The Divine Rite of Kings: An Analysis of Classic Maya

Impersonation Statements
Julie Nehammer Knub, Simone Thun & Christophe Helmke
UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN

Abstract
Impersonation rituals were undoubtedly one of the most important rites of divine Maya kingship in the Classic
period. While such rituals are attested in both the iconographic and epigraphic corpus of the Classic Maya, our
focus here is on the latter. In their most common form these expressions are rendered hieroglyphically as u-
B’AH-hi-li-AN-nu, though a variety of abbreviations and associated spellings have been documented. While
the phonetics of these impersonation statements are relatively clear, the semantic dimension remains somewhat
opaque. In order to refine our understanding we have conducted an extensive review of the hieroglyphic corpus
so as to obtain a comprehensive sample of impersonation expressions. This research has subjected the sample
to a series of quantitative and qualitative analyses. The most promising results of this research are presented in
this article. The salient trends of impersonation statements are reviewed in light of their temporal distribution,
diachronic spelling, the deities involved and associated imagery, the timing of these rituals and concurrent
events, as well as the gender of the agents.

Resumen
Los rituales de personificación fueron indudablemente uno de los rituales más importantes de los reyes divinos
de los mayas del período clásico. Si bien tales rituales se atestiguan en el corpus iconográfico y epigráfico de
los antiguos mayas, nuestro foco aquí está en el último. En su forma más común estas expresiones están
contenidas en jeroglíficos como u-B’AH-hi-li-AN-nu, aunque se han documentado también una variedad de
abreviaturas y deletreos. Mientras que la fonética de estas declaraciones de personificación está relativamente
clara, la dimensión semántica está un tanto opaca. Para refinar nuestra comprensión hemos llevado a cabo una
revisión extensa del corpus jeroglífico para obtener una muestra comprensiva de las expresiones de
personificación. Esta investigación ha sometido la muestra a una serie de análisis cuantitativos y cualitativos.
Los resultados más prometedores de esta investigación se presentan en este artículo. Los patrones salientes de
las declaraciones de personificación se repasan a la luz de su distribución temporal, deletreo diacrónico, de las
deidades implicadas y de la iconografía asociada, de la sincronización de estos rituales y de los
acontecimientos concurrentes, así como el género de los agentes.

Introduction impersonation expression is written as a single

Deity impersonations were practiced by
several cultures in Mesoamerica and were
crucial acts that formed part of elaborate ritual
complexes of the area. As part of such
complexes are the Classic period
impersonations, which were important rites of
divine Maya kingship. However, no extensive
study of Maya impersonation rituals has
heretofore been conducted, and many aspects
of these rituals remain poorly understood.
While such rituals are attested in Classic Maya
imagery and writing, our primary focus is on
the latter.
In its most complete and syllabic rendition,
the expression in question is written as u-b’a-
hi-li a-nu (K0954) (Fig. 1a). Nevertheless a
variety of alternative spellings have been
documented, including very abbreviated and
logographic forms (Fig. 1b). At times the
highly conflated glyph block, but usually it is
rendered as two separate glyph blocks. In the
latter case, the first represents a gopher head
logogram (B’AH), to which the prefix u- is
added. At times the B’AH logogram is also
accompanied by either the phonetic
complement -hi and/or the suffix -li. The
second glyph block is commonly rendered with
the so-called “number tree” that has the
logographic value AN. The basic syntactical
structure involved in these impersonation
statements is as follows: 1) the impersonation
expression itself, at the start of a clause, sub-
clause, or caption, followed by 2) the name or
referents to the supernatural entity that is being
impersonated, and closed by 3) the names and
titles of the historical agent performing the
action.
This paper is based on our extensive research
in which we have amassed 91 glyphic
178 Julie Nehammer Knub, Simone Thun & Christophe Helmke
examples of this impersonation expression.
These are rendered on free-standing
monuments, architectural sculpture, painted
murals as well as portable artefacts from 24
sites throughout the Maya area. In addition, we
have also noted a possible example from the
metropolis of Teotihuacan (Fig. 1c) (see Taube
2003a: 286-287, Fig. 11.8a).
Fig. 1: (a) Unprovenanced bowl, K0954 (adapted
from a photograph by Justin Kerr). (b) Tikal, Hombre
de Tikal (adapted from a drawing by Federico
Fahsen). (c) Teotihuacan, Tetitla, painted mural
fragment (adapted from Taube 2003a: Fig. 11.8a).
Securely-dated examples fall between
AD 406 and 864 (Fig. 2). On account of
erosion nearly half of the examples were style-
dated to one of five, century-long temporal
intervals spanning between AD 350 and 950.
The vast majority of examples (i.e. 93 %) date
to the Late Classic (AD 650-950). Thereafter
we have no examples at all, which neatly
corresponds to the cessation of the textual
record in the Central Lowlands. In contrast,
few examples are dated to the Early Classic
(AD 350-650), though this too is characteristic,
considering that fewer Early Classic texts are
known.
Our sample of 91 examples may seem small
in comparison to the thousands of known
Maya texts. Nonetheless the sample can be
deemed representative when the dates
associated with impersonation statements are
compared to the known dates in the remainder
of the dated Maya written corpus.1 This means
that the analyses conducted as part of our
research can be considered statistically
representative and serve as an apt basis from
which broader patterns of impersonation rituals
may be inferred.
Fig. 2: Absolute temporal frequency distribution by
century intervals of the 91 impersonation statements
under examination.
Our research has subjected the sample and its
constituent variables to a series of quantitative
and qualitative assessments. In this paper we
will present the most promising results and
patterns concerning the expression itself and
related variables such as temporal and regional
distribution, the agents performing the ritual
and the deities impersonated, as well as timing
of the ritual, concurrent events and associated
imagery.2
1
Research conducted by Christian Prager has tabulated a
total of 1873 dates (including historical and mythical)
recorded in the Maya written corpus (data presented in
Grube and Martin 2001: II-3). The majority of the
recorded events are historical, with few referring to the
distant future or mythological past. The picture that
emerges is one in which historical dates recorded on
monuments cluster close to the dedicatory date of the
monuments themselves. Computing a linear correlation
coefficient comparing the dates tabulated by Prager with
the dates associated to impersonation statements yielded
a correlation coefficient of 0.87. Thus, only 13 % of the
data is not adequately correlated between the two sets. On
account of this high positive correlation we deem the two
datasets to be intimately comparable and that one
constitutes a representative sub-set of the other.
2
We carried out several statistical analyses on every
variable of our dataset. These include: public vs. private
setting, regional and temporal distribution of deities and
syntactical placements of the impersonation statement.
Classic Maya Impersonation Statements
Previous Research
Below we present a synthetic review of
foregoing research on the impersonation
expression and one or both of its glyphic
components. Though studies of Classic Maya
impersonation rituals have been relatively rare,
scholars tend to agree on the broader meaning
of the glyphic expression. The impersonation
statement is generally understood as referring
to pious ritual acts in which rulers and
members of the elite took on the guise of a
deity (Houston et al. 2006: 122).
Arild Hvidtfeldt (1958) was the first scholar
to thoroughly investigate deity impersonations
in Mesoamerica. He analyzed Aztec
impersonation rituals from a religious-
historical perspective by which he classified
and interpreted the data in a systematic manner
that yielded explanatory results seen from a
western scholarly perspective. Though
Hvidtfeldt’s work does not include specific
references to Classic Maya deity
impersonations, it is still relevant because it
offers a general perspective on Mesoamerican
impersonation rituals.
In 1962 J. Eric S. Thompson’s Catalog of
Maya Hieroglyphs was published. Therein he
classified and divided the glyph that scholars
today treat as the logogram B’AH into T757
and T788 (Thompson 1962: 350-354, 375). He
further identified them as representing a ‘dog’
and a ‘jaguar’ respectively, or a mixture of
both, hence his concocted term ‘jog’
(Thompson 1962: 354).
Six years later Tatiana Proskouriakoff (1968)
argued that T575 and T788 are stylistic
variations of one and the same glyph
representing a rodent (where T788 is the
forerunner to T757). It was based on this
iconographic interpretation that she suggested
the reading ba or bah, which she translated
with “gopher” (Proskouriakoff 1968: 248).
Based on the syntactical placement of T757
and T788 she suggested that these glyphs
could also have another meaning in contexts
where they initiate a caption. In these instances
she offered the translation “here is portrayed
(or recorded)” or “in commemoration of”
(Proskouriakoff 1968: 249). Remarkably, her
understanding and translation still hold true.
However, in most cases the statistical processing yielded
no strong patterns and these are therefore not presented
here.
179
In 1978 Michael Coe was the first to identify
a motif that he labelled the “number tree” or
“computer print-out” (Coe 1978: 106). More
recently he has described the element as “a
sheet of paper on which is written a vertical
column of bar-and-dot numerals, ending in
branches with individual leaves, and
occasionally stylized flowers” and has stated
that “this is a symbolic representation of the
amate tree, the source of the bark paper from
which codices were made” (Coe and Kerr
1998: 105). The glyphic rendition of the
number tree is an integral component of the
impersonation expression under review and is,
as mentioned, typically rendered in second
position, after the gopher head logogram.
Linda Schele continued where
Proskouriakoff left off and suggested that the
gopher logogram functions as a general or
auxiliary verb (Schele 1982: 19, 26, 55, 56, 64-
67) on basis of its syntactical placement. She
therefore included it in her comprehensive
treatment of Maya verbs (Schele 1982: 159-
174). However, unlike Proskouriakoff, Schele
did not offer a translation, but merely stated
that the expression heads off caption clauses
that identify persons depicted in associated
scenes (Schele 1982: 19, 26, 57).
In 1986 Andrea Stone published an article
pertaining mainly to the socio-political
function and meaning of Classic Maya deity
impersonations. She emphasized that
impersonations functioned as a fundamental
political strategy demonstrating the power of
the ruler as well as his or her own divinity. In
addition, she stressed the importance of
impersonations as an active and central factor
in the evolution of complex societies in
Mesoamerica (Stone 1986: 194).
A significant breakthrough came in 1996
when Stephen Houston and David Stuart first
identified the impersonation statement in the
hieroglyphic corpus (Houston and Stuart 1996:
297-300). They went on to discuss the possible
repercussions of this expression for identifying
the relationship that divine Maya kings
maintained with heretofore unrecognised
divinities (Houston and Stuart 1996: 297-300).
At the time they suggested that the first
segment of the expression should be read as u-
bah-il and understood as “his body” or “his
image” (Houston and Stuart 1996: 299). In
turn, they recognised that the number tree,
constituting the second glyph block, is
substituted by a-nu. They further proposed
ANUL or ANUM as the logographic values
180 Julie Nehammer Knub, Simone Thun & Christophe Helmke
for the number tree, based on the Yukatek
anum “famous”. They translated the whole
expression with “(it is) the image of … the
famous ‘god’”, in which the intervening
segment would render the name of a particular
deity (Houston and Stuart 1996: 299).
In 1998 Stephen Houston, David Stuart and
John Robertson, as part of their ground-
breaking paper on principles of disharmony,
suggested that the number tree a-nu should be
transliterated as aan (orig. <a:n>), and though
noting its connection to deity impersonation
statements, did not provide a translation
(Houston et al. 1998: 283). A year later they
returned to the topic of deity impersonation
and re-analysed the expression as u-b’a-hi-IL
AN (Stuart et al. 1999: 176-181). The
u-b’aah-il segment was translated as “his self,
image, person, or body” (Stuart et al. 1999:
153, 176; see also Houston and Stuart 1998).
At the time they also proposed that the -il of
u-b’aah-il serves as a partitive suffix (Stuart et
al. 1999: 176). Here the number tree was
treated as logographic AN, based on phonetic
complementation and complete substitution
sets, though again no translation or function
was provided for this segment (Stuart et al.
1999: 177). Nonetheless, they stressed the
importance of masking in such deity
impersonation rituals and related it to the
practices of several Amerindian cultures,
including the kachina dancers of the American
Southwest (Stuart et al. 1999: 176).
In his paper on the absolutive (Set B)
suffixes marking inalienable or ‘intimate’
possession in Classic Maya writing, Marc
Zender discussed the bivalence of the
homophonous term b’aah as “image” or
“representation” on the one hand and as “head”
on the other (Zender 2004a: 200, 201-203). In
its possessed form the term is rendered as u-
b’aah with the ergative (Set A) third person
singular pronominal prefix u-. In the former
case, when b’aah refers to “image”, it takes the
absolutive suffix -aj for intimately possessed
items (such as regalia) as b’aah-aj image-ABS,
when it is rendered without an ergative
possessive prefix. In the latter case, when no
ergative possessive prefix is present, it is
rendered as b’aah-is head-ABS where the term
is attributed the absolutive suffixation
pertaining to body parts (Zender 2004a: 200,
201-203).
In their revision of the principles of
disharmonic spelling conventions Alfonso
Lacadena and Søren Wichmann proposed the
transliteration of a’n for the corresponding
transcriptions AN, AN-nu, a-nu and further
suggested that it functions as the verbal stem
“to be, exist” (Lacadena and Wichmann 2004:
110, 128, 137). To support their conclusion
that the Classic form was glottalised they cite
the Chontal and Yukatek reflexes ya’an “exist”
(Keller and Luciano 1997: 294) and min-a’an
NEG-exist (Bricker et al. 1998: 185; see also
Bastarrachea et al. 1992: 15, 20), respectively.
Such modern glottalised reflexes intimated that
the Classic reading was a’n.
Two years later, Stephen Houston (2006), in
his article on spectacle among the Classic
Maya, offered the notion of ‘deity
concurrence’ as a substitute to the more
commonly-cited ‘deity impersonation’ and the
same is reiterated in the Memory of Bones
(Houston et al. 2006). Houston states that in
both text and iconography the deity is made
manifest through the human agent, but more
importantly the human agent maintains his/her
identity and “self”, without being replaced by
the involved deity (Houston 2006: 146-49;
Houston et al. 2006: 276). Regarding the
glyphic component of the impersonation, -il is
treated as a specialized suffix typically used
with deceased or supernaturals and a-nu as a
title of uncertain meaning (Houston 2006: 146;
Houston et al. 2006: 270). Furthermore,
Houston identifies around fifty impersonation
statements and comments on the wide and
apparently arbitrary selection of deities
involved in such impersonation rituals.
In his review of impersonation statements
presented at the workshops of the 11th
European Maya Conference in Malmö, Marc
Zender (2006) suggested that the AN of these
expressions may in fact be related to the
Tzeldal (Colonial Tzeltal) stem yan- for
“disfraz” or “disguise” (see Ara 1986: 306).
Considering the Christian cultural filter
through which such dictionaries are distilled,
he cautioned that masked impersonation rituals
may well have been understood as acts of
‘disguise’. The whole impersonation
expression may thus plausibly be understood
as “(it is) the image in disguise of …” where
the deity is specified thereafter. He also made a
convincing case that the iconographic number
tree and its corresponding logogram are
graphic referents to the annotated leaves of the
anaayte’ (cf. a-na-yi-TE’, Tonina, Mon. 155)
(see also Houston and Stuart 1996: 299, n. 5;
Stuart et al. 1999: 177; as well as the Ch’olan
loanwords anahte’ and analte’ in Barrera
Classic Maya Impersonation Statements 181

Vásquez 1980: 16). Consequently, it can be two most common spellings are u-B’AH-li AN
surmised that the value AN stems, via (18 %) and u-B’AH-hi-li AN (13 %).
apocopation, from a complete logographic
value AN(VCTE’) (see Campbell 2006: 33- Transcription Frequency
34).
In contrast, Søren Wichmann has suggested
that the number tree represents young spring u-B’AH 28
maize, as supported by Ch’orti’ entries for u-B’AH-hi 11
u-B’AH-li 27
“elote” as a’n and a’an (Søren Wichmann,
u-B’AH-hi-li 22
pers. comm. 2006) (see Kaufman 2003: 1159; u-b’a-hi 2
see also Lacadena and Wichmann n.d.: 2; u-b’a-hi-li 1
Mathews and Biró 2006). Based on this
interpretation the logographic value for the Ø 26
number tree would be A’N and the whole Ø-nu 5
would function on the basis of a rebus AN 41
principle in which the grammatical suffix is a-AN 4
AN-nu 9
targeted by a homophonous noun.
a-AN-nu 1
a-nu 5
Synchronic Spelling & Transcription

The research on ub’aahila’n demonstrates
how far scholarship has progressed in
understanding ancient Maya impersonation
statements. Yet the meaning and purpose of the
original event that is denoted by this glyphic
expression, whether we term it “concurrence”
or “impersonation”, still remains elusive. In
our study of the ub’aahila’n expression in the
ancient Maya written corpus we have
uncovered a number of patterns relating to the
various glyphic spellings. In all we have
documented six possible spellings of the first
segment u-b’aah-il. The second segment,
which still requires more analysis, is recorded
as seven different spellings, including its
omission or underspelling. These spellings are
presented in Table 1 with each segment
rendered from most logographic to most
syllabic (the Ø indicates absence).
Based on the documented spellings several
trends are apparent. First, it is clear that the
Maya scribes preferred to include the
logograms B’AH (97 % of cases) and AN
(61 %) while the syllabic spellings such as b’a-
hi (3 %) and a-nu (6 %) were avoided.
Furthermore, the spellings in which no clear
AN logogram is rendered (those marked off as
Ø) may be examples of sign superimposition (a
writing practice frequently encountered as part
of Emblem Glyphs), in which B’AH may
cover, and thereby conceal, the entirety of the
underlying AN logogram. If this is correct,
then the preference for logographic spellings is
confirmed for AN as well (94 %). In fact the
Table 1: Spellings for the two segments of the
impersonation statement (n=91) and their
documented frequencies.
Second, based on the documented spellings
for each segment, a grand total of 42 different
spelling combinations are theoretically
possible. Instead we find that the Classic Maya
made use of only half (n = 22) of these
potential spellings. This pattern undoubtedly
reflects deliberate choices on the part of
ancient Maya scribes, in part affected by the
graphic disposition of signs in relation to one
another. As part of these trends we can see that
in the majority of cases the logogram AN is
unaccompanied by phonetic complements
(74 %). For the B’AH logogram the patterns
are comparable, since 61 % of examples are
also disassociated from the phonetic
complement hi and 45 % occur without li as a
suffix.
Diachronic Spelling & Transcription
In exploring diachronic aspects we note a
veritable explosion of spelling types as time
wears on, a trend that seems to be entirely
proportional to the number of examples
represented in the sample (Table 2).3 This
indicates that no attempts were made to
simplify the spellings through time, that is to
3
The linear correlation computed that compares the
incidence of different spelling types against the total
number of impersonation statements over time, yielded a
correlation coefficient of 0.99.
182 Julie Nehammer Knub, Simone Thun & Christophe Helmke
say, to focus more on syllabic spellings at the
detriment of logographic ones.
Time periods Frequency Spelling types
(n = 91) (n = 22)
250-350 0 (0 %) 0 (0 %)
350-450 2 (2 %) 2 (6 %)
450-550 1 (1 %) 1 (3 %)
550-650 3 (3 %) 1 (3 %)
650-750 31 (34 %) 11 (34 %)
750-850 53 (58 %) 16 (50 %)
850-950 1 (1 %) 1 (3 %)
950-1050 0 (0 %) 0 (0 %)
Table 2: Number of documented spelling types per
time period (by century interval) contrasted to the
number of attested impersonation statements for the
same temporal intervals.
In terms of patterns of phonetic
complementation there are interesting temporal
trends. For B’AH the first securely-dated
example of the sign with the disharmonic
phonetic complement hi occurs as late as
AD 692 (El Peru, Stela 34). Before this time
the logogram is rendered without
complementation of any kind in the
impersonation expressions. The latest secure
example of complementation with hi dates to
AD 792 (Bonampak, Room 1). The earliest
securely-dated example of AN can be
attributed to AD 406 (Hombre de Tikal) and
much like its counterpart B’AH does not
exhibit any phonetic complementation. In
contrast, AN starts to exhibit phonetic
complementation as early as AD 475 (Tikal,
St. 9). Since phonetic complementation is
encountered early for the AN sign, this
suggests that the phonetic value of the sign
needed to be clarified to readers and that the
written logographic value does not correspond
exactly to the desired read or spoken outcome.
In addition, we can see that the phonetic
complements to AN change through time.
When we first see a clear example of AN
complemented by the syllabogram nu, is
precisely the time B’AH is first complemented
by hi (on the same monument in fact). The
securely-dated examples of the preferential
spelling AN-nu / a-nu thus span from at least
AD 692 to 791 (El Peru, St. 34 and Copan,
K3296, respectively).4 For securely-dated
4
One problematic example or outlier is found on Tikal,
Stela 9 (B1-B2) where the impersonation expression is
written as u-B’AH-li a-AN-? in which the last sign,
examples that post-date AD 791 we have noted
the absence of disharmonic complementation
for AN, much as is the case for B’AH, thereby
representing another phase of preferential
spelling. Consequently, we can see three main
shifts in accepted spellings at which times the
scribes may have attempted to render the
whole expression with greater phonological
transparency (see also Wichmann 2006: 288-
290). Whether the spelling shift that occurred
sometime between AD 633 and 692 is related
to corresponding phonological changes,
remains unclear and warrants further research.
It may in fact simply be related to spelling
conventions of different scribal traditions. The
shift that occurred after AD 792 may well be
related to nearly coeval phenomena, namely:
the loss of vowel length (VV > V; AD 747-
849), the loss of vowel glottalisation (V’ > V;
AD 741-800), and the loss of long-vowel
glottalisation (VV’ > VV; AD 726-782) (see
Houston et al. 1998: 284-285; Lacadena and
Wichmann 2004: 115-116, Table 6.4). To
briefly summarize the diachronic development
(Fig. 3), the first phase is characterized by the
absence of phonetic complementation to B’AH
and the occasional complementation of AN. In
the second phase full complementation occurs,
in which hi accompanies B’AH and nu is
juxtaposed to AN. In the third phase the use of
phonetic complementation ceases.
What remains contentious is the
transliteration and phonological realisation of
the AN segment during each of the successive
phases. As we have seen, other scholars have
suggested aan and a’n as possible synchronic
transliterations. The transliterations anum and
anul have since been discarded by the authors
who originally suggested these (Houston and
Stuart 1996: 299), though the latter possibility
has been maintained by Erik Boot who
translates it as “incarnate” (pers. comm. 2007).
The realisation of a’n from AN-nu and a-nu is
entirely in keeping with the rules of
disharmonic spelling elaborated by Alfonso
Lacadena and Søren Wichmann (2004) and is
therefore favoured here, at least for the Late
Classic spelling phase (AD 692-791). Based on
marked off by a question mark, resembles a bound
element, not the typical nu syllabogram preferred
subsequently. The sign resembles the NUN logogram
seen as part of the Yax Nu’n Ahyiin regnal name (e.g.
Tikal, St. 31, AD 445). It is possible that the NUN sign
on Tikal, Stela 9 functions as an early nu syllabogram by
apocopation or ‘acrophony’ (i.e. NU(N) > nu).
Consequently, the longevity of complementation with nu
would span from AD 475 to 791.
Classic Maya Impersonation Statements 183

Fig. 3: Chart illustrating the three major phases of preferential spelling of the impersonation statement from Early
Classic to Late Classic by century (based on GMT Correlation).

the absence of phonetic complementation to which complementation with nu occurs

AN during the last spelling phase (after (between AD 692 and 791).
AD 791), we deem it probable that a’n had lost
its glottalisation by this time, thereby making
disharmonic phonetic complementation
unnecessary.

Impersonation Statements &

Scroll Signs

In the compilation of our database, we noted

four cases in which u-b’aah(-il) is suffixed by
a scroll sign (T120) and followed by the name
of a supernatural entity (though these were
originally included, they have since been
removed from the database). Initially, we
worked with the hypothesis that these
examples represented alternate spellings of the
impersonation expression under review. In
these cases we tested the possibility that the
T120 scroll sign functioned as a graphic
abbreviation of the T198 ne syllabogram, in
Fig. 4: (a) Unprovenanced bowl, K4331, originally
which the typical “comb” element, which in
from northwestern Yucatan (adapted from a drawing
this case represents fur, is deleted. In by Simon Martin). (b) Painted mural fragment from
approximate chronological order, from earliest the Tetitla, Teotihuacan (adapted from Taube
to latest, the four examples are found on 2003a: Fig. 11.8a). (c) Quirigua, Monument 26
K4331 (originally from northwestern Yucatan, (adapted from a drawing by Matthew Looper). (d)
Naranjo, Panel 1 (adapted from a drawing by Ian
see Coe 1975: 11-12) (Fig. 4a), a painted mural Graham).
fragment from the Tetitla compound at
Teotihuacan (see Taube 2003a: 286-287 Figs.
11.8a & b) (Fig. 4b), Quirigua, Monument 26 However, since then Simon Martin has
(Fig. 4c) and Naranjo, Panel 1 (Fig. 4d). Since reminded us that the same (or at least a very
these examples can be squarely dated to similar) scroll sign is also found in several
between AD 493 and 633, it was deemed other contexts where the ne value seems
plausible to suggest that the examples with the untenable (pers. comm. 2007) (see also Martin
scroll sign represented an intermediate phase 2006: 180, n. 4). Included in this range are the
of phonetic complementation, preceding that in archetypal dotted scroll signs that serve as the
184 Julie Nehammer Knub, Simone Thun & Christophe Helmke
logogram K’AY (“sing, song”), but these tend
to be represented as prefixes and emanate
directly from the mouth of an anthropomorphic
profile (often the logogram XIB’) as part of
relational pair constructions (see Houston et al.
2006: 157, 160-161, Fig. 4.19; Zender 1999:
70-83). Perhaps more closely related to the
case at hand are the scroll signs that occur as
suffixes to Glyph Y (T739) of the
supplementary series and the 819-day count
(see Yasugi and Saito 1991), as well as in
select theonyms at Ixlu (Altar 1) and Dos Pilas
(St. 8). Also relevant is the scroll suffix in tu-
HAB’-li-T120 on shell Pendant 16B from
Comalcalco (see Zender 2004b: 254) and
various examples in the Dresden Codex (e.g.
folio 14, AL-la-T120). In light of the variety of
contexts in which the scroll sign occurs, it
seems best to leave the u-B’AH-(li)-T120
examples aside until the scroll sign has
succumbed to phonetic decipherment.
Morphological & Grammatical
Analyses
As we have seen in our review of previous
research the term b’aah is polyvalent as both
“head” and “image, portrait” (see Zender
2004a: 200, 201-203). As has been cogently
argued by Stephen Houston, David Stuart and
Karl Taube (Houston and Stuart 1998; Houston
et al. 2006) in Classic Maya conception and
society, there was extensive semantic overlap
between the notion of “self” as depicted in
iconography and the “head” as the portion of
the human body that epitomizes the whole
persona. In the present case we suspect that
b’aah as “image, portrait” is at play, since
impersonation statements appear to act as
elaborated variants to common captions that
are headed by u-b’aah “his/her image/portrait”
(cf. Proskouriakoff 1968: 249; Schele 1982:
19, 26, 57).
The -il suffix to u-b’aah has been treated as a
partitive suffix (Stuart et al. 1999: 176;
Houston et al. 2001: 26) that essentially marks
an element as a part of a greater whole. In this
stance the u-b’aah-il segment can be analysed
as 3SG.A-image-PART, but the translation
remains the same as “his/her image/portrait”.
Alternatively the -il suffix can be viewed as a
possessive suffix as seen in examples u-lakam-
tuun-il 3SG.A-large/banner-stone-POSS
“his/her stela” and y-ok-ib’-il 3SG.A-
foot/base-INST-POSS “his/her pedestal”
(Houston et al. 2001: 9, 22, 26; Lacadena and
Wichmann n.d.: 9). Here, the expression u-
b’aah-il can be analysed as 3SG.A-image-
POSS which still yields the same translation,
namely “his/her image/portrait”. The last
possibility, and this is the one that we favour
here, is the function of -il as an abstractivising
suffix. Unpossessed examples of this form
include haab’-il year-ABSTR “season”, ajaw-
il king-ABSTR “kingship”, utz-il good-
ABSTR “goodness” (Houston et al. 2001: 7-8,
25-26; Lacadena and Wichmann n.d.: 15).
Thus, here we may be looking at the possessed
and abstracted form u-b’aah-il 3SG.A-
image/portrait-ABSTR where the suffix would
serve to broaden the term to “his/her
portrayal”.
The last remaining element of the
impersonation expression is the -a’n suffix. In
keeping with the work of Alfonso Lacadena
and Søren Wichmann the spellings AN-nu and
a-nu yield a’n, for which they propose the
verbal function “to be” or “to exist”, based on
Yukatekan and Ch’olan entries (Lacadena and
Wichmann 2004:137). More recently, Marc
Zender (2006) has drawn our attention to the
possibility that -a’n functions here as
existential particle seen in the reflexes yàan
“ser, haber, tener” and min-a’an “no hay,
carecer, ausente” (Yukatek) (Bricker et al.
1998: 185; see also Bastarrachea et al. 1992:
15, 20). To these we would add the Ch’olan
reflexes: ya’an “está, hay” (Chontal) (Keller
and Luciano 1997: 294), an and añ- “hay”
(Ch’ol) (Schumann 1973: 76; Aulie and Aulie
1978: 29), -an a suffix that attaches to “raíces
atributivas formando una raíz intransitiva”
(Ch’ol) (Aulie and Aulie 1978: 29), ay- “be,
have” and the compound form ay-an “exist,
be” (Ch’orti’) (Wisdom 1950: 446, 451, 455,
580, 693; Wichmann 1999; Schumann n.d.: 7)
<ayan> “[h]aber, tener” (Ch’olti’) (Morán
1695: 82). In addition, the Yukatekan
participial suffixes may relate to this series,
including: -a’n ‘participio pasado’
(Yukatek), -a>an ‘perfect particle’
(Yukatek), -a’an ‘general participial’ (Itza’)
(Barrera Vásquez 1980: 16; Bricker 1986: 26-
30; Hofling and Tesucún 1997: 19, 48-49).
To fully relate the colonial and modern
reflexes we have to account for the
phonological evolution of this suffix from the
Classic period onwards. Based on the spellings
AN-nu and a-nu (before AD 791) we expect
the glottalised form -a’n, though in most
Ch’olan reflexes we can see that the form is
Classic Maya Impersonation Statements
unglottalised. Thus, a shift from *a’n > *aan >
*an can be expected, as has been documented
for several lexical items and suffixes
throughout the course of the Classic period
(see Lacadena and Wichmann 2004: 115-116,
Table 6.4). The latest examples of this
expression (after AD 791) tend to be spelled
logographically as AN without disharmonic
phonetic complementation, which may target
the final unglottalised form -an. The one form
that remains to be attested then is the
intermediate *aan for which we would expect
a spelling of a-ni or AN-ni, sometime around
the transition between the 8th and 9th centuries.
Interestingly, the Yukatekan reflexes tend to
preserve the glottalised form as though these
were fossilised and did not undergo the same
phonological evolution as the Ch’olan cognate
forms.
Based on this review we concur in large part
with the interpretations put forth by Lacadena,
Wichmann and Zender, and while we remark
on the verbal qualities of a’n we are not aware
of instances in which it stands on its own as a
verbal stem in a clause-initial syntactical
position. Consequently, we have taken -a’n to
be an existential suffix that agglutinates to the
end of nouns rather than as an independent
particle. In sum, the impersonation statement
u-b’aah-il-a’n can thus be analysed as 3SG.A-
image/portrait-ABSTR-EXIST.PART “his/her
portrayal (in the state of) existing…” or more
simply as “(s)he is portrayed…”.5
Regional Spelling Preferences
Our research has uncovered a pattern in
which two different sets of spelling
conventions were preferred in separate regions.
In the eastern Maya Lowlands the scribes of
the Late Classic period favoured to spell the
impersonation expression as u-B’AH / AN-
(nu) or a-nu, an abbreviated form with few
complements similar to the spellings employed
in the Early Classic. To the west, scribes wrote
the expression u-b’a or B’AH-hi-li / (a)-AN or
a-nu, commonly employing the phonetic
complement -hi as well as the suffix -il. In
fact, -hi, as mentioned earlier, first occurred as
5
This translation remains somewhat inadequate and
requires additional comment. Considering the contexts
and functions of -a’n and its allomorphs, the u-b’aah-il
expression can alternatively be understood as “to be in
the state of portrayal” or “to be in the state of being
portrayed”.
185
the phonetic complement to B’AH in our data
in AD 692. Between AD 692 and 750 we see
ten examples in the west (especially at
Palenque and other Chiapas sites), but one
solitary example in the east (Naranjo). This
indicates that the inclusion of -hi as a phonetic
complement to B’AH (at least in
impersonation statements) was a western
innovation where its use predominated. In the
subsequent period from AD 750-850, 17 out of
25 examples with -hi are documented in the
west, leaving 8 to the eastern Lowlands. Thus,
while we can see that the use of -hi increased
in the eastern Lowlands after its initial
development in the west, the pattern of
predominance remains (the same trend can be
noted for the positional suffixes -laj
and -waan; see Lacadena and Wichmann 2002;
Hruby and Child 2004). Our proposal of a
western innovation meshes with research by
Lacadena and Wichmann who have suggested
that the eastern script, corresponding to
Eastern Ch’olan, was more conservative, while
the Western Ch’olan dialect exhibits more
innovations (Lacadena and Wichmann 2002).
Impersonating Gods
Although most impersonation statements are
recorded as ub’aahila’n, we have also found
rare examples of an extended version. We
believe that these extended expressions offer the
most complete renditions of impersonation
statements. In these cases the statements are all
closed by the word k’uh for “god” (see Stuart et
al. 1999: 138-141). Two examples were painted
on vases K0791 and K1728, while a third
example was rendered on Seibal Stela 6 (Fig.
5a-c). These examples record the expression as
u-b’aah-a’n k’uh. The fourth example may
provide an even more complete spelling, as
found on Copan Stela P, written u-b’aah-a’n ta-
k’uh (though here the -a’n has chipped off)
where ta is the broad-spectrum preposition that
wholly encompasses “in, at, on, to, by, with, for,
as” (Grube 2002: 37). The fifth example was
found on Anonal Panel 1 where we see a similar
phrasing involving k’uh. In this particular case,
however, we find u-K’UH-HUL presumably
for u-k’uh-ul, involving the vowel-shorted
Terminal Classic possessive suffix -uul > -ul
(Lacadena and Wichmann n.d.: 3, 19-21). Also
relevant is the caption on the front of Naranjo
Stela 24 (Fig. 6) where the impersonation
186 Julie Nehammer Knub, Simone Thun & Christophe Helmke

Fig. 5: (a) Seibal, Stela 6 (adapted from a drawing by Ian Graham). (b) Unprovenanced vase, K0791, originally
from the Motul de San José area (adapted from a photo by Justin Kerr). (c) Unprovenanced vase, K1728,
originally from the Motul de San José area (adapted from a photo by Justin Kerr).

expression is paraphrased as u-B’AH ti-YAX-

K’UH or “her portrait as the first god”.
Based on these cases we suggest that the
most complete rendition of impersonation
statements is u-b’aah-il-a’n ta-k’uh which we
literally translate as “his/her portrayal (in the
state of) existing as a god…”, or more
succinctly “(s)he is portrayed as a god…”
followed by the name of a particular deity. In
turn, the other examples, in which ub’aahila’n
is written without K’UH, can be thought of as
abbreviations. Though it is possible that these
five cases are merely exceptions or
embellished versions of the impersonation
expression, we should keep in mind that
abbreviations were a very common practice in
the script, encountered with numeral
classifiers, verbal affixes, prepositions, regal
names, and titular strings, to name a few.
Omitting the ta-k’uh segment is not inherently
problematic, especially since the syntax of the
expression dictates that the name of a deity
follows the ub’aahila’n segment, making it
clear that a god or deity is involved. The
examples with k’uh are intriguing since they
offer us a basis for understanding how
impersonation statements were emically
Fig. 6: Naranjo, Stela 24, front (drawing by Ian conceived. In clearly stating the word k’uh in
Graham). these impersonation constructions, the intimate
Classic Maya Impersonation Statements 187

link between the human agent and the took place outside of these temporal
supernatural entity is reified. parameters?
Our data reveals that there was a slight
preference for impersonation rituals to be
The ub’aahila’n Title performed on historical dates, at the detriment
of important period-endings and other “even”
As part of our research we discovered 17
dates. Thus, of the 46 ub’aahila’n events that
instances in which the expression is
can be precisely dated in the Long Count, 26
incorporated directly into the titular string of
(57 %) took place on historical dates, whereas
the human agent (Fig. 7). The expression
20 occurred on period-endings (43 %). Once
formed part of names belonging to both kings
these dates are converted to the Julian calendar
and elite individuals bearing titles such as
an interesting seasonal trend emerges, since
sajal. We suggest that this insertion functioned
50 % of the historical impersonations were
as a title written ub’aahila’n-“name of god”.
performed between mid-April and late June.
These examples were found mostly on
The pattern is repeated for period-ending
ceramics, but also on monuments and
impersonations, wherein 55 % of events took
architectural features from most regions of the
place between mid-march and early May. In
Maya Lowlands. It thus seems to have been a
contrast, few impersonations are documented
widespread practice to apply the impersonation
for February or between July and October.
statement as an integral part of one’s name.
This suggests that the period-endings on which
These 17 cases stand in contrast to all other
impersonation rituals transpired could have
examples where the impersonation statements
been selected on the basis of their seasonal
clearly refer to an action in its own right, one
occurrence. These trends may be fortuitous and
that is said to be performed on a particular
should be correlated to the seasonal occurrence
date. We surmise that this title was acquired by
of other rituals recorded in the hieroglyphic
its bearer after successful completion of an
corpus.
impersonation ritual, though at present we lack
The ub’aahila’n events were not restricted to
evidence to conclusively demonstrate this. The
specific dates in the Maya calendar, or limited
evidence needed would include a text citing
to particular historical circumstances such as
the names and titles of an agent before such a
accession to rulership. In 44 (48 %), or nearly
ritual, another text relating the event and a
half of the cases, no clear concurrent events are
third testifying to the acquisition of the title
recorded or preserved. For the remaining 47
thereafter. This relatively common
cases, where concurrent events are stated in the
incorporation is peculiar because ritual actions
text, we can see that the ub’aahila’n ritual took
that result in onomastic changes are quite rare
place in concert with several kinds of historical
in the script, with accession to rulership and
and ritual events including period-ending
funerary rites being notable exceptions (Colas
ceremonies, conjuring rituals, dance events,
2004; 2007). Nonetheless, if our hypothesis
royal births, the erection of stelae and other
holds true, the absorption of a particular
monument dedications. Among concurrent
theonym by means of an impersonation ritual,
events the most common are period-ending
suggests that the godly essence acquired during
celebrations, wherein 13 (28 %) took place on
such an action was deemed to linger with the
major K’atun period-endings such as 9.9.0.0.0
agent thereafter.
and 9.17.0.0.0, whereas 7 (15 %)
impersonations transpired on minor Tun
The Timing of ub’aahila’n Events period-endings, including 9.9.10.0.0 and
9.16.5.0.0. Dancing events co-occur in the
A part of our analyses was concerned with context of impersonation events and are the
studying whether the ub’aahila’n ritual was third most common with 6 examples (13 %).
performed conjointly with any particular These dancing events may have been part-and-
rituals, and whether there were any temporal parcel elements of larger impersonation rituals.
patterns pertaining to the dates on which the Deity conjuring may well have been intimately
impersonations took place. Important period- related to the preparations for impersonation
endings and major turning points in the lives of rituals, since the conjuring events precede
royal are obvious candidates for celebrations ub’aahila’n statements in the glyphic
and festivities, but what about ritual events that narratives. Despite the substantive importance
188 Julie Nehammer Knub, Simone Thun & Christophe Helmke
Fig. 7: Unprovenanced vase, K7224 originally from the Nebaj area (adapted from a photo by Justin Kerr).
of conjuring rituals, these are only the fourth-
most common concurrent event named, with
all 5 examples (11 %) found at Yaxchilan.
All remaining concurrent events and
ceremonies held in conjunction with
impersonation rituals are otherwise sporadic
and rare; they consist of different rituals such
as striking a ball into play as part of a ballgame
event, the celebration of a victorious battle,
and the drinking of pulque, though all of these
events only occurred with impersonations once
(as recorded in the written corpus). The overall
implication of this analysis is that the
ub’aahila’n was indeed an important ritual in
its own right that was only occasionally paired
with other significant events, though naturally
the narrative contexts must be considered,
since not all events were dutifully recorded.
The People behind the Ritual
The agents performing the impersonation
rituals were manifold. The male protagonists
carried titles ranging from Kalo’mte’ to Sajal,
though numerous had, as is to be expected, the
title of K’uhul Ajaw. Nevertheless, a
surprisingly high number of agents seems to
derive from non-royal echelons of the elite and
carried no salient titles in the texts under review.
The same seems to hold true for women who
also impersonated deities, as is clearly attested
in 13 cases. Although fewer women are
recorded as being involved in impersonation
rituals, it is clear that this ritual action was not a
male-restricted practice. Interestingly, we only
have two examples of priests performing the
ritual. Both carry the title of Ajk’uhuun,
“worshipper” (Zender 2004b: 191), but since
one of these priestly individuals was a women,
her title was prefixed by the female agentive ix-
(Yaxchilan, St. 11).
The first woman impersonator did not appear
in the written records until the second half of
the seventh century. Hereafter female agents
occupied nearly a third of all impersonators
between AD 650 and 750, only to decrease in
the following period from 750-850 as the
number of male agents kept rising in
proportion. The sudden rise and decline of
female, relative to male impersonators, could
be a question of sampling rather than a
reflection of social reality. On the other hand,
it is possible that the drastic reduction of
female impersonators in the Late Classic, after
AD 750, reflects a change towards an even
more gender-biased society. We suspect this to
be the case since the largest number of texts
recording such impersonation rituals stem from
the Late Classic.
Another notable aspect is the regional
distribution of the female agents as more than
half are referred to in the inscriptions of the
Usumacinta area and none are found outside an
enclave of conjoined regions in the Central
Lowlands (Usumacinta, northern Peten and
Río Bec/Calakmul). This pattern could mirror
the dataset since the majority of examples stem
from this area. However, since the
geographical boundary of female
impersonators is sharply delineated, we believe
that the trend reflects the privileged position of
female members of the nobility, especially in
the Usumacinta area, in comparison to a more
gender-biased society outside of the above-
mentioned regions.
Engendering Gods
Further gender patterns are to be found in
relation to the particular deities that were
impersonated by men and women,
respectively. The ancient Maya drew on about
Classic Maya Impersonation Statements
35 manifestations of deities in their
impersonations, and in most cases a particular
deity was only involved in the ritual once.
Many of these have obscure identities and
were probably local patron deities, such as the
better-known patron deities of Copan who
were impersonated at least 5 separate times.
Several gods carry underworld connotations
such as God A’, or Ahkan (Taube 1992: 11-17;
Grube 2004), while others are popular and
widespread including the Maize God and God
D (Taube 1992: 31-50; Martin in press; Boot
n.d.) (known in the literature as Itzamnaaj),
and many are otherwise unknown except for
their references in impersonation statements.
Our analysis correlating gender to deities
demonstrates that there are clear restrictions in
which males impersonated male deities, while
the opposite holds true for women. Since fewer
female agents are recorded as performing the
ritual, our dataset reveals a proportionately
lower number of deities with such gendered
associations. Women impersonated female
deities such as Lady Moon (Ixuh) and the
otherwise unknown Ho’ Ch’e’en K’uh Ixik
(Dallas Altar), while the men clearly preferred
Uhuk Chapaht Tz’ikiin K’inich Ajaw who was
impersonated as many as 14 times (see Fig. 8).
Fig. 8: Uhuk Chapaht Tz’ikiin K’inich Ajaw
represented in anthropomorphic form on an
unprovenanced vase (drawing by Christophe
Helmke based on a photo by Michel Quenon in Boot
2008: Fig. 1c).
189
The renowned deity Uhuk Chapaht Tz’ikiin
K’inich Ajaw is one aspect or manifestation of
the Sun God (Taube 1992: 50-56; 2003b: 410)
and seems to have been preferentially selected
for impersonation rituals over several other
major deities. Perhaps Uhuk Chapaht Tz’ikiin,
“Seventh Centipede Eagle” (Thompson 1950:
82; Boot 1999; Taube 2003b: 409, 410; Martin
2005: 6, n. 13), was viewed as a masculine and
fierce being on account of its raptorial
references.
Fig. 9: (a) Unprovenanced vase, K1383, originally
from the Río Azul area (adapted from a photo by
Justin Kerr). (b) El Perú, Hieroglyphic Stair (drawing
by Marc Zender in Zender 2004c: Fig. 5d).
It is surprising to see that either of the
Classic-period Hero Twins, forerunners to
those cited in the later Popol Wuj (Taube 1992:
60-64), were rarely if ever chosen for
impersonation rituals. We do have one case in
which Ju’n Ajaw was impersonated (Copan, St.
63), but in contrast his uncle Hukte’ Ju’n Ajaw,
was impersonated at least three times (see
Zender 2004c: 4-5) (Fig. 9a-b). Hukte’ Ju’n
Ajaw was renowned for his excellent ball-
playing and it is therefore not surprising to see
his impersonations taking place in ballcourts as
part of actual ballgames. One is left to wonder
if the ancient Maya believed that
impersonating Hukte’ Ju’n Ajaw while playing
ball enhanced their prowess and ball-playing
skills, though the possibility remains that these
impersonations were part of re-enactments of
mythical ballgame events.
The apparently strict gender boundaries,
referred to above, were only crossed by
androgynous deities that were impersonated by
agents of either gender. We have found two
such gods that must have, in some aspects,
been considered asexual or androgynous,
namely the famous Maize God and the
Waterlily Serpent.
190 Julie Nehammer Knub, Simone Thun & Christophe Helmke
The Maize God, or one of his aspects, occurs
in a total of 6 examples. This youthful god was
highly esteemed and played an important role
in Maya society, kingship and religion as the
primary embodiment of the never-ending cycle
of death and rebirth that was crucial to Maya
understanding of life, time and cycles of
dynastic rulership (Taube 1992: 41-50; Miller
and Martin 2004: 52). Considering the
importance of this god it is peculiar that he was
not a more favoured subject of impersonation,
though this might be a consequence of the
numerous other associations between the deity
and the ancient Maya rulers and elite. As
depicted in ancient Maya iconography, the
Maize God certainly appears to be of male
gender, but we suspect that the nature of this
deity as a symbol of fertility and the cycles of
life were notions that the Maya may also have
associated with female characteristics.
Therefore women could take the guise of this
deity. This is attested by an example in which
the name of the Maize God is embedded in the
name phrase of a female from the greater
Calakmul area, again in a titular construction.
The Waterlily Serpent is the second-most
impersonated deity with 12 references in the
corpus of ub’aahila’n statements. Together
with the Maize God this deity was also
impersonated by both male and female agents.
Three examples document women performing
the ritual in the guise of the Waterlily Serpent.
This supernatural entity therefore seems to
have been an asexual being that could cross
gender boundaries. Iconographic
representations of the deity show an undulating
serpent-creature adorned with water signs,
water lily pads and a down-turned snout
(Schele and Miller 1986: 46; Stuart 2007).
Water lilies grow in still waters, and it is
plausible that the deity connotes bodies of
fresh water such as lakes, which in turn imply
fertility and abundance. The combinations of
these aspects could have prompted its
popularity among men as well as women,
particularly at Yaxchilan and in the
Usumacinta area where the Waterlily Serpent
was the favoured deity in impersonation
rituals.
Divine Presence
Several of the deities discussed are relatively
easy to identify in the associated imagery, but
the majority of supernatural entities have, as
previously mentioned, obscure names and
appearances and are therefore difficult to
recognize. A number of factors play a role in
the study of deities and rituals in the
iconography, such as the very nature of Maya
religion and gods. This complicates the matter
of identifying depictions of the ub’aahila’n
ritual in the iconography. The difficulties in
assessing the presence of the ritual become
clear when looking at Copan Stela A. Here the
ruler, Waxaklaju’n Ub’aah K’awiil, is
impersonating the Waterlily Serpent and an
opaque deity named K’ahk’ Yax K’in Kan. In
the same text, events associated with death are
mentioned. The imagery of the stela mostly
relates to the sun and underworld/death
creatures and seemingly not to the
impersonated deities. Another text on the same
stela records the name of the stela as Uhuk
Chapaht Tz’ikiin. We suspect that this
accounts for the solar imagery, but as we are
unfamiliar with the iconographic attributes of
K’ahk’ Yax K’in Kan, we cannot conclude that
it is not part of the imagery.
As has been discussed in several other
publications, ancient Maya deities carried
numerous associations and could appear in
different guises or manifestations, probably
relating to the particular aspects or
supernatural phenomena that they materialized
(Miller and Martin 2004: 51-52). On occasions
they could also fuse together (Martin 2007),
and perhaps this is the case on Copan Stela B
where the agent, Waxaklaju’n Ub’aah K’awiil,
is impersonating a supernatural creature that
encompasses the names of K’awiil, GI and
Glyph Y. An additional point to consider is
Nikolai Grube’s suggestion that it is mainly the
narrative and the actions of a deity that identify
it rather than its depiction in the imagery
(Grube 2004: 75).
The discussion of how to perceive Maya
deities is particularly relevant when studying
the ub’aahila’n ritual because it inherently
involves deities and their underlying
connotations and associated mythical narrative.
We suggest that the myth behind or associated
with the god was one factor supplying the
ritual with meaning and purpose, in addition to
the historical context. A good example of a
myth intertwined with its historical settings is
provided on the bench of Temple XIX,
Palenque (Stuart 2005). Here we are fortunate
to have the myth recorded in the associated
inscription where we are told that four
millennia prior to the accession of the
contemporary Palenque king, GI was
Classic Maya Impersonation Statements 191

enthroned by God D. Hereby we gain a characteristics of deities could be adopted as

framework for understanding why Janaab’ seems to be the case with the impersonation of
Ajaw and the ruler Yajawte’ K’inich Ahku’l God A’ recorded on Altar U, Copan. Here we
Mo’ Naab’ were impersonating God D and GI have a reference to the drinking of pulque due
respectively (Stuart 2005), as they re-enacted to the deity’s association with alcoholic
the mythical accession to legitimize the beverages and the less desired consequences of
historical enthronement. drinking (Fig. 12a) (Grube 2004). An
It is commonly known that Maya texts often additional example in which the behaviour of
relate several events, while the associated deities is replicated is provided on the above-
iconography normally only depicts a select few mentioned bench from Temple XIX at
of these. Our correlation of text and imagery Palenque where both the actions of God D and
indicates that the ub’aahila’n was generally GI and their attributes are integrated into the
not the action portrayed; instead it was one of impersonations.
the other rituals or actions performed by the
protagonist that were depicted. Furthermore,
our analyses of the imagery reveal that the
ub’aahila’n ritual was presented in very
different ways. Though far from demonstrated,
it also remains possible that there was a variety
of ways in which the impersonation rituals
were conducted, hence making their
recognition in the iconography difficult. This
stands in contrast to other rituals, such as
dancing (ahk’taj), conjuring (tzahkaj) and the
omnipresent sowing of incense pellets at
period-endings (choko’w ch’aaj) which are
more standardised in their representation.
However, we do have clear examples of
imagery associated with impersonation
statements and in these cases we frequently see
the human agent wearing the headdress of the
impersonated deity. An example is provided on
the bench from Palenque, Temple XIX where
the characteristic headdresses of GI and God D
(in this case the avian aspect of God D) are
worn by the impersonators. Other ways of
depicting the ritual are seen on Copan Stela P
where the impersonated Paddler Gods are
emerging out of the maws of the bicephalic
ceremonial bar cradled by the human agent
(Fig. 10), and on Naranjo Stela 30 the
protagonist carries the characteristic cruller
and ear of the Jaguar God of the Underworld,
Chuhaaj or Chuwaaj (Fig. 11) (see Lopes
2003). This is not to say that all iconographic
examples of deities in headdresses, ceremonial
bars and the like are impersonations. We
believe that these depictions are mostly
unrelated to the ub’aahila’n ritual unless it is
clearly referred to in the text or implied by Fig. 10: Copan, Stela P. Note the shaded Paddler
Gods emerging from the bicephalic ceremonial bar
other elements in the iconography. (drawing by Barbara Fash).
Based on these and additional examples, it
seems to have been a typical practice to take
on the attributes of deities by wearing regalia A few scholars have suggested that
that depicted them or that were associated with impersonations were intimately linked with
them. We assume that behavioural masking and dancing (Stuart et al. 1999;
192 Julie Nehammer Knub, Simone Thun & Christophe Helmke
Houston et al. 2006; Zender 2006). However,
in studying the imagery related to each of the
91 impersonation statements we found no
depictions of protagonists wearing the masks
of the deities they impersonated. At first sight
the vessels K0533 and K3296 appear to be
exceptions. Nevertheless, on K0533 the agent
impersonates Uhuk Chapaht Tz’ikiin and not
the depicted jaguar creature, and on K3296 the
X-ray masks are not illustrating the
impersonated Hukte’ Ju’n Ajaw, but a
crocodilian being and a zoomorphic creature
with a water lily headdress. The only example
that we are aware of that relates to masking
and impersonation is the jade mask from Tomb
4, Structure 2 at Calakmul. On its interior a
small hieroglyphic text, painted on a thin
gesso-coating, states that the agent
impersonates the Waterlily Serpent (Fig. 12b)
(Martin and Grube 2008: 109). The funerary
mask may represent the guise of Yuhkno’m
Ch’e’en II and as such does not appear to be a
representation of the Waterlily Serpent (unless
the jadeite of the mask somehow relates to the
supernatural entity).
Fig. 11: Naranjo, Stela 30, front. Note the shaded
cruller and ear of the Jaguar God of the Underworld
(drawing by Ian Graham).
Returning to the topic of ritual actions
carried out simultaneously with
impersonations, we suggest that the agent
could impersonate a god while undertaking
other rituals. Such a combination undoubtedly
resulted in powerful ritual blending as may be
illustrated by the text on the bench from
Temple 21A at Copan. Here we are told that
Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat acceded to power (in
AD 763) and impersonated the patron deities
of Copan. It is possible that Yax Pasaj
impersonated the patron deities during the
accession ceremony in order to reify his
linkage to the city and its dynasty. On
Yaxchilan Lintel 39 Yaxun B’ahlam IV is
shown conjuring the k’awiilo’b’ that are
emerging from the bicephalic bar that he is
cradling as well as concurrently impersonating
a patron deity of Yaxchilan. The interplay of
several deities, brought about by two different
ritual actions, must have created a setting
permeated with sacredness in which to further
the divine engagements.
Fig. 12: (a) Copan, Altar U (drawing by Linda Schele
and Mark Van Stone). (b) Calakmul, Structure 2,
Tomb 4, painted caption inside the jadeite funerary
mask of Yuhkno’m Ch’e’en II (drawing by Simon
Martin).
As demonstrated, there existed a variety of
ways to depict and conduct the ritual of
impersonation. It depended in large measure
on the characteristics and myths of the
particular deity impersonated and the historical
context. This is also the case with Aztec
impersonation rituals known as teixiptla
(Hvidtfeldt 1958). Here the conduction of the
ritual was determined by the nature of the deity
impersonated and the various intentions behind
the performance. Another similarity between
Aztec and Maya impersonation rituals is the
very word designating the ritual. The Classic
Nawatl word teixiptla can be segmented as te-
ixiptla, where we have the apocopation of
te(otl)- “god” and -ixiptla for “image/portrait”
Classic Maya Impersonation Statements
(Molina 2001: 45v, 101r). This corresponds
well to the Classic Maya examples that include
the word k’uh for “god”, keeping in mind that
b’aah, also means “image/portrait”. The close
similarity is intriguing since it indicates that
the two cultures perceived the ritual in the
same manner.
Final Remarks
In summary, we would like to review some
of the salient trends that relate to the
impersonation statements. We propose that the
expression, in its full version, including k’uh
and the existential a’n for “exist, be” should be
translated as “his/her portrayal (in the state of)
existing as a god…”. It thus appears that the
Maya believed the agent to actually be the god
as the ritual took place. We suggest that to
become a god incarnate and sharing the
divinity could result in the acquisition of the
ub’aahila’n title. Thereby the protagonists
displayed their achievements and reinforced
their preferential social status. We believe that
this incorporation indicates that some of the
godly essence remained with the impersonator
after a successful completion of the ritual.
The Maya appear to have adopted behavioral
attributes of the impersonated gods.
Consequently, we view the ub’aahila’n ritual
as the means by which the agent not only
acquired access to the divine, but also
attributes of divinity and characteristic traits of
deities. We would like to emphasize that it
seems to have been the mythical narrative of
the impersonated god that further imbued the
ritual with meaning. Unfortunately, as we do
not know most of these myths, we may never
understand each impersonation ritual in full.
With regards to the impersonated deities, we
have noticed that the Waterlily Serpent and the
Maize God seemingly were of an androgynous
nature in comparison to exclusively male or
female deities, as they could be impersonated
by both men and women. This aspect is
intriguing since it may hint at gender relations
that go beyond the natural realm, but
ultimately stem from the mundane world of
ancient Maya society. As a result of a gender-
biased elite Maya society, we have found few
female gods in the repertoire of ub’aahila’n
rituals. In addition, we have noticed a regional
pattern in our data exhibiting no female agents
outside the Central Lowlands. The Usumacinta
area stands out in this regard since women
193
seem to have acquired more prominence in this
area than in any other.
Impersonations could be performed in
conjunction with other types of rituals
including prominent period-ending
ceremonies, and to a lesser extent dancing
events as well as the conjuring of deities. The
fact that the impersonation could take place on
various occasions indicates that it served a
multiplicity of purposes depending upon the
supernatural entity impersonated, the historical
context and the intentions of the protagonist.
Acknowledgements. This paper, in its various
incarnations, has greatly benefitted from the
insightful suggestions, comments and input of
Simon Martin, Søren Wichmann, Jesper
Nielsen, Una Canger, Karl Taube, Marc
Zender, Erik Boot, Harri Kettunen and Rogelio
Valencia. Erik Boot, Carlos Pallán Gayol and
Carl Callaway pointed out several key
examples of impersonation statements, for
which we are thankful. An earlier version of
this paper was presented at the 12th European
Maya Conference and we wish to thank
Geneviève Le Fort, Raphaël Gardiol and
Frauke Sachse for convening and coordinating
the conference.
References
Ara, Fray Domingo de
1986 Vocabulario de lengua tzeltal según el orden de
Copanabastla, edited by M.H. Ruz. (Fuentes
para el Estudio de la Cultura Maya 4). México,
D.F.: Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas,
Centro de Estudio Mayas, Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México.
Aulie, Wilbur, H, and Evelyn W. Aulie
1978 Diccionario Ch’ol – Español, Español – Ch’ol.
(Serie de Vocabularios y Diccionarios
Indígenas “Mariano Silva y Aceves” 21)
México, D.F.: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
Barrera Vásquez, Alfredo
1980 Diccionario Maya Cordemex, Maya-Español,
Español-Maya. Mérida: Ediciones Cordemex.
Bastarrachea, Juan, Ermilio Yah Pech, and Fidencio
Briceño Chel
1992 Diccionario básico español-maya, maya-
español. Mérida: Maldonado Editores.
Boot, Erik
1999 Of Serpents and Centipedes: The Epithet of
Wuk Chapaht Chan K’inich Ahaw. Unpublished
manuscript. Maya Supplemental File #3.
University of Texas, Austin.
2008 At the Court of Itzam Nah Yax Kokaj Mut:
Preliminary Iconographic and Epigraphic
Analysis of a Late Classic Vessel. Maya Vase
Database http://www.mayavase.com/God-D-
Court-Vessel.pdf
194 Julie Nehammer Knub, Simone Thun & Christophe Helmke
Bricker, Victoria R.
1986 A Grammar of Mayan Hieroglyphs. (Middle
American Research Institute Publication 56).
New Orleans: Tulane University.
Bricker, Victoria R., Eleuterio Po’ot Yah, and Ofelia
Dzul de Po’ot
1998 A Dictionary of the Maya Language as Spoken
in Hocabá, Yucatán. Salt Lake City: University
of Utah Press.
Campbell, Lyle
2006 Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Second
edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Coe, Michael D.
1975 Classic Maya Pottery at Dumbarton Oaks.
Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research
Library and Collection.
1978 Lords of the Underworld: Masterpieces of
Classic Maya Ceramics. Princeton: The Art
Museum, Princeton University.
Coe, Michael D., and Justin Kerr
1998 The Art of the Maya Scribe. New York: Harry
N. Abrams.
Colas, Pierre-Robert
2004 Sinn und Bedeutung Klassischer Maya-
Personennamen. Typologische Analyse von
Anthroponymphrasen in den Hieroglyphen-
Inschriften der Klassischen Maya-kultur als
Beitrag zur Allgemeinen Onomastik. (Acta
Mesoamericana 15). Markt Schwaben: Verlag
Anton Saurwein.
2007 The Liminal Deities: Birth and Death Gods in
Classic Maya Personal Names. Paper presented
at the 12th European Maya Conference, The
Maya and their Sacred Narratives: Text and
Context of Maya Mythologies, Geneva,
December 8th, 2007.
Grube, Nikolai
2002 Notebook for the XXVIth Maya Hieroglyphic
Forum at Texas, edited by Nikolai Grube.
Austin: University of Texas at Austin.
2004 Ahkan the God of Drinking, Disease and Death
in Continuity and Change. In: Maya Religious
Practices in Temporal Perspective. 5th
European Maya Conference, edited by Daniel
Graña-Behrens, Nikolai Grube, Christian M.
Prager, Frauke Sachse, Stefanie Teufel, and
Elisabeth Wagner: 59-76. (Acta Mesoamericana
14). Markt Schwaben: Verlag Anton Saurwein.
Grube, Nikolai, and Simon Martin
2001 Notebook for the XXVth Maya Hieroglyphic
Forum at Texas, edited by Nikolai Grube.
Austin: Department of Art and Art History,
University of Texas at Austin.
Hofling, Charles A., and Félix F. Tesucún
1997 Itzaj Maya – Spanish – English Dictionary /
Diccionario Maya Itzaj – Español – Ingles. Salt
Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Houston, Stephen D.
2006 Impersonation, Dance, and the Problem of
Spectacle among the Classic Maya. In:
Archaeology of Performance: Theaters of
Power, Community, and Politics, edited by
Takeshi Inomata, and Lawrence S. Coben: 135-
155. Lanham: Altamira Press.
Houston, Stephen D., and David Stuart
1996 Of gods, glyphs, and kings: divinity and
rulership among the Classic Maya. Antiquity
70: 289-312.
1998 The Ancient Maya Self: Personhood and
Portraiture in the Classic Period. RES:
Anthropology and Aesthetics 33: 73-101.
Houston, Stephen D., David Stuart, and John Robertson
1998 Disharmony in Maya Hieroglyphic Writing:
Linguistic Change and Continuity in Classic
Society. In: Anatomía de una civilización:
aproximaciones interdisciplinarias a la cultura
Maya, edited by Andrés Cuidad Ruiz, Yolanda
Fernández Marquínez, José Miguel García
Campillo, Maria Josefa Iglesias Ponce de Léon,
Alfonso Lacadena García-Gallo, Luis T. Sanz
Castro: 275-296. Madrid: Sociedad Española de
Estudios Mayas.
Houston, Stephen D., John Robertson, and David Stuart
2001 Quality and Quantity in Glyphic Nouns and
Adjectives / Calidad y cantidad en sustantivos y
adjetivos glíficos. Research Reports on Ancient
Maya Writing 47: 1-56.
Houston, Stephen D., David Stuart, and Karl Taube
2006 The Memory of Bones: Body, Being and
Experience among the Classic Maya. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Hruby, Zachary X., and Mark B. Child
2004 Chontal Linguistic Influence in Ancient Maya
Writing: Intransitive Positional Verbal
Affixation. In: The Linguistics of Maya Writing,
edited by Søren Wichmann: 13-26. Salt Lake
City: University of Utah Press.
Hvidtfeldt, Arild
1958 Teotl and Ixiptlatli: Some Central Conceptions
in Ancient Mexican Religion. Copenhagen:
Munksgaard.
Kaufman, Terrence
2003 A Preliminary Mayan Etymological Dictionary.
Foundation for the Advancement of
Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. http://www.famsi.
org/reports/01051/pmed.pdf
Keller, Kathryn, and Plácido Luciano G.
1997 Diccionario chontal de Tabasco (mayense).
(Serie de Vocabulario y Diccionarios Indigenas
“Mariano Seilva y Aceves” 36). Tucson:
Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Lacadena, Alfonso, and Søren Wichmann
2002 The Distribution of Lowland Maya Languages
in the Classic Period. In: La organización
social entre los mayas: Memoria de la Tercera
Mesa Redonda de Palenque 2, edited by Vera
Tiesler, René Cobos, and Merle Greene
Robertson: 275-314. México, D.F. and Mérida:
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia
and Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán.
2004 On the Representation of the Glottal Stop in
Maya Writing. In: The Linguistics of Maya
Writing, edited by Søren Wichmann: 100-162.
Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
n.d. Harmony Rules and the Suffix Domain: A Study
of Maya Scribal Conventions. Unpublished
manuscript.
Lopes, Luís
2003 Some notes on the Jaguar God of the
Underworld. Unpublished manuscript.
Martin, Simon
2005 Caracol Altar 21 Revisited: More Data on
Double Bird and Tikal’s War of the Mid-Sixth
Century. PARI Journal XI(1): 1-9.
Classic Maya Impersonation Statements
2006 Cacao in Ancient Maya Religion: First Fruit
from the Maize Tree and other Tales from the
Underworld. In: Chocolate in Mesoamerica: a
Cultural History of Cacao, edited by Cameron
L McNeil: 154-183. Gainesville: University
Press of Florida.
2007 Theosynthesis in Ancient Maya Religion. Paper
presented at the 12th European Maya
Conference, The Maya and their Sacred
Narratives: Text and Context of Maya
Mythologies, Geneva, December 7-8, 2007.
in press The Old Man of the Maya Universe: A Unitary
Dimension within Ancient Maya Religion. In:
Maya Shamanism, edited by Loa Traxler.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology,
University of Pennsylvania.
Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube
2008 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens:
Deciphering the Dynasties of the Ancient Maya.
Second edition. London: Thames & Hudson.
Mathews, Peter, and Petér Biró
2006 Maya Hieroglyph Dictionary. Foundation for
the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies,
Inc. http://research.famsi.org/mdp/mdp_index
.php
Miller, Mary-Ellen, and Simon Martin
2004 Courtly Art of the Ancient Maya. London:
Thames & Hudson.
Molina, Fray Alonso de
2001 Vocabulario en Lengua Castellana y Mexicana
y Mexicana y Castellana. México, D.F.:
Editorial Porrúa.
Morán, Fray Francisco
1695 Arte en lengua εholtí que quiere decir lengua
de milperos. (Manuscript: Class 497.4, No.
M79). Philadelphia: American Philosophical
Society.
Proskouriakoff, Tatiana
1968 The Jog and the Jaguar Signs in Maya Writing.
American Antiquity 33(2): 247-251.
Schele, Linda
1982 Maya Glyphs: The Verbs. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Schele, Linda, and Mary Miller
1986 The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in
Maya Art. Fort Worth: Kimbell Art Museum.
Schumann, Otto G.
1973 La lengua Chol, de Tila (Chiapas). (Centro de
estudios Mayas Cuaderno 8). México, D.F.:
UNAM.
n.d. Vocabulario Chorti – Español & Español –
Chorti. Electronic manuscript, transcribed and
edited by Erik Boot.
Stone, Andrea
1986 Aspects of Impersonation in Classic Maya Art.
In: Sixth Palenque Round Table, 1986, edited
by Merle Greene Robertson, and Virginia M.
Fields: 194-202. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
Stuart, David
2005 The Inscriptions from Temple XIX at Palenque:
A Commentary. San Francisco: The Pre-
Columbian Art Research Institute.
2007 Reading the Water Serpent as WITZ’.
http://decipherment.wordpress.com/2007/04/13/
reading-the-water-serpent/.
195
Stuart, David, Stephen Houston, and John Robertson
1999 Proceedings of the Maya Hieroglyphic
Workshop: Classic Mayan Language and
Classic Maya Gods, transcribed and edited by
Phil Wanyerka. Austin & Cleveland: University
of Texas at Austin & Cleveland State
University.
Taube, Karl A.
1992 The Major Gods of Ancient Yucatan. (Studies in
Pre-Columbian Art & Archaeology 32).
Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research
Library and Collection.
2003a Tetitla and the Maya Presence at Teotihuacan.
In: The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting
Early Classic Interactions, edited by Geoffrey
E. Braswell: 274-314. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
2003b Maws of Heaven and Hell: The Symbolism of
the Centipede and Serpent in Classic Maya
Religion. In: Antropología de la eternidad: la
muerte en la cultura maya, edited by Andrés
Ciudad Ruiz, Mario Humberto Ruz Sosa, and
María Josefa Iglesias Ponce de León: 405-442.
Madrid: Sociedad Española de Estudios Maya
and Centro de Estudios Mayas.
Thompson, J. Eric S.
1950 Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: An Introduction.
Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of
Washington.
1962 A Catalogue of Maya Hieroglyphs. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.
Wichmann, Søren
1999 A Ch’orti’ Morphological Sketch. Unpublished
manuscript. Copenhagen: Department of
American Indian Languages and Cultures,
University of Copenhagen.
2006 Mayan Historical Linguistics and Epigraphy: A
New Synthesis. Annual Review of Anthropology
35: 279-294.
Wisdom, Charles
1950 Ch’orti’ Dictionary. Electronic manuscript,
transcribed and edited by Brian Stross.
Yasugi, Yoshiho and Kenji Saito
1991 Glyph Y of the Maya Supplementary Series.
Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 34:
1-12.
Zender, Marc
1999 Diacritical Marks and Underspelling in the
Classic Maya Script: Implication for
Decipherment. Unpublished MA Thesis.
Calgary: University of Calgary.
2004a On the Morphology of Intimate Possession in
Mayan Languages and Classic Maya Glyphic
Nouns. In: The Linguistics of Maya Writing,
edited by Søren Wichmann: 195-209. Salt Lake
City: University of Utah Press.
2004b A Study of Classic Maya Priesthood.
Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Calgary:
Department of Archaeology, University of
Calgary.
2004c Glyphs for “Handspan” and “Strike” in Classic
Maya Ballgame Texts. PARI Journal IV(4):1-9.
2006 Classic Maya Religion, Politics and History.
Workshop presented at the 11th European Maya
Conference, Ecology, Power, and Religion in
Maya Landscapes, Malmö, December 4-9,
2006.