemy, Tikal, from the end of the 4th to the beginning
of the 6th century.

Unfortunately, we currently lack solid evidence to answer this question with confidence. However, it is
interesting to focus on the text of Yaxchilan Lintel 35 (Fig. 8). This monument commemorates the
achievements of the tenth local ruler K’inich Tatbu’ Jol II. On closer inspection, they look like a mirror
repetition of the triumphs of “Knot-eye” Bahlam I. In both cases, military commanders of the Ak’e’ rulers
were captured, and the culmination of the account is a precisely dated triumph over a more powerful
adversary. But there is also an important difference; the main enemy this time is not Tikal, but the Kanul
king Tuun K’ab Hix (Martin and Grube 2008:121; Mathews 1988:73–78). The intervention of the latter in

Page | 16
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

conflicts on the upper Usumacinta could simply be an episode of Kanul expansion, which was gaining
momentum at the time, but it may also indicate that Tikal and Dzibanche had common goals and common
enemies between 508 and 537. It is important to mention in this context that Tonina Monument 160
mentions the death of the Kanul ruler in 505 and Chak Tok Ich’aak III in 508 side by side (see also Vepretskii
2021).

Fig. 8. Yaxchilan Lintel 35. Drawing by Marie Stadnik.

Page | 17
 Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

It was probably due to the decline of Teotihuacan that Tikal and Dzibanche lords adopted the title
kaloomte', the highest rank in the Maya political hierarchy, almost simultaneously. 7 This title is very old
and related to Maya ideas about the structure of the cosmos and cardinal directions (Martin 2020:79-80;
Tokovinine 2013:94-95). Structurally, the epithet kaloomte’ is very similar to the military titles yajawte’
and baahte’, so apparently, it originally glorified the most prominent overlords as successful military
leaders. 8 It was borne by the ancient legendary ruler “Foliated Jaguar” on Tikal Stela 31 and by the second
lord on Kanul Dynastic Vases (Martin 1997:856; Martin 2003:6–7). Moreover, as it was recently
discovered, a certain kaloomte’ was mentioned on Naachtun Altar 8 shortly before 378 (Nondédéo et al.
2023:20). However, during the era of Teotihuacan dominance, the status of kaloomte' was held by
Mexican foreigners only: Sihyaj K’ahk’, Jatz’oom Kuy, and Tajoom Uk’ab Tuun. There is a commonly held
opinion that the title itself is of Mexican origin and was brought by conquerors after 378 (Davletshin 2004;
see also summary in Kováč and Barrois 2012:117–120), but it is more likely that the authors of the Maya
texts simply demonstrated Teotihuacan superiority by giving its rulers their local highest rank. That is why
mentions of the Mexican emperors required the additional cardinal direction “western kaloomte',” which
indicated the geographical origin of the powerful rulers from the west, i.e. from Teotihuacan.

It is highly important that none of the prominent Tikal kings who ruled between 379 and 508 titled
themselves as kaloomte' on monuments. Such a show of “modesty” was prompted by their subordinate
status in relation to Teotihuacan (Martin 2020:80). As studies by the Proyecto Atlas Epigráfico de Petén
have shown, K’an Kitam is called the “western K’awiil” on Tikal Stela 40, dated 468 (block D17) (Fig. 9,
left). Moreover, Chak Tok Ich’aak III bears a similar title posthumously on the later Tikal Stela 17, erected
by his son Wak Chan K’awiil (blocks G8-H8) (Beliaev et al. 2013:84–89, 552). Dmitri Beliaev interprets these
facts as evidence of the liberation of Tikal from Teotihuacan’s control and the beginning of independent
political activity of Mutul lords (Beliaev 2019). Such an interpretation seems dubious to us. Tikal Stela 40
contains Mexican symbolism and is very similar to the earlier Tikal Stela 31. It is unlikely that such a
monument could be created to demonstrate a break with a former protector. We do not fully understand
the meaning of the title “western K’awiil” yet, but it is important that this is what Sihyaj K’ahk’ is called on
Tikal Stela 31 and Uaxactun Stela 22 (Grube and Martin 2000:70–71, 90–91; Stuart 2000:480) (fig. 9, right).
If “K’awiil” has the broad metaphorical meaning of “power” there (see Helmke and Awe 2016:11–16;
Martin 2020:128–129), then the title probably signified a holder of power derived from the west, i.e. from
Teotihuacan. We believe that the epithet “western K’awiil” was associated with the practice of Maya
rulers receiving K’awiil scepters in the Mexican metropolis. It is interesting in this context that Altar Q
describes the arrival of K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’ from Teotihuacan to Copan as the “resting of K’awiil” (hil ook
k’awiil) (Stuart 2004:238). No mentions of pre-accession journeys of fifth-century Tikal kings to Central
Mexico have yet been identified. However, “holy Mutul lords” were descendants of Yax Nuun Ahiin I, who
was crowned at Teotihuacan, so they may well have inherited his legitimacy by birthright. In our opinion,
the use of the title “western K’awiil” by K’an Kitam and Chak Tok Ich’aak III means that the rulers of Tikal
took over the role previously played by Sihyaj K’ahk’, i.e., they exercised supreme authority over Peten on
behalf of the Mexican empire as its representatives.

7
For details on the epithet kaloomte', see Martin (2020:77–83) and Stuart, Grube, and Schele (1989).
8
For the interpretation of the terms yajawte’ and baahte’, see Lacadena García-Gallo (2010).

Page | 18
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

Fig. 9. The “western K’awiil” title: Tikal Stela 40, blocks C15-D17 (left); Tikal Stela 31, blocks C21-D22
(right). Photos by Yuriy Polyukhovych.

As Teotihuacan declined, the status of the Maya kings changed. The children of Chak Tok Ich’aak III
renounced the “western K’awiil” rank and were the first to be titled as kaloomte' in Tikal after the entrada.
On Tikal Stela 12, dated 527, the queen known as the Lady of Tikal bears the female version of this title,
IX-KALOOMTE’ (block C5). Her brother Wak Chan K’awiil is called the “western kaloomte'” on painted
plate K8121 in connection with the period ending ceremony in 554 (Grube and Martin 2000:157, 171).
Around the same time in Dzibanche, K’ahk’ Ti’ Ch’ich’, who acceded in 550, became the first Kanul
kaloomte' of the new era (Martin and Beliaev 2017:5–6). It is unlikely that this chronological coincidence
is accidental. Tikal and Dzibanche had probably remained vassals of the Mexican kaloomte' during the
preceding period despite playing a leading role in their respective regions. A series of military successes
of the Kanul king Yuknoom Ch’een I is described on the Dzibanche Hieroglyphic Stairway (Velásquez García
2004; Martin 2004b). A clear hierarchy contributed to political stability and the establishment of lasting
peace. We hardly have any evidence of wars in Peten during the 5th century. The first signs of internal
conflicts only appeared at the beginning of the reign of Chak Tok Ich’aak III (Martin and Grube 2008:37).
However, a vacuum of supreme power appeared in the Maya lowlands after the withdrawal of
Teotihuacan. Both Tikal and Dzibanche asserted their claims to the status of the new hegemon, as
evidenced by the adoption of the kaloomte’ title by both sides. The competition for leadership between
them resulted in a series of devastating wars and determined the course of Classic Maya history.

Acknowledgements: We sincerely thank Yuriy Polyukhovych for kindly allowing us to use his amazing
photographs of the monuments. We also thank Matthew Looper, David Mora-Marín, Simon Martin, and
other colleagues for their helpful comments on the essay. We are also very grateful to translator Mariia
Pukhlii for her careful editing of the text in the draft of this article.

Page | 19
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

References:

Anaya Hernández, Armando, Stanley Guenter, and Peter Mathews

2001 An Inscribed Wooden Box from Tabasco, Mexico. Mesoweb Reports and New.
https://www.mesoweb.com/reports/box/index.html.

Beliaev, Dmitri
2003 Maya States in the System of International Relations of the Classic Mesoamerica. In
Ancient Civilizations of the Old and New World: Cultural Singularity and Dialogue of Interpretations.
Dmitri Beliaev and Galina Yershova, eds. Pp. 40–52. Moscow: Ippolitov Publishing House (In Russian).

2019 In the Shadow of Entrada: Maya and Teotihuacan in the 5th Century. Paper presented at
the 24th European Maya Conference, Jagellonian University of Cracow, Poland, November 11-16.

Beliaev, Dmitri, Philipp Galeev, and Sergei Vepretskii

2016 Las inscripciones jeroglíficas monumentales en la exposición permanente del Museo
Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología. In Proyecto Atlas Epigráfico de Petén, Fase III. Dmitri Beliaev and
Mónica de León, eds. Pp. 62–180. Guatemala: CEMYK.

Beliaev, Dmitri, and Alexander Safronov

2009 Saktz'i', Ak'e', and Xukalnaah: Reinterpreting the Political Geography of the Upper
Usumasinta Region. Paper Presented at the 14th European Maya Conference, Cracow, Poland,
November 13-14.
https://www.academia.edu/7982378/Saktzi_Ake_and_Xukalnaah_Reinterpreting_the_Political_Geogra
phy_of_the_Upper_Usumasinta_Region_with_Alexander_Safronov_.

Beliaev, Dmitri, Alexandre Tokovinine, Sergei Vepretskii, and Camilo Luín

2013 Los monumentos de Tikal. In Proyecto Atlas Epigráfico de Petén, Fase I. Dmitri Beliaev
and Mónica de León, eds. Pp. 37–170. Guatemala: CEMYK.
https://wayeb.org/download/resources/informe_peten_2013.pdf.

Beliaev, Dmitri, Sergei Vepretskii, and Philipp Galeev

2017 Los textos monumentales en la colección del Museo Nacional de Arqueología y
Etnología. In Proyecto Atlas Epigráfico de Petén, Fase IV. Dmitri Beliaev and Mónica de León, eds. Pp.
28–93. Guatemala: CEMYK.

Beramendi-Orosco, Laura, Galia Gonzalez-Hernandez, Ana M. Soler-Arechalde, and Linda Manzanilla

2021 A High-Resolution Chronology for the Palatial Complex of Xalla in Teotihuacan, Mexico,
Combining Radiocarbon Ages and Archaeomagnetic Dates in a Bayesian Model. Radiocarbon 63(4):
1073–1084.

Page | 20
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

Bíró, Péter
2011 The Classic Maya Western Region: A History. International Series, 2308. Oxford:
Archaeopress.

2017 A New Teotiwa Lord of the South: K’ahk’ Uti’ Chan Yopat (578-628 C.E.) and the
Renaissance of Copan. Glyph Dwellers, Report 57. http://glyphdwellers.com/pdf/R57.pdf.

Braswell, Geoffrey E.
2003 Introduction: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction. In The Maya and Teotihuacan:
Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction. Geoffrey E. Braswell, ed. Pp. 1–43. Austin: University of Texas
Press.

Canuto, Marcello A., Luke Auld-Thomas, and Ernesto Arredondo Leiva

2020 Teotihuacan and Lowland Maya Interactions: Characterizing a Mesoamerican
Hegemony. In Teotihuacan: The World beyond the City. Kenneth G Hirth, David Carballo, and Bárbara
Arroyo, eds. Pp. 371–408. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

Davletshin, Albert
2004 Origin and Etymology of the ‘Overlord’ Title in the Classic Maya Inscriptions. In Abstracts
of the Third International Conference Hierarchy and Power in the History of Civilizations. Igor Alekseev,
Dmitri Beliaev, and Dmitri Bondarenko, eds. Pp. 115–116. Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences.

2024 Un signo silábico y el nombre del gobernante Teotihuacano “Búho-Lanzadardos” en las

inscripciones mayas. Boletín del Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino 29(1): 113–133.

Davletshin, Albert, and Sergei Vepretskii

2017 Ritual Seclusion of Princes in Classic Maya Texts. Paper presented at the 22nd European
Maya Conference, Malmö University, Sweden, December 15.

2023 Ritual Seclusion of Princes in Classic Maya Texts. Stratum plus 6: 53-72 (In Russian).

Estrada-Belli, Francisco
2011 The First Maya Civilization: Ritual and Power Before the Classic Period. London:
Routledge.

Estrada-Belli, Francisco, and Alexandre Tokovinine

2016 A King’s Apotheosis: Iconography, Text, and Politics from a Classic Maya Temple at
Holmul. Latin American Antiquity 27(2): 149–168.

Estrada-Belli, Francisco, Alexandre Tokovinine, Jennifer M Foley, et al.

Page | 21
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

2009 A Maya Palace at Holmul, Peten, Guatemala and the Teotihuacan “Entrada”: Evidence
from Murals 7 and 9. Latin American Antiquity 20(1): 228–259.

Fash, William L, Alexandre Tokovinine, and Barbara W. Fash

2009 The House of New Fire at Teotihuacan and Its Legacy in Mesoamerica. In The Art of
Urbanism: How Mesoamerican Cities Represented Themselves in Architecture and Imagery. William L
Fash and Leonardo López Luján, eds. Pp. 201–229. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library
and Collection.

Freidel, David A., and Héctor L Escobedo

2006 En la encrucijada de los conquistadores: la tercera temporada en El Perú-Waka´. In XIX
Simposio de investigaciones arqueológicas En Guatemala, 2005. Juan Pedro Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo,
and Héctor E. Mejía, eds. Pp. 803–813. Guatemala City: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología.

Freidel, David, Héctor Escobedo, and Stanley Guenter

2007 A Crossroads of Conquerors: Waka’ and Gordon Willey’s “Rehearsal for the Collapse”
Hypothesis. In Gordon R. Willey and American Archaeology: Contemporary Perspectives. Jeremy A
Sabloff and William L Fash, eds. Pp. 187–208. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Graham, Ian, Lucia R. Henderson, Peter Mathews, and David Stuart

2006 Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions, Volume 9, Part 2: Tonina. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

Grube, Nikolai, and Simon Martin

2000 Proceedings of the Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop: Tikal and Its Neighbors, March 11-12.
Phillip J Wanyerka, ed. Austin: Department of Art and Art History, University of Texas.

Guenter, Stanley
2002 Under a Falling Star: The Hiatus at Tikal. M.A. thesis, La Trobe University.

2014 The Epigraphy of El Peru-Waka’. In Archaeology at El Peru-Waka’: Ancient Maya

Performances of Ritual, Memory, and Power. Olivia C. Navarro-Farr and Michelle E. Rich, eds. Pp. 147–
166. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Helmke, Christophe, and Jaime J. Awe

2016 Sharper than a Serpent’s Tooth: A Tale of the Snake-Head Dynasty as Recounted on
Xunantunich Panel 4. The PARI Journal 17(2): 1–22.

Helmke, Christophe, and Felix Kupprat

2016 Where Snakes Abound: Supernatural Places of Origin and Founding Myths in the Titles

Page | 22
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

of Classic Maya Kings. In Places of Power and Memory in Mesoamerica’s Past and Present: How Sites,
Toponyms and Landscapes Shape History and Remembrance. Daniel Graña-Behrens, ed. Pp. 33–83.
Berlin: Gebr. Mann.

Helmke, Christophe, and Jesper Nielsen

2013 The Writing on the Wall: A Paleographic Analysis of the Maya Texts of Tetitla,
Teotihuacan. In The Maya in a Mesoamerican Context: Comparative Approaches to Maya Studies:
Proceedings of the 16th European Maya Conference, Copenhagen, December 5-10, 2011. Jesper Nielsen
and Christophe Helmke, eds. Pp. 123–166. Acta Mesoamericana, 26. Markt Schwaben, Germany: Anton
Saurwein.

Houston, Stephen D., Héctor Escobedo, Mark Child, et al.

2000 In the Land of the Turtle Lords: Archaeological Investigations at Piedras Negras,
Guatemala, 2000. Mexicon 22(5): 97–110.

Houston, Stephen, Edwin Román Ramírez, Thomas G. Garrison, Héctor Escobedo Ayala, and Pamela
Rosales
2021 A Teotihuacan Complex at the Classic Maya City of Tikal, Guatemala. Antiquity 95(384):
e32, 1–9.

Kelly, Mary Kate, David A Freidel, and Olivia C Navarro-Farr

2024 Waka’ on the International Stage. In El Perú-Waka’: New Archaeological Perspectives on
the Kingdom of the Centipede. Keith Eppich, Damien Marken, and David A Freidel, eds. Pp. 21–53.
Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Kováč, Milan, and Ramzy R. Barrois

2012 El papel de Siyaj K’ahk’ en Uaxactun y el Petén central. Contributions in New World
Archaeology 4: 113–126.

Lacadena García-Gallo, Alfonso

2010 Títulos militares en los textos jeroglíficos mayas del período clásico. Ponencia
presentada en 8 Congreso internacional de Mayistas, México D.F., 8-13 de agosto.

Looper, Matthew, and Yuriy Polyukhovych

2016 A New Drawing of the Denver Plaque. Glyph Dwellers, Report 40.
http://glyphdwellers.com/pdf/R40.pdf.

Lopes, Luís
2005 A Reading for the “Stinger” Glyph. Mesoweb Articles.
www.mesoweb.com/articles/lopes/Stinger.pdf.

Page | 23
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

López Luján, Leonardo, Laura Filloy Nadal, Barbara W. Fash, William L Fash, and Pilar Hernández
2006 The Destruction of Images in Teotihuacan: Anthropomorphic Sculpture, Elite Cults, and
the End of a Civilization. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 49–50: 12–39.

Martin, Simon
1997 The Painted King List: A Commentary on Codex-Style Dynastic Vases. In The Maya Vase
Book: A Corpus of Rollout Photographs of Maya Vases, vol. 5. Justin Kerr and Barbara Kerr, eds. Pp. 846–
867. New York: Kerr Associates.

1999 The Queen of Middle Classic Tikal. PARI Newsletter 27. Mesoweb Articles.
https://www.mesoweb.com/pari/publications/news_archive/27/lady/tikal.html.

2000 At the Periphery: The Movement, Modification and Re-Use of Early Monuments in the
Environs of Tikal. In The Sacred and the Profane: Architecture and Identity in the Maya Lowlands: 3rd
European Maya Conference, University of Hamburg, November 1998. Pierre Robert Colas, Kai
Delvendahl, Marcus Kuhnert, and Annette Schubart, eds. Pp. 51–61. Acta Mesoamericana, 10. Markt
Schwaben, Germany: Verlag Anton Saurwein.

2003 In Line of the Founder: A View of Dynastic Politics at Tikal. In Tikal: Dynasties,
Foreigners, and Affairs of State. Jeremy A. Sabloff, ed. Pp. 3–45. Santa Fe: School of American Research
Press.

2004a A Broken Sky: The Ancient Name of Yaxchilan as Pa’ Chan. The PARI Journal 5(1): 1–7.

2004b Preguntas epigáficas acerca de los escalones de Dzibanché. In Los cautivos de Dzibanché.
Enrique Nalda, ed. Pp. 105–115. México, D. F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

2014 Early Classic Co-Rulers on Tikal Temple VI. Maya Decipherment: Ideas on Ancient Maya
Writing and Iconography: Posted November 22, 2014.
https://mayadecipherment.com/2014/11/22/early-classic-co-rulers-on-tikal-temple-vi/.

2020 Ancient Maya Politics: A Political Anthropology of the Classic Period 150–900 CE.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martin, Simon, and Dmitri Beliaev

2017 K’ahk’ Ti’ Ch’ich’: A New Snake King from the Early Classic Period. The PARI Journal
17(3): 1–7.

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.

Martin, Simon, and Joel Skidmore

Page | 24
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

2012 Exploring the 584286 Correlation between the Maya and European Calendars. The PARI
Journal 13(2): 3–16.

Martin, Simon, and Erik Velásquez García

2016 Polities and Places: Tracing the Toponyms of the Snake Dynasty. The PARI Journal 17(2):
23–33.

Mathews, Peter
1980 Notes on the Dynastic Sequence of Bonampak, Part I. In Third Palenque Round Table,
1978, Pt. 2. Merle Green Robertson, ed. Pp. 60–73. Austin: University of Texas Press.

1988 The Sculpture of Yaxchilan. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.

Nalda, Enrique
2003 Prácticas funerarias en Dzibanché, Quintana Roo: Los entierros en el Edificio de Los
Cormoranes. Arqueología 31: 25–37.

Nondédéo, Philippe, Julien Hiquet, Hemmamuthé Goudiaby, Julie Patrois, and Nikolai Grube
2023 Naachtun Altar 8: New Data from an Early Classic Monument. Mexicon 45(1): 18–23.

Nondédéo, Philippe, Alfonso Lacadena García-Gallo, and Juan Ignacio Cases Martin
2019 Teotihuacanos y mayas en la entrada de 11 Eb’ (378 d.C.): Nuevos datos de Naachtun,
Petén, Guatemala. Revista española de antropología americana 49 Especial: 53–75.

Nondédéo, Philippe, Alfonso Lacadena García-Gallo, and Alejandro Garay

2018 Apuntes epigráficos: La temporada 2015 del Proyecto Naachtun. In Tiempo detenido,
tiempo suficiente: ensayos y narraciones mesoamericanistas en homenaje a Alfonso Lacadena García-
Gallo. Harri Kettunen, Felix Kupprat, Cristina Vidal, Gaspar Muñoz Cosme, and María Josefa Iglesias
Ponce de León, eds. Pp. 329–350. Wayeb Publication, 1. Couvin, Belgium: European Association of
Mayanists WAYEB.

Polyukhovych, Yuriy
2012 Political and Dynastic History of the Maya State of Baakal According to the Sources of
the Epigraphic Corpus of Palenque (Lakamha’). Ph.D. dissertation, Taras Shevchenko National University
of Kyiv (In Ukrainian).

Prager, Christian M.
2004 A Classic Maya Ceramic Vessel from the Calakmul Region in the Museum zu
Allerheiligen, Schaffhausen, Switzerland. Human Mosaic 35(1): 31–40.

Page | 25
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

Proskouriakoff, Tatiana
1993 Maya History. Rosemary A Joyce, ed. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Safronov, Alexander, and Dmitri Beliaev

2017 La epigrafía de Uaxactun después de un siglo, 1916-2016. In XXX Simposio de
investigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2016. Bárbara Arroyo, Luis Méndez Salinas, and Gloria Aju
Alvarez, eds. Pp. 515–528. Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropología e
Historia, Asociación Tikal.

Schele, Linda
1992 The Founders of Lineages at Copan and Other Maya Sites. Ancient Mesoamerica 3(1):
135–144.

Schele, Linda, and David Freidel

1990 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. New York: William Morrow.

Schele, Linda, and Peter Mathews

1991 Royal Visits and Other Intersite Relationships Among the Classic Maya. In Classic Maya
Political History: Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence, School of American Research Advanced
Seminar Series. T. Patrick Culbert, ed. Pp. 226–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Skidmore, Joel
2002 New Piece of Precolumbian Wooden Box. Mesoweb Reports and News.
https://www.mesoweb.com/reports/box/piece.html.

Stone, Andrea
1989 Disconnection, Foreign Insignia and Political Expansion: Teotihuacán and the Warrior
Stelae of Piedras Negras. In Mesoamerica after the Decline of Teotihuacán, AD 700-900. Richard A. Diehl
and Janet Catherine Berlo, eds. Pp. 153–172. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection.

Stuart, David
2000 “The Arrival of Strangers:” Teotihuacan and Tollan in Classic Maya History. In
Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs. David Carrasco, Lindsay Jones, and
Scott Sessions, eds. Pp. 465–513. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

2004 The Beginnings of the Copan Dynasty: A Review of the Hieroglyphic and Historical
Evidence. In Understanding Early Classic Copan. Ellen E. Bell, Marcello A. Canuto, and Robert J. Sharer,
eds. Pp. 215–247. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

Page | 26
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

2005 A Foreign Past: The Writing and Representation of History on a Royal Ancestral Shrine at
Copan. In Copán: The History of an Ancient Maya Kingdom. E. Wyllys Andrews V and William L Fash, eds.
Pp. 373–394. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

2006 The Palenque Mythology. In Sourcebook for the 30th Maya Meetings, March 14-19. Pp.
85–194. Austin: Mesoamerican Center; Department of Art and Art History, University of Texas.

2007a The Origin of Copan’s Founder. Maya Decipherment: Ideas on Ancient Maya Writing and
Iconography: Posted June 25, 2007. http://decipherment.wordpress.com/2007/06/25/the-origin-of-
copans-founder/.

2007b “White Owl Jaguar”: A Tikal Royal Ancestor. Maya Decipherment: Ideas on Ancient
Maya Writing and Iconography: Posted November 4, 2007.
https://mayadecipherment.com/2007/11/04/white-owl-jaguar-a-tikal-royal-ancestor/.

2007c The Captives on Piedras Negras, Panel 12. Maya Decipherment: Ideas on Ancient Maya
Writing and Iconography: Posted August 18, 2007. https://mayadecipherment.com/2007/08/18/the-
captives-on-piedras-negras-panel-12/.

2012 Notes on a New Text from La Corona. Maya Decipherment: Ideas on Ancient Maya
Writing and Iconography: Posted June 30, 2012.
https://decipherment.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/notes-on-a-new-text-from-la-corona/.

2020 A New Variant of the Syllable k’o in Maya Writing. Maya Decipherment: Ideas on
Ancient Maya Writing and Iconography: Posted June 5, 2020.
https://mayadecipherment.com/2020/06/05/a-new-variant-of-the-syllable-ko-in-maya-writing/.

2023 Further Observations on the MUT Logogram. Maya Decipherment: Ideas on Ancient
Maya Writing and Iconography: Posted January 6, 2023.
https://mayadecipherment.com/2023/01/06/further-observations-on-the-mut-logogram/.

2024 Spearthrower Owl: A Teotihuacan Ruler in Maya History. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton
Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University.

Stuart, David, Nikolai Grube, and Linda Schele

1989 A Substitution Set for the “Macuch/Batab” Title. Copan Notes 58.

Styuflyaev, Maksym
2023 One Name, One Person: The Problem of Reconstructing the List of Early Kings of Piedras
Negras in Light of the Hieroglyphic Texts from Yaxchilan. The Journal of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National
University. Series: History 63: 30-61 (In Ukrainian).

Styuflyaev, Maksym, and Marie Stadnik

n.d. Early Classic History of Piedras Negras: New Interpretations. Unpublished Manuscript.

Sugiyama, Nawa, William F. Fash, Barbara W. Fash, and Saburo Sugiyama

Page | 27
Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

2020 The Maya at Teotihuacan? New Insights into Teotihuacan-Maya Interactions from the
Plaza of the Columns Complex. In Teotihuacan: The World Beyond the City. Kenneth G. Hirth, David
Carballo, and Bárbara Arroyo, eds. Pp. 139–171. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection.

Taube, Karl A.
2000 Turquoise Hearth: Fire, Self-Sacrifice, and the Central Mexican Cult of War. In
Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs. David Carrasco, Lindsay Jones, and
Scott Sessions, eds. Pp. 269–340. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

2003 Tetitla and the Maya Presence at Teotihuacan. In The Maya and Teotihuacan:
Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction. Geoffrey E. Braswell, ed. Pp. 273–314. Austin: University of
Texas Press.

2004 Structure 10L-16 and Its Early Classic Antecedents: Fire and the Evocation and
Resurrection of K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’. In Understanding Early Classic Copan. Ellen E Bell, Marcello A
Canuto, and Robert J Sharer, eds. Pp. 265–295. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of
Archaeology And Anthropology.

Tokovinine, Alexandre
2013 Place and Identity in Classic Maya Narratives. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and
Archaeology, 37. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Trustees for
Harvard University.

2017 Copan Reloaded: A New Look at the Ante Step and Its Context. Paper presented at the
81st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver, British Columbia.

2020 Distance and Power in Classic Maya Texts. In Reshaping the World: Debates on
Mesoamerican Cosmologies. Ana Díaz, ed. Pp. 251–281. Louisville: University of Colorado Press.

Tokovinine, Alexandre, and Sandra Balanzario

2023 Los reyes de las estrellas: las escaleras jeroglíficas de El Resbalón, Quintana Roo,
México. Ponencia presentada en 12 Congreso internacional de mayistas, Ciudad de Mexico.

Tokovinine, Alexandre, and Vilma Fialko

2007 Stela 45 of Naranjo and the Early Classic Lords of Sa’aal. The PARI Journal 7(4): 1–14.

Velásquez García, Erik

2004 Los escalones jeroglíficos de Dzibanché. In Los cautivos de Dzibanché. Enrique Nalda, ed.
Pp. 79–103. México, D. F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Vepretskii, Sergei

Page | 28
 Glyph Dwellers Report 91 The Long Mexican Supremacy

2021 The Force Awakens: History and Politics of Early Kanu’l. Paper presented at the 26th
European Maya Conference, Bratislava, Slovakia, December 9-11.

Willey, Gordon R.
1974 The Classic Maya Hiatus: A Rehearsal for the Collapse? In Mesoamerican Archaeology:
New Approaches. Norman Hammond, ed. Pp. 417–430. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Wright, Lori
2005 In Search of Yax Nuun Ayiin I: Revisiting the Tikal Project’s Burial 10. Ancient
Mesoamerica 16(1): 89–100.

Zender, Marc
2007 Mexican Associations of the Early Classic Dynasty of Turtle Tooth I of Piedras Negras.
Paper presented at the Hieroglyphic Forum, 31st Annual Maya Meetings at Texas, University of Texas at
Austin.

Glyph Dwellers is an occasional publication of the Maya Hieroglyphic Database Project at California State
University, Chico, California. Its purpose is to make available recent discoveries about ancient Maya
culture, history, iconography, and Mayan historical linguistics deriving from the project.

Funding for the Maya Hieroglyphic Database Project is provided by the National Endowment for the
Humanities, grants #RT21365-92, RT21608-94, PA22844-96, the National Science Foundation, grants
#SBR9710961 and IBSS1328928, the Department of Native American Studies, University of California,
Davis, and the Department of Art and Art History, California State University, Chico.

© 2024 Matthew G. Looper. All rights reserved. Written material and artwork appearing in these reports
may not be republished or duplicated for profit. Citation of more than one paragraph requires written
permission of the publisher. No copies of this work may be distributed electronically, in whole or in part,
without express written permission from the publisher.

ISSN 1097-3737

Page | 29

View publication stats