Династическая история Сакцʹи: новые данные о царстве древних майя позднего классического периода

Полный текст

Introduction The written tradition of the ancient Maya, reflecting the dynastic history of the Classic period (250-900 CE), contains references to a large number of kingdoms and polities whose locations are unknown or problematic. Typically, such references are isolated, lacking details about their histories, and the kingdoms themselves played no significant role in the Maya political system. However, one kingdom stands out among these references: the polity of Saktzʹiʹ, which played a leading role in the military and political history of the Usumacinta Basin in the between 600-800 CE and claimed regional dominance. Paradoxically, the main episodes of Saktzʹiʹ dynastic history were reconstructed from external references in the early 2000s, with much of the information contained in monuments of unknown origin, tentatively attributed to the “Bonampak region”. Discoveries over the past decade have provided significant new data on the history of the polity, allowing for a more detailed understanding of the dynastic history of Saktzʹiʹ and its place in the political relations of the Usumacinta region. The Emblem Glyph, associated with an unknown polity, was first identified in 1994 by Linda Schele and Nikolai Grube in inscriptions on Stela 26 from Piedras Negras, as well as on the Denver and Brussels panels. These inscriptions indicated the participation of a king with unknown title in the military and political events of the Usumacinta Valley in the mid-7th century [1. P. 111, 116]. The presence of both logographic and syllabic variants of the Emblem Glyph made it possible to determine its reading: SAK-tzʹi-ˀi-ˀAJAW / SAK-TZʹIˀ, Saktzʹiˀ ˀajaw - “king of Saktzʹiʹ” [3. P. 179-181] (Fig. 1), while the toponym Saktzʹiˀ - “White dog” - contained in the title is quite atypical for the Maya, since it does not contain the usual locatives or toponymic suffixes, so its exact meaning is not entirely clear. Figure 1. Saktzʹiʹ and Maya polities of the Upper Usumasinta region in the middle of the 8th century Source: map created by A. Safronov. Gradually, other references to this title were discovered, it appears in inscriptions from major archaeological sites in the Usumacinta Basin - Bonampak, Yaxchilan, Piedras Negras, El Cayo, Tonina, and others - attesting to the proximity of the Saktzʹiʹ kingdom to all of these centers. However, a significant number of references were found on unprovenance monuments, such as the Caracas Panel, the Stendahl Panel, the continuing text on the Denver and Brussels Panels, and several others. Thus, the geography of Saktzʹiʹ references is quite broad, encompassing the Upper Usumacinta Valley, Lacandon area and eastern part of Chiapas Highlands. In the beginning of 2000s, a number of researchers attempted to determine the borders of the Saktzʹiʹ kingdom and the location of its political center, which was then unknown. The most important comprehensive study, positioned as a GIS approach, was conducted by Armando Anaya [2], in which the “gravity model” method was applied, that is, the calculation of a mathematical model, to determine the location of the Saktzʹiʹ polity and the configuration of its borders. His joint work with Mark Zender and Stanley Gunther demonstrated the possibility of a detailed application of the GIS approach to epigraphic data, which opened a new direction in the study of the historical geography of the ancient Maya [3]. Moreover, the localization of the kingdom turned out to be quite accurate; it was in the area they identified in the Upper Lacanha Valley that the archaeological site Lacanja Tzeltal was subsequently discovered, which was identified as the political center of Saktzʹiʹ [4]. Following this, in 2004, Russian researchers Dmitri Beliaev and Alexander Safronov proposed a different approach to defining the boundaries of Saktzʹiʹ, based on an in- depth content analysis of epigraphic monuments in the Upper Usumacinta region and the determination of boundaries based on mutual references to events in various kingdoms bordering this polity. First of all, they conducted a more detailed study of the dynastic history actions, clarifying their dating [5. P. 134-135]. As a result, the configuration of the territorial-p olitical organization of the Lacanha Valley proposed by Beliaev and Safronov differs from the reconstruction of Anaya, Guenter and Zender and assumes a wider territorial scope, primarily in the Santo Domingo Valley, corresponding to the political power of the kingdom at the turn of the 7th-8th centuries. After this, the Hungarian researcher Peter Biro published a work devoted to the epigraphic sources on the history of Saktzʹiʹ, in which he presented the reading, translation and detailed historical analysis of the most significant monuments associated with this polity, primarily monuments of unknown origin [6]. Among the extremely important observations of Biro, one can note the assumption about the possible dating of the key text on the Denver and Brussels panels to the 690s, and not to the 640s, as previously assumed [6. P. 2-8]. Biro also presented his view on the political geography of the Lacanha Valley, following the model of Armando Anaya, and identified Saktzʹiʹ with the Plan de Ayutla site, where archaeological research was being conducted at the time [7. P. 73-74], although Beliaev and Safronov had previously pointed out its remoteness from the main events in the Usumacinta Valley and identified it with another little-k nown polity of Akʹeʹ [5. P. 134]. In 2021, the author of the current work published a general dynastic list of the kingdoms of Akʹeʹ, Xukanaah and Saktzʹiʹ, located nearby in the Lacanha Valley, but it contains a number of inaccuracies, as well as incomplete data, which have been revised in recent years [8]. Only in 2018, thanks to the fieldwork research project led by Charles Golden and Andrew Scherer, the archaeological site of Lacanja Tzeltal was discovered in the Upper Lacanha Valley, with a large architectural core where they found a new well-p reserved monument - Panel 1, dedicated to Saktzʹiʹ kings Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ III and Chan Ekʹ [4], as well as numerous stelae damaged by looters with the remains of reliefs, the study of which was produced by Mallory Matsumoto [9]. Thus removing all doubts about the location of the main center of Saktzʹiʹ kingdom. However, there is still no evidence of a connection between the toponym of the Emblem Glyph and this archaeological site. Moreover, Saktz’i’ looks like a very atypical toponym for the Сlassic Maya, it lacks the usual locatives or toponymic suffixes, rather it could have been some kind of early title for the royal dynasty. We will attempt to summarize all available data on the history of Saktzʹiʹ, taking into account new finds, and present an up- to-date dynastic list of the kingdom, as well as trace the main stages of its development. Early data on Saktzʹiʹ kings The initial period of the Saktzʹiʹ history is currently poorly known, and conclusions can only be drawn based on episodic written evidences. However, a general idea of that polity origin can be provided by archaeological research at the main political center of Lacanja Tzeltal. It was long believed that the earliest mention of the Saktzʹiʹ king is a retrospective inscription on unprovenance monument known as the Caracas Panel (New York Panel), erected in the mid-8th century [10. P. 23]. However, the opening section of the text contains a reference to the early history of Saktzʹiʹ, reporting events in 564. The first passage is heavily damaged, making the exact reading difficult to determine: Wak ˀEhbʹ hoˀ Muwaahn huliˀ? ˀaj-…? ti-p atal? … aw yax kʹukʹ bʹolon pih Kʹabʹ Chanteˀ Saktzʹiˀ ˀajaw - “(On the day of) 6 Ehb 5th (of) Muwaahn, he arrived? a man from …? with a tribute? … of green (feathers) of quetzal in abundance (measures of 400) (for) Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ, king of Saktzʹiʹ” (Caracas pan., A1-B5). The first date 6 Ehb 5 Muwaahn corresponds to 2 January 564, when the king Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ I, who received an offering in the form of many measures of quetzal feathers, was identified, as the earliest king of Saktzʹiʹ, ruling in middle 6th century. The following passage also mentions the king’s ritual activity: lajchaˀ Kabʹan hoˀ Chaksihoˀm ˀochiˀ kʹahkʹ tu wayibʹil ˀAhkuˀl Muuch ˀAhkuˀl Xukabʹ - “(on the day of) 12 Kabʹan, 5th (of) Chaksihom, fire entered the dwelling of Ahkuʹl Muuch Ahkuʹl Xukabʹ” (Caracas pan., A7-B9). Here we read that on November 2, 564, the temple of the deities Ahkuʹl Muuch and Ahkuʹl Xukabʹ was consecrated, and then three months later: lajchaˀ ˀIkʹ lajuˀn Muwaahn patwaan ˀaj-…n ˀu-… … ˀAhkuˀl Muuch - “… (on the day) 12 Ikʹ, 10th (of) Muwaahn was built by Aj… his-… …? Ahkuʹl Muuch” (Caracas pan., A11-C2). So, it means on January 6, 656, the construction of the temple of Ahkuʹl Muuch was completed. The text does not contain any toponym that would indicate the place of construction, but in all likelihood, we are talking about the initial stage of construction of one of the key temple structures in Lacanja Tzeltal back in the mid-6th century, which was subsequently rebuilt in the early 8th century. However, a detailed analysis of one of the Early Classic monuments from the Upper Usumacinta Valley allows us to date the beginning of the dynastic tradition of Saktzʹiʹ to the beginning of the 6th century. Piedras Negras Panel 12 is the earliest royal monument of Yokibʹ dynasty and one of the first hieroglyphic texts in the Upper Usumacinta region, dedicated to Yokibʹ king Yaat Ahk II, was erected in 518 in honor of the consecration of one of the temples in Piedras Negras. The beginning of the text reports on the erection of the monument in honor of the end of the Katun anniversary in 517. Further in the text Yaat Ahk II is called himself a vassal of the western kaloˀmteˀ - the ruler of Teotihuacan Tajoʹm Ukʹabʹ Tuun, from whom he received the regalia of power in 510 [11. P. 243]. At the same time, the scene on Panel 12 depicts the triumph of Yokibʹ king - four kneeling captives he had captured earlier. Although the exact date of this war is unknown, there is reason to believe that it is connected with the non-j ubilee Initial Long Count date in the text, which refers to 514 BC. The titles of the two central captives were determined quite easily - the king of Paʹchan (Yaxchilan) Knot-e ye Jaguar I [12. P. 120-121], and the king of Wakʹabʹeʹ (Santa Elena Balankan) Witzʹ Kʹin Chaahk [13. P. 428]. The origin of the captive on the right is somewhat problematic to determine, but he lacks a royal title, which is probably why he is depicted separately from the kings on the left. But the greatest debate surrounds the identity of the captive on the left; his name is legible enough - Ahkuʹl Moʹ, but the royal title following his name is heavily damaged. Previously, we assumed that the Emblem Glyph of Akʹeʹ was recorded with it [5. P. 120]. Then David Stuart put forward the idea that the text records the name and title of the Lakamtuun king Min? Chan Ahk, also mentioned on Lintel 35 from Yaxchilan [14]. However, despite the external similarity of the Emblem Glyph of the captive on Panel 12 with the title Lakamtuun ˀajaw, it is quite difficult to assume that the not dominant polity associated with the archaeological sites of Benemerito de las Americas and El Palma in the Lacantun Valley participated in the war against Yokibʹ at the beginning of the 6th century. Thanks to a series of digital photographs of Panel 12, produced by the Atlas Epigrafico de Peten project in 2015, we can obtain the following reading of the inscription on the left captive (Fig. 2): (Q1) ˀu-BʹAAH (R1) ˀa- ku (Q2) MOˀ (R2) SAKtzʹi-ˀAJAW, ˀu bʹaahˀ ˀAhkuˀl Moˀ Saktzʹiʹ ˀajaw - “This is his image of Ahkuʹl Moˀ, king of Saktzʹiʹˀ” (PNG:Pan.12, Q1-R2). Apparently, it contains the Saktzʹiʹ Emblem Glyph, written in a rare variant using the syllabic sign tzʹi (Fig. 3, a). This combination appears only twice: on Panel 1 from El Cayo in 772 (Fig. 3, b): SAKtzʹi-ˀAJAW (CAY:Pan.1, G3, M15), and on Stela 26 from Piedras Negras in 628 (Fig. 3, c): SAK-tzʹi-ˀi ˀAJAW. In all other examples from inscriptions at Lacanja Tzeltal, Bonampak, Yaxchilan, Tonina, and on monuments of unknown origin, the Emblem Glyph is written using the logogram TZʹIˀ - “dog”, depicting the animal head (Fig. 3, d). Most likely, the syllabic variant tzʹi-(ˀi) is a special form used exclusively in the Yokibʹ inscriptions, and therefore the example we found on Panel 12 belongs to this category. Figure 2. Piedras Negras, Panel 12, inscription fragment Q1-R2 Source: drawing by A. Safronov. a b c d Figure 3. Examples of Saktzʹiʹ Emblem Glyph: a - PNG:Pan.12, R2; b - CAY:Pan.1, G3; c - PNG:St.26, C2-3; d - Caracas pan., D5 Source: all drawing by A. Safronov. Therefore, we can assume with some caution, that Panel 12 from Piedras Negras depicts one of the earliest kings of Saktzʹiʹ Ahkuʹl Moʹ as a prisoner captured around 514. His participation in the war against Yaat Ahk II, along with the kings of Paʹchan and Wakʹabʹeʹ, seems entirely logical - these three polities directly bordered the Yokibʹ territory to the south, east, and north. Consequently, the emergence of the royal dynasty in Saktzʹiʹ should be dated late 5th century. Firstly, this is consistent with archaeological data, namely the finds of traces of Early Classic architecture on the Lacanja Tzeltal Acropolis [4. P. 11]. Secondly, such a late emergence of royal power in Saktzʹiʹ was probably one of the reasons for the complete absence of kʹuhul (“sacred”) prefix in the titles of local kings, which was traditionally bestowed upon the most ancient and authoritative dynasties [11. P. 71-72]. A similar example is the neighboring Xukalnaah kingdom, with its centers at Lacanha and Bonampak, whose kings also begin to be mentioned from the early 6th century. However, the kʹuhul prefix was added to their title only at the end of the 8th century At the same time, the kings of the small polity of Akʹeʹ, mentioned in Yaxchilan inscriptions since approximately the early 5th century, also located in the Lacanha Valley and presumably associated with the archaeological site Plan de Ayutla, used the kʹuhul title already about 600 CE [8. 154, 157-159]. The rise of Saktzʹiʹ in the 7th century However, there follows a gap in the dynastic history of Saktzʹiʹ, which is due to the lack of informative sources on the political history of Lacandon area in the late 6th and early 7th centuries. The next mention of Saktzʹiʹ king dates only to 625, and it is again associated with the military and political activities of Yokibʹ king. Stela 26 from Piedras Negras depicts Kʹihnich Yoʹnal Ahk I with two captives, the one on the left is named Kʹabʹ Chanteˀ Saktzʹiˀ ˀajaw - “Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ, king of Saktzʹiʹ” (PNG:St.26, C1-3), and the captive on the right is named Chʹok Bʹahlam ˀajkʹuhuuˀn kʹuhul Bʹaakal ˀajaw - “Chʹok Bʹahlam, ajkʹuhuuʹn of the sacred king of Bʹaakal” (PNG:St.26, D1-3). This likely refers to a second known Saktzʹiʹ king, named Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ, who reigned in the first quarter of the 7th century. but is not mentioned elsewhere. Stela 26 was erected on the anniversary date in early 628, but the events associated with the capture of Saktzʹiʹ king occurred two and a half years earlier in October 625 (there are also possible dates for the event in 624 and 627). Unfortunately, the damage to the inscription does not allow us to determine the details of the events [12. P. 142-143; 6. P. 2]. Kʹabʹ Chante II participation in the war against Yokibʹ is quite understandable; it was a continuation of the confrontation that began back in 514. It temporarily subsided in the mid-6th century, when Yokibʹ entered a period of 40-years hiatus, which apparently allowed Saktzʹiʹ to gain a foothold in the political relations of the Upper Usumacinta region. But that military and political confrontation resumed after the accession of Kʹihnich Yoʹnal Ahk I in 603, and Saktzʹiʹ apparently found later an ally in the young Baakal king Kʹihnich Janaabʹ Pakal I, who was rivaling Yokibʹ in the Middle Usumacinta area [12. P. 164-165]. However, known inscriptions from the mid-7th century do not contain explicit references to the kingdom of Saktzʹiʹ, but indirect evidence allows us to judge its growing power in the Lacandon area. Panel 4 from Piedras Negras, one of the most important, but poorly preserved, monuments dedicated to the reign of Kʹihnich Yoʹnal Ak I, reports: (E7) [BʹOLON-ˀOKday] (F7) [HUUX-CHIK-ni] (G1) KAJ-yi tu-CHʹEEˀN-na? (H1) 2pe-ˀe-TUUN-ni (G2) yo-ˀo-NAL-ˀa- ku, Bʹolon ˀOk huux Chikin kajaay tu chʹeenˀ Pepeˀtuun Yoˀnal ˀAhk - “(On the day of) 9 Ok 3rd (of) Chikin settled in his city Pepeʹtun Yoʹnal Ahk” (PNG:Pan.4, E7-G2). The date of the event has not been preserved, but it can be reconstructed based on the calculation of distance numbers and refers to 9 Ok 3 Chikin, 9.9.18.6.10 = June 18, 631, and the previously unclear event [6. P. 5], was determined after D. Beliaev and A. Davletshin read the mediopassive verb root - logogram T550 as KAJ - “to settle, to found” [15. P. 591]. Thus, the passage kajaay tu- chʹeenˀ Pepeˀtuun Yoˀnal ˀAhk (Fig. 4) speaks of the founding of a new city. Figure 4. Piedras Negras, Panel 4, inscription fragment G1-G2 Source: drawing by A. Safronov. This toponym, containing a sign depicting a rabbit head, was previously identified by David Stuart and Stephen Houston as “Rabbit Head Stone” [16. P. 37, 40], and subsequently associated by John Montgomery with the archaeological site of La Mar, located in the Budsilja Valley, southwest of Piedras Negras [17. P. 176-183]. The modern reading of the sign in the form of a rabbit head as a syllabic pe, proposed by A. Davletshin and D. Beliaev, as well as the presence in several examples of the syllabic substitution pe-ˀe-TUUN-ni, determined the reading of the toponym as Peˀtuun - “Fenced with stone”, “Stone fence” [18. P. 35-37]. However, Simon Martin pointed out the presence in most examples of the syllabic pe (including Panel 4 from Piedras Negras) of two dots, as the doubling determinative, which gives the reading of the toponym as Pepeˀtuun [11. P. 271], Davletshin and Beliaev believe that this toponym could have had a Zoquean origin [18. P. 35-37]. Nevertheless, the very fact of the founding in 631 of a new center directly subordinate to the Piedras Negras king on the southwestern border of Yokibʹ at the foot of the Sierra Guiral, speaks to the importance of this direction in the policy of Kʹihnich Yoʹnal Ahk I. Apparently, Pepeʹtuun, as a strategic center, was intended to block a convenient pass in the Sierra Guiral, which led from the Budsilja Valley to the Santo Domingo Valley formed a single space with the Upper Lacanha Valley. Obviously, by this time, Saktzʹiʹ could control all this territory southwest from Yokibʹ and also lay claim to lands directly in the Usumacinta Valley. The event depicted on Panel 2 of Piedras Negras, dated to 658, can be explained by the expansion of Saktzʹiʹ influence in the Lacandon area. This is one of the most famous monuments of Piedras Negras, exhibited in the Peabody Museum (Harvard University), was erected in 667 and dates to the reign of Yokibʹ king Itzam K’an Ahk III [12. P. 143-144]. The main text on the panel reports on the ritual taking of koˀhaw - a Teotihuacan type helmet, in 658, which was a repetition of the ritual koˀhaw taking previously performed in 510 by Yaat Ahk II, who received the regalia of power from the hands of the Teotihuacan kaloʹmteʹ Tajoʹm Ukʹabʹ Tuun [11. P. 243]. The iconographic scene precisely conveys this ritual, it depicts Yokibʹ king, his heir and 6 vassals, dressed in Teotihuacan-t ype ammunition, but researchers disagree on which event is depicted there: 510 or 658. Simon Martin believes that Panel 2 reproduces the scene of 510, based on the fact that the feathers of the king’s headdress indicate the name Yaat Ahk II in the main inscription, the depicted heir to the throne, Joy Chitam Ahk, did not succeed Itzam Kʹan Ahk III, therefore, he could be the successor of Yaat Ahk II and been an unknown king of the mid-6th century, also Megan O’Neil pointed out the similarity of the Teotihuacan helmet on the king of Stela 7 from Lacanha, installed in 593, with the helmets received by the lords of Xukalnaah on Panel 2 [11. P. 243]. However, we do not agree with this point of view, a number of facts showing to the depiction of the event of 658. 1) It is known that Itzam Kʹan Ahk III was succeeded by Kʹihnich Yoʹnal Ahk II in 686, but he was born only in 664 [12. P. 145], so he could not be present at the scene of 658, and was probably the youngest son, while the eldest Joy Chitam Ak was considered the heir, but possibly he died before his father; 2) In the ceremony scene of 510, kalomte Tahom-Ukab-Tun should rather be depicted handing over the regalia of power, as in the murals of Uaxactun presents the king “Sunraiser” who depicted receiving investiture from the Teotihuacan emissary Kʹihnich Moʹ [19. P. 48-52]; 3) The list of participants of the ceremony is impossible to imagine in 510, but is logical for 658. Six local lords participate in the ceremony: one from the kingdom of Akʹeʹ, one lord of the land of Kʹanaʹ from Paʹchan, and four lords from Xukalnaah (a canoe leader (ˀaj payaal jukuubʹ), lords from Saklakal, Patalaak and Bʹuhbʹulhaʹ). The Panel 12 from Piedras Negras shows Paʹchan king who was defeated only in 514, so it is unlikely that a member of the royal house took part in the ceremony as a vassal of Yokibʹ king in 510. Xukalnaah polity was only formed at the early 6th century and it is unlikely at that time it possessed a complex system of territorial organization, including three areas under lord’s power. And besides, among the participants there is no Xukalnaah king itself, who was supposed to receive koʹhaw, so that his successor could be depicted in a helmet on Stele 7 from Lacanha. 4) Also, local lord title, written according to the formula ˀaj <toponym> <Emblem Glyph> (as: ˀaj Bʹubulhaʹ Xukalnaah ˀajaw), which represent three Xukalnaah nobles, were formed only at the beginning of the 7th century, but at the early 500s, only kings could bear the Emblem Glyph at that time [20. P. 120-121]. However, if we look at the composition of the participants in relation to the political situation in 658, a curious picture emerges. All the lords depicted come from the Lacandon area: Paʹchan lord from Kʹanaʹ probably represented one of the border regions in the southwest from Yaxchilan (for example El Chicozapote); Akʹeʹ polity is associated with the archaeological site of Plan de Ayutla; Xukalnaah lordship of Bʹubʹulha is more likely associated with the site of Ojos de Agua [21. P. 40]; Patal(aak), also known as Knot- site, is affiliate with the archaeological site of Nuevo Jalisco, the place of origin of the mid-8th century. Xukanaah king Knot- eye Jaguar [8. P. 160]; and a possible location for Saklakal is the site Kanankax (Rancho Ojo de Agua), since this place is closest to the territory to Paʹchan, who fought with Saklakal in 642 and 689 [5. P. 125; 8. P. 159]. Thus, all of six Yokibʹ vassals participating in the ceremony were concentrated in the south and were all located in close proximity to Saktzʹiʹ territory. Thus, we believe that the ritual of koʹhaw taking in 658 was due to the growth Saktzʹiʹ kingdom influence in the Lacandon area and the formation of a coalition against it by Itzam Kʹan Ahk III. At the end of the 7th century, the number of references to the Saktzʹiʹ increases sharply, which is associated with the appearance of monuments of the Saktzʹiʹ kings themselves, many of which have no precise archaeological attribution, but it should be assumed that they came from Lacanja Tzeltal. Archaeological research has revealed approximately 70 monuments, most of which have been damaged by looters [9]. To date, only one complete monument has been discovered in Lacanja Tzeltal - Panel 1, which is dedicated to events from the late 7th to the first half of the 8th centuries. The main source for dynastic history in the late 7th century is an inscription on two unprovenance panels, one is exhibited in the Denver Art Museum, the other in the Royal Museums of Art and History of Brussels [5. P. 124; 6. P. 2-4]. The inscription is a continuous text, but the panels are not fragments of a single monument, but rather separate blocks or sides of a stela, and most likely come from Lacanja Tzeltal. The inscription contains only сyclic dates, which were initially dated by Linda Schele and Nikolai Grube, who proposed dating the events to 636 and 641 [1. P. 116], but Peter Biro suggested a different dating option 52 years later - 688 and 693 [6. P. 6-7], Alexander Safronov showed, on the basis of a comparison with synchronous texts from Tonina, that it is the later dating most reliable [22. P. 180-184]. Let us briefly recap the events recorded in the inscriptions on the Denver and Brussels panels and highlight the key points. It begins with a report of an action concerning Kʹihnich Yoʹnal Ahk II, who is called the king of Kʹihn (the second Emblem Glyph of the Piedras Negras kings), which took place on February 14, 688, what was ordered by Saktzʹiʹ king Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ. This is the third king under same name, and likely the most powerful in the history of the Saktzʹiʹ dynasty. The chronology then goes on to present the events day by day: on April 5, 693, Kʹab Chanteʹ III repelled the attack of Nikteʹ Moʹ, the king of the small polity of Pepeʹtun; the next day, April 6, he beheaded Nikteʹ Moʹ, and references to the Pepeʹtuun kingdom disappear until the mid-8th century. Then, two days later, on April 8, 693, Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ III won a new victory and captured the Akʹe king Juuʹn Ichʹaak Moʹ, who was accompanied by Yabʹa…l, “a person from Kʹanteʹl,” and another day later, on April 9: …pehkaj Yabʹa…l ˀaj Kʹanteˀl ˀaj Kʹinyahaˀ ˀaj Chaktooˀkʹal ‘aj … us ˀaj- Paniil ˀaj ˀAtuun ˀaj ˀAbʹuaˀ pehkaj y ichnal Kʹabʹ Chanteˀ Saktzʹiʹˀ ˀajaw - “Yabʹa…l, a person from Kʹanteʹl, people from Kʹinyahaʹ, people from Chaktooʹkʹal, people from ……sa, the people from Paniil, the people of Atuun, the people of Abʹuaʹ, they were called in front of Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ, the king of Saktzʹiʹ” (Brussel pan., pD5-pD8) [22. P. 179-180]. Here, the following details should be noted. First of all, the events take place during the beginning of the reign of Yokib king Kʹihnich Yoʹnal Ahk II, only 2 years after his accession. The unknown event could have been a defeat in war or another form of political subordination to the Saktzʹiʹ king, which once again confirms our idea of the growth of Saktzʹiʹ power in the mid-7th century and the formation of a coalition of vassals against it in 658. The emergence on the political arena of the Pepeʹtun polity, which, as indicated on Panel 4 from Piedras Negras, was initially some kind of lordship under Yokibʹ ruling, was caused by the military and political events of the early 690s. The inscription on Monument 91 from Tonina reports the defeat inflicted on the king of Nikte Moʹ by the Popoʹ king Kʹihnich Baaknal Chaahk, during which a man from Pepeʹtun Chan Maas was captured. That noble captive was presented on Monuments 72, 84 and 147, as well as a captive statue from the Ballcourt. Moreover, the date of Chan Maas capture corresponds on March 17, 693, only 18 days before Nikteʹ Moʹ attack on Saktzʹiʹ [22. P. 182-186; 11. P. 271]. The emergence of royal power in Pepeʹtun was apparently connected with the military campaign of the Baakal king Kʹinich Kʹan Bʹahlam II, which took place between 688-692, it was directed against Yokibʹ and covered the entire region of the left bank of the Usumacinta and Budsilja Valley. Most of the prisoners captured by Kʹihnich Baaknal Chaahk are called ˀu- yajaw ˀAj Pitzil Baakal ˀajaw - “he is a vassal of the Ballplayer, the king of Bʹaakal” (the title of Kʹihnich Kʹan Bʹahlam II) [11. P. 269-272]. It’s possible that the conquests of Kʹihnich Kʹan Bʹahlam II and the unknown event of 688 involving the Piedras Negras king Kʹihnich Yoʹnal Ahk by the order Saktzʹiʹ king, are connected, suggesting a coalition between Bʹaakal and Saktzʹiʹ. This would be a logical continuation of the event of 625 mentioned on Stela 26 from Piedras Negras, and also explains why Nikteʹ Moʹ, after the defeat of March 18, 693, attacked the land of Kʹabʹ Chante III on April 5. No less important is the final passage, which reports on the victory over Akʹeʹ and the ceremony involving people from the Akʹeʹ region on April 8-9, 693. Literally the day after the defeat of Akʹeʹ king Juuʹn Ich’aak Mo’, his subordinate person Yabʹa…l led a procession of people summoned to the Saktzʹiʹ king to recognize his political authority over the kingdom. This fragment includes a list of six toponyms associated with the Akʹeʹ polity, which are written using the formula ˀaj <toponym>, and differs from the title of Yabʹa…l - <name> ˀaj <toponym>, where the agentive prefix ˀaj- means “the one who…”, “a person from…”. Dmitri Beliaev and Albert Davletshin showed that in this case, when the toponym is written without a name, we are talking about a group of people of low rank, that is, the agentive prefix has the meaning “people from …” and, apparently, denotes a group of community members or representatives of communities [18. P. 32, 33, 39]. In other words, here are list of six communities (towns) that were part of the Akʹeʹ polity, obviously, formed the core of its territory, as well as one area represented by Yabʹa…l - a person of noble rank, who collectively recognized the authority of Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ III. That action gave the Saktzʹiʹ king a reason to declare himself the king of Akʹeʹ. It was after the events of 693 that Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ III invariably used the second royal title, so in the retrospective text on the Caracas panel under 706 in the entry for the consecration of the temple of Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ III it says: ˀu kabʹjiiy ˀAj Yax … Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ kʹuhul ˀAkʹe ˀajaw - “he ordered this Aj Yax … Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ, the sacred king of Akʹeʹ” (Caracas pan., C12-D13) (Fig. 5). Figure 5. Caracas (New York) panel, inscription fragment C11-D12 Source: drawing by A. Safronov. At the bottom of Panel 1 from Lacanja Tzeltal, installed by king Chan Ekʹ in 775, there is an image of Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ III with an axe and a manopla in his hands - attributes of the Chaak deity, and the text is written [4. P. 12-14]: (P1) WAK-HIXday (Q1) HUK-SUUTZʹ (Q2) JUBʹ?-yi (R1) HUK-…-BʹOLON (S1) pa-…-ma (S2) KʹAWIIL (S3) [ˀAJ]? (T1) …-bʹu-ˀa (U1) ˀu-KABʹ-ji- ya (U2) KʹABʹ-CHAN-TEˀ (U3) [SAK]-TZʹIˀ-AJAW-wa (V1) KʹUH-ˀa-kʹe-ˀAJAW (V2) bʹa- ka-bʹa, Wak Hix huk Suutzʹ jubuuy? Huk … “Bʹolon” Pa…m Kʹawiil ˀaj …bʹuaˀ ˀu kabʹjiiy Kʹabʹ Chanteˀ Saktzʹiʹˀ ˀajaw kʹuhul ˀAkʹe ˀajaw, bʹakabʹ - “(On the day of) 6 Hix, 7th (of) Suutzʹ fell down 7 ‘Band’… (object) of Pa…m Kʹawiil, a person from …bʹuaʹ, he ordered this Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ, king of Saktzʹiʹ, the sacred king of Akʹeʹ, bʹakabʹ” (LTZ:Pan.1, P1-V2). The date of the event corresponds to April 26, 703, and, apparently, this represents another act of the military and political struggle for Akʹeʹ. The captive mentioned in the text is most likely associated with the toponym Abʹuaʹ, which is present in the list of persons from Akʹeʹ on the Brussels panel in 693. An inscription on a column of unknown origin from the collection of the Museum of Fine Arts in St. Louis reports that on July 10, 702, “Etzʹnabʹ” Chow, who calls himself yajaw (vassal) of the king of Popoʹ Kʹihnich Bʹaaknal Chaahk, became the sacred king of Akʹeʹ. Moreover, the monument was erected in 715 in honor of the 13th anniversary of the reign of “Etzʹnab” Chow [11. P. 255]. Apparently, Tonina king invaded the Lacandon area again in 702, recaptured the Akʹeʹ polity and installed his protege, what led to a new war in 703, although in 3 years later Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ continued to be called the sacred king of Akʹeʹ, but apparently the final victory of Saktzʹiʹ was achieved only after 715. In the lower left corner of Lacanja Tzeltal Panel 1 there is another partially preserved fragment of text that contains an important date (Fig. 6). The fragment opens with the date: (H1) BʹOLON ˀOKday (I1) HUUXLAJUˀN KʹAN-JAL-wa (H2) SIH-ya-(ja) KʹABʹ-CHAN-TEˀ, Bʹolon ˀOk huuxlajuˀn Kʹanjalaw sihyaj - “(On the day of) 9 Ok, 13th (of) Kʹanjalaw he was born Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ” (LTZ:Pan.1, H1-I2). Stephen Houston suggested that the date corresponds to February 26, 721 and reflects the birth date of the next king in the dynasty named Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ, but such a king is unknown from other monuments. Therefore, we believe that the birth date should be dated 52 years earlier - March 10, 669, which is most likely the birth date of Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ III. That is, he ascended the throne before 688 at the age of about 17-19 years, what explains his long reign until 740 (the date of death is recorded in the main text of Panel 1 from Lacanja Tzeltal) [4. P. 13]. Figure 6. Lacanja Tzeltal, Panel 1, inscription fragment H1-I5 Source: drawing by A. Safronov. The fragment continues with a distance number, the subsequent Tzolkʹin date is lost, but can be reconstructed: (I2) HUUXLAJUˀN-WAK-WINIK-jiya (H3) BʹULUCH-HAAˀBʹ (I3) CHʹAˀ-WINAAK-HAAˀBʹ-ya (H4) [HUUX ˀAKABʹday] (I4) WAKLAJUˀN-ma- ka (H5) …? (I5) [KʹABʹ]-CHAN- [TEˀ], Huuxlajuˀn(heˀw) wak winikjiiy bʹuluch haaˀbʹ chʹaˀ winaakhaaˀbʹ huux ˀAkabʹ waklajuˀn Mak … Kʹabʹ Chanteˀ … - “(in) 13 days, 6 months, 11 years, 2 20-years, (on the day of) 3 Akabʹ, 16th (of) Mak … Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ …” (LTZ:Pan.1, I2-I5). Houston suggested, based on the dating of the first event, that the second date corresponds to October 15, 771, which was possibly associated with the accession of Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ IV [4. P. 13]. However, from our point of view, the accession of a 51-year- old heir seems unlikely, and given our dating of the first event, the second date should remove on October 28, 719. Most likely, this is not an accession, but some political event, possibly the final adoption of the title of Akʹeʹ king, since later his successor Chan Ekʹ, during the celebration of the 5-years ending in 775, mentions some regalia of Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ III [4. P. 12-13]. This version is also supported by an inscription on the Stendahl Panel (Zurich Panel), originating from the Bonampak area [6. P. 8-11]. The inscription is dedicated to sajal from Xukalnaah kingdom, possibly from the land of Saklakal, who calls in 726 his ruler Yajawteʹ Kʹihnich Chak Chij, “king of Xukalnaah”, who, in his turn, is called himself yajaw Kʹabʹ Chanteˀ Saktzʹiˀ ˀajaw kʹuhul ˀAkʹeˀ ˀajaw - “vassal of Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ, the king of Saktzʹiʹ, the sacred king of Akʹeʹ” (Stendahl pan., G8-F10) [5. P. 127]. It is important here that Kʹab Chanteʹ III status as king of Akʹeʹ is confirmed by contemporary external sources, not just retrospective texts. Besides the kingdom of Akʹeʹ, he also brought Xukalnaah, located in the Middle Lacanha Valley, under his subordination. The intense, a long struggle for the title of Akʹeʹ king is explained by the presence of the kʹuhul prefix in this Emblem Glyph, which Saktzʹiʹ kings never possessed. By securing it for himself, Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ III thus classified his lineage among the ancient, revered dynasties. The apogee and decline of Saktzʹiʹ in the 8th-9th centuries The period 720-770 marked the apogee of the Saktzʹiʹ power. At the end of his reign Kabʹ Chanteʹ III controlled mostly the Lacandon area and apparently conquered lands in the Upper Usumacinta Valley. The original royal dynasty of Ak’eʹ disappeared from written sources, and the accession to power of Xukalnaah kings was directly sanctioned by Saktzʹiʹ ruler. Moreover, it was not representatives of the main royal lineage who were appointed to the throne, but rather local lords related to the royal house. Panels 1 and 2 from Nuevo Jalisco (El Cedro Panels) tell the story of a lord from the Patal lineage named Knot- Eye Jaguar. According to the inscription on Panel 1, he was born in 728 and in 732 a certain Lam Kʹihnich Chaahk, possibly his father, died [6. P. 12]. Further, at the beginning of the inscription on Panel 2, the coronation of the Knot- Eye Jaguar is reported: (A1) WAXAK- [ˀAJAWday] (B1) HUUX-ma- ka [JOY]-ja (A2) …-BʹAHLAM-ma (B2) ˀu-KABʹ-ji- ya (A3) KʹABʹCHAN-na-TE’ (B3) SAK-TZʹIˀ-ˀAJAW-wa, Waxak ˀAjaw huux K’anjalaw johyaj … Bʹahlam ˀu kabʹjiiy Kʹabʹ Chanteˀ Saktzʹiʹˀ ‘ajaw - “(On the day of) 8 Ajaw, 3rd (of) Mak was bound (to the kingship) … Bʹahlam, he ordered his Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ, king of Saktzʹiʹ” (NVJ:Pan.2, A1-B3) (Fig. 7). For a long time, the dating of this event was problematic, since the Tzolkʹin day sign is written without a cartouche and the date according to Haab is badly damaged, so the date 8 Ajaw 3 Kʹanjalaw = 16 February 717 was proposed, which would mean that this refers to the accession of Yajawteʹ Kʹihnich Chak Chij, mentioned in the Stendahl Panel in 726 [5. P. 127; 6. P. 12-14]. However, from our point of view, a different date is recorded there: 8 Ajaw 3 Mak = 9 October 737, in that case it chronologically continues the text on Panel 1, and reports on the coronation of the Knot- Eye Jaguar as Xukalnaah king, who was only 8 years old at that time. Further he is mentioned in Panel 1 of the Lacanha, established in 746 by Aj Sak Teles, who calls himself: ˀu sajal … Bʹahlam ˀAkʹeˀ ˀajaw, Xukalnaah ˀajaw ‘aj Patal - “he is his sajal …-Bʹahlam, king of Akʹeʹ, king of Xukalnaah, the person from Patal” (LAC:Pan.1, D3-D5) [5. P. 127; 8. P. 160]. Figure 7. Nuevo Jalisco (El Cedro), Panel 2, inscription fragment J2-J3 Source: drawing by A. Safronov. This raises the question of the reasons for the use of the double Emblem Glyph by the Knot- Eye Jaguar in the 740s, especially the title ˀAkʹeˀ ˀajaw, since from 719 it was held by Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ III, who was the overlord of Xukalnaah kings. It becomes clear from the text on Lacanja Tzeltal Panel 1, that Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ III died around 740, and his tomb, where he rested with his wife, was consecrated on November 11, 740 [4. P. 13-14]. It is also quite remarkable that the king, who died at the height of his power, is given the name Kʹihnich Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ - “Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ the Great”, the first king to be awarded the theoformic part of his name. Moreover, the consecration ceremony of the tomb was conducted by a person named (U)chaʹn Bʹolon, who also called Saktzʹiʹ ˀajaw, but he died six months later, on May 30, 741 [4. P. 13-14]. No details about him are provided in the text, but it can be assumed that he was the successor, possibly the elder son of brother, of Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ III. His short reign could have caused a dynastic crisis, as a result of that Saktzʹiʹ kings lost the right to use the second Emblem Glyph for some time, since its adoption was of an individual nature and was determined by the oath of allegiance of the people of Akʹeʹ personally to K’abʹ Chante’ III. [8. P. 160]. The next known king of Saktzʹiʹ is Chan Ekʹ, who erected the Lacanja Tzeltal Panel in 775, however, the family ties of Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ III, (U)chaʹn Bʹolon and Chan Ekʹ are not entirely clear; they could have been grandfather-father- grandson, or the last two could have been the eldest and youngest sons of Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ III [8. P. 161]. The next event in chronology is recorded on the Caracas Panel, where the third, and heavily damaged, part of the text opens with a Long Count: 9.16.3.10.11, 6 Chuwen 9 Muwaahn = November 20, 754 [6. P. 15-18], unfortunately, the verb after the date has not been preserved, but in the second block after the date is looks similar to the possessive noun tu-bʹaahil - “on his head” (Caracas pan., H3), so it is possible that this refers to the coronation of a new king: [kʹahlaj huuʹn] tu-bʹaahil - “the band was presented on his head”. Considering that the date is not a period ending and is recorded by the Long Count in the middle of the text, this may indicate the special importance of the event. The name of the protagonist has always been a subject of debate; previously we associated him with Aj Sak Maax, who is mentioned in Panel 1 from El Cayo, while the inscription next to the king’s image records a different name: Tiˀ Muwaahn Chak Saˀ (Caracas pan., M1-M2). However, a detailed analysis of the last damaged part of the main text reveals the presence of the following entry: … (J2) CHAN-na-ˀEKʹ (I3) KʹUH-ˀa-kʹe-ˀAJAW (J3) SAK-TZʹIˀ-ˀAJAW …, …Chan ˀEkʹ kʹuhul ˀAkʹeˀ ˀajaw Saktzʹiˀ ˀajaw … - “…Chan Ekʹ, sacred king of Akʹeʹ, king of Saktzʹiʹ…” (Caracas pan., J2-J3) (Fig. 8). Thus, the panel was erected by Chan Ekʹ in honor of his accession to the throne, which occurred only 13 years after the death of (U)Chaʹn Bʹolon, and the last date inscribed on it is dated 756. While the unclear name of Tiˀ Muwaahn in my opinion could belong to the person depicted below, who brought an offering to the king. He has Saktzʹiʹ Emblem Glyph in his title, so, he could have been either another representative of the royal dynasty, or the sajal of the king if the title ˀu- sajal (Caracas pan., K2) was written after his name. It is important that Chan Ekʹ also use a double Emblem Glyph in his title, following his ancestor Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ III. Figure 8. Caracas (New York) panel, inscription fragment J2-J3 Source: drawing by A. Safronov. The name glyph Chan Ekʹ is also identified in the inscription on Stela 10 from Yaxchilan. This is a 5-years anniversary monument of the Paʹchan king Yaxuun Bʹahlam IV, erected in 766. Its obverse depicts Yaxuun Bʹahlam in warrior dress, surrounded by two nobles and one captive. A fragment of the inscription has been preserved next to the king’s head: …(H1) [ˀOCH] tu-CHʹEEˀN (H2) CHAN-ˀEKʹ … … (I1) KʹUH-KAJ-ˀAJAW (I2) KˀUH-PAˀ-CHAN-ˀAJAW. … ˀoch tu chʹeeˀn Chan ˀEkʹ … … kʹuhul Kaaj ˀajaw, kʹuhul Paˀchan ˀajaw - “…he entered to the land of Chan Ekʹ … … the sacred king of Kaaj, the sacred king of Paʹchan” (YAX:St.10, H1-I2) (Fig. 9). The text refers to the invasion of Paʹchan forces into the territory of Saktzʹiʹ, and this is the first known war between these two polities. Since from the beginning of the 6th century, judging by Panel 12 from Piedras Negras, Saktzʹiʹ and Paʹchan should be situational allies against Yokibʹ. The date of the event is unknown, it certainly took place before 766, and the inscription supports our idea of Chan Ek’ accession to the throne of Saktzʹiʹ in 754. However, during the same period, another ruler used the title Saktzʹiˀ ˀajaw - Aj Sak Maax is mentioned in Panel 1 of El Cayo as the person, who sanctioned the accession to the power of two sajals of Yaxniil - very important sajaldom under subordination of Piedras Negras. First, in 763, Aj Sak Maax confirmed the sajal of Aj Chak Sinam Kʹutiim, and in 772, his successor, Chan Panak Wayaabʹ Aj Yax Sinam Kʹutiim. Two kings of Yokibʹ also participated in these events, the burial of the previous sajal was carried out by Yoʹnal Ahk III in 763, and the king Haʹ Kʹin Xook is mentioned before the event in 772 [6. P. 20-24; 12. P. 151]. A rather strange situation arises when two rulers with the title Saktzʹiˀ ˀajaw appear simultaneously in inscriptions between 754 and 775. However, the subscription to the captive on Stela 10 from Yaxchilan partially explains the situation: (I1) ˀa-SAK-MAAX (I2) (K)OX?-ku-l u-ˀa (I3) CHAN-ˀEKʹ (I4) SAK-TZʹIˀ-ˀAJAW, Aj Sak Maax (k)oxkuluaˀ Chan ˀEkʹ Saktzʹiˀ ˀajaw - “Aj Sak Maax, (k)oxkula of Chan Ekʹ the king of Saktzʹiʹ” (Fig. 10). In this inscription, both names of Aj Sak Maax and Chan Ekʹ are mentioned in succession, and there is an incomprehensible block I2 between them. There are two possible options: 1) These are parts of the same name, in that case we are talking about the same person, and the name Aj Sak Maax could have been Chan Ekʹ’s childhood name. A similar formula is presents in the name of Kʹabʹ Chanteˀ III - ˀAj Yax … Kʹabʹ Chanteˀ (Caracas pan., D11-C12), but then it is not clear why only the first part is recorded on Panel 1 from El Cayo; 2) Block I2 could be a title showing the relationship of Aj Sak Maax to Chan Ekʹ, and it is similar to the poor-u nderstood title (k)oxkulaʹ, which is found in the titles of some rulers, in particular on the Palenque Hieroglyphic Stairway in the title of Ut-…-Chan, the lord of Kaanuʹl, who devastated Lakamhaʹ (Palenque) in 599 (PAL:HS, C1-D1), as well as the king of Kaanuʹl Yuknoʹm Yichaak Kʹahkʹ before his accession (CRN:Pan.1, O4-P4), the title could mean either the heir or the warrior of the king [23. P. 63-65]. However, the absence of an ergative pronoun in this example, denoting one person’s belonging to another, raises problems in the interpretation of the title. Figure 9. Yaxchilan, Stela 10, Figure 10. Yaxchilan, Stela 10, inscription fragment H1-I2 inscription fragment K1-K4 Source: drawing by A. Safronov. Source: drawing by A. Safronov. If we assume that a title is recorded here, then Aj Sak Maax was certainly a member of the royal house and was possibly a close relative of Chan Ekʹ and could have kind of governor. The appointment of the sajals is Yaxniil clearly indicates that Saktzʹiʹ conquered lands to the north in Upper Usumacinta Valley and Aj Sak Maax could have been appointed the ruler in the conquered regions. Chan Ekʹ’s conquests were so extensive that Saktzʹiʹ reached the borders of Paʹchan, approximately in the area of Santa Clara Lake, leading to war around 766. Apparently, in this capacity, he was captured by Yaxuun Bʹahlam IV between 763 and 766, but he did not die, returning from captivity before 772. Anyway, Chan Ekʹ himself reigned until 775, and his foreign policy successes allowed him to erect a monument in honor of his predecessor Kʹabʹ Chante III, and to assert his claim to the title of “sacred king of Akʹeʹ” However, after 775, Saktzʹiʹ power declined. Chan Ek’’s successor was likely Yehteʹ Kʹihnich, who continued his predecessor’s policies but was unable to maintain his conquests in the Upper Usumacinta. As early as 748, Paʹchan’s protégé the sajal Aj Sak Teles came to power in Bonampak. His son, Yajaw Chan Muwaahn II, ascended the throne in 776 as king of Xukalnaah and Akʹeʹ, laying claim to the domains of Saktzʹiʹ. Thus, a coalition of Paʹchan and Xukalnaah was formed, supported by a dynastic marriage between the two royal houses, which got a major victory over Saktzʹiʹ in early 787 [5. P. 131]. Lintels 1 and 2 from Bonampak report that the united forces of the Paʹchan king Itzam Kokaaj Bʹahlam IV and Yajaw Chan Muwaahn II, four days apart, on January 9 and 13, 787, defeated two units of Yehteʹ Kʹihnich and captured two of his warriors (captains) [6. 24-26; 8. P. 162]. It was in honor of this victory that Yajaw Chan Muwaahn II build a temple in Bonampak in 791, decorated with magnificent murals inside [12. P. 135-136]. We do not know how long Yehteʹ Kʹihnich reigned after 787, but the name of another king from the late 8th century has been preserved in the inscription far from Lacandon area. A fragment of Monument 83 from Tonina depicts a tied captive, next to whom is an inscription stating: … Chapaht kʹuhul Popoˀ ˀajaw jubʹuuy ˀu kabchʹeeˀn Jatzʹ Tokal ˀEkʹ Hix Saktzʹiˀ ˀajaw “… Chapat, the sacred king of Popoʹ, his city fell, of Jatzʹ Tokal Ekʹ Hix, king of Saktzʹiʹ” (TNA:Mon.83. B1-D4). The inscription refers to the defeat of Saktzʹiʹ king’s capital; the exact date of the war is unknown, but presumably occurred between 790-800 CE, and the loser, Jatzʹ Tokal Ekʹ Hix, was likely the successor of Yehteʹ Kʹihnich. However, the name of the captive has not been preserved, and it is possible that he was not a king, in that case the reign of Jatzʹ Tokal Ekʹ Hix continued after 800, but the kingdom lost most of its possessions and political power in the region. The last mention of Saktzʹiʹ kingdom dates back to the mid-9th century, and is contained on a unprovenance monument known as the Randal Stela (Lausanne Stela), erected on the anniversary date in 864 in the honor of the sajal Bʹahlam Chij Kayu Kʹukʹ Maax. The text reports his death in 863 and the consecration of his tomb six months later in 864 [6. P. 27-30]. But the main point of the text is that he was a sajal of the Saktzʹiʹ king, Kʹab Chanteʹ, the fourth known king by this name, and apparently one of the last kings in Saktzʹiʹ history. No other information about the history of his reign has been found, primarily because most other kingdoms in the Western Region had already declined and their political system had collapsed. However, it became clear from this source, that the Saktzʹiʹ dynasty, unlike many others, not only continued to exist in the Lacandon area until the 2nd half of the 9th century but also maintained a system of territorial administrative governance. However, after this point, references to Saktzʹiʹ in hieroglyphic inscriptions completely disappear. Conclusion Behavioral complex analysis of epigraphy data makes it possible to update the history of the Saktzʹiʹ kingdom and supplement the dynastic list. In total, the names of nine kings of the Saktzʹi royal lineage have been identified to date, however, given the time gaps, the list should include at least twelve dynasties (Table). Nominal glyph Dynastic list ʹAhkuʹl Moʹ (<514) ? Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ I (<564-565<) ? Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ II (<625) ? Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ III (≤688-740) (ʹU) chaʹn Bʹolon (740-741) ? Chan Ek’ (756-775<) Aj Sak Maax (<763-772<) Yehte’ K’ihnich (775<-787<) Jatz’ Tok(al) Ekʹ Hix (787<-800<) ? K’ab’ Chante’ IV Reconstructed dynastic list of Saktzʹiʹ (514-864) Source: compiled by A. Safronov. We believe that the Saktzʹiʹ dynasty was founded no earlier than the 2nd half of the 5th century, and the first known king can be considered ʹAhkuʹl Moʹ, who ruled until 514. Then until the last decade of the 7th century information about Saktzʹiʹ is very fragmentary, only two kings with the name Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ are known, the first reigned in the 560s, who founded the main temple in Lacanja Tzelta, and the second participated in the war against Piedras Negras in 625. Since the beginning of the 7th century. Saktzʹiʹ is active in the political arena of the Upper Usumacinta region, however, successful military expansion begins with the accession of Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ III around 688. He subdues the kingdoms located in the Lacanha Valley - ʹAkʹeʹ and Xukalnaah, conducts successful wars against Yokibʹ and Popoʹ and expands his possessions to the valley of Usumacinta. By 730, Saktzʹiʹ became one of the strongest kingdoms in the region, but after the death of Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ III, the kingdom entered a period of dynastic crisis, which ended with the accession of Chan ʹEk in 756. He restored the power of the Saktzʹiʹ in the middle of the 8th century, and in the north he controls the lands up to the shores of the Usumasinta (see Fig. 1), while another member of the royal house of the Saktzʹiʹ, Aj Sak Maax, appears in the inscriptions. The last decades of the 8th century were a time of weakening of Saktzʹiʹ, the kings of Yehteʹ Kʹihnich and Jatsʹ Tokal ʹEkʹ Hix suffered painful defeats from their neighbors in 787 and around 800, and no longer claimed to dominate the region. Nevertheless, Saktzʹiʹ became the last kingdom in the Upper Usumacinth region, information about which has been preserved in inscriptions - the reign of Kʹabʹ Chanteʹ IV dates back to 864 and then it disappeared in the vicissitudes of the Terminal Classical period.

Об авторах

Александр Владимирович Сафронов

Российский государственный гуманитарный университет

Автор, ответственный за переписку.
Email: alexsafronov@bk.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2121-1136
SPIN-код: 5898-0440

кандидат исторических наук, старший научный сотрудник Учебно-научного центра «Ойкумена»

Российская Федерация, 125047, Москва, Миусская площадь, д. 6, корп. 3

Список литературы

Дополнительные файлы