Of gods, glyphs and kings: divinity and

rulership among the Classic Maya

HOUSTON& DAVIDSTUART*
STEPHEN

The ANTIQUITY prize-winning article in the last volume addressed writing, its varying
nature and role in early states. Now that the decipherment of Maya writing is well
advanced, we can know more of the records of kingship, From them we m a y discern the
concepts and beliefs that defined the authority of these holy lords, as we seek the source
of the power of rulers like ‘Sun-faced Snake Jaguar’.

‘the mere fact of royal divinity was not so impor-
tant as the relations which the king formed with other
gods and men, and the contexts in which he was
able to assert his divinity’.
(BURGHART1987: 237)
New hieroglyphic decipherments now allow
us to address several fundamental questions
about the conceptual and religious underpin-
nings of Maya rulership. We can now explore
the Maya concepts of relationships between
deities and kings. Of particular interest are the
ritual expressions of these relationships in the
political and social arenas of various kingdoms.
We can also attempt to delineate how relations
between royalty and divinity changed over time
in the Maya area, most notably after the fall of
numerous kingdoms at the dawn of the Post-
classic era.
The implications of these issues reach far
beyond the Maya region. Scholars studying
cultures from Ancient Egypt to China have
confronted the question: how can rulers em-
body characteristics of both the human and the
divine? Comparative studies show this ques-
tion to be relevant to many traditional systems
of authority, since rulers may tend to connect
themselves with an immutable, divine order
‘which transcends mere [human] experience and
action’ (Bloch 1987: 272). The power and mys-
tery of divinity provides the ultimate sanction
of worldly authority. There is, however, an
apparent difficulty with attributing godhood
to human rulers, namely, the fact that rulers
are observed by their subjects to undergo the
same processes as commoners do. Rulers are
born, they live and die, demonstrating muta-
bility and frailty as they do so. Some scholars
have suggested that rulers may seek identifi-
cation with the divine precisely because of their
mortality and evident human weakness (O’Con-
nor & Silverman 1995a: xxiii).
And yet, despite what many researchers
consider to be the paradox of the concept of
divine humans, cultures ruled by such hybrid
divinities do not seem to find any inherent
contradiction in it. As this article will make
clear, a large part of the ‘paradox’ is created by
scholarly preconceptions of what a ‘god’is. The
Western concept of a god as one who is all-
powerful, without faults, whose existence is
not marked by either birth or death, is at times
indiscriminately applied to other cultures. In
a belief system where gods or supernaturals are
born and can die, are changeable and even ca-
pricious, and have their own vulnerabilities,
it is less necessary for a ruler to explain away
these qualities in him- or herself.
In 19th-century Fiji, the ‘stranger king’ and
his family were established as beings that were
ontologically and historically separate from their
subjects. Rulers did not ‘spring from the same
clay as [their] people’ (Sahlins 1981: 1 1 2 ) . In
other parts of Polynesia, rulers were likened
to sharks travelling on land, rapacious, unpre-
dictable, wholly foreign in origin - danger-

* Stephen D. Houston, Department of Anthropology, Brighain Young University, Provo UT 84602-5522, USA. David
Stuart, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge MA 02138, USA.
Received 6 June 1995, accepted 3 September 1995, revised 2 December 1995.
ANTIQUITY
70 (1996): 289-312
2 90 STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART
ous (Sahlins 1981: 112). In a very different place
and time, legal theorists in Tudor England found
it useful to distinguish between the king’s ‘body
natural’ and his ‘bodypolitic’, the domain of ‘cer-
tain truly mysterious forces (which) reduce, or
even remove,the imperfections of. . . fragilehuman
nature’ (Kantorowicz 1957: 9). These societies
framed authority in terms of mystical and reli-
gious forces, vested in a king ‘who reigns not by
force, still less by illusion, but by supernatural
powers. . . [within] , . . him’ (Kertzer 1988: 52).
Throughout the world’s history, culturally
accepted linkages between rulers and the su-
pernatural fall into recognizable patterns, dem-
onstrating the ease with which such associations
could be made in a context of appropriate be-
liefs and values. Cross-culturally, arrogating
divinity and its attributes directly to the ruler
occurs in three typical ways.
1 The ruler claims to be divine, in direct de-
scent from other divinities, or receives
divine honours after death (Price 1987:
104).
2 The ruler is rhetorically described in terms
of qualities and ‘epithets appropriate to a
deity’, although remaining recognizably
distinct from a true god (Moertono 1968:
43-4; Liebeschuetz 1979: 238). Sacrality
may hinge then on the possession of le-
gitimating icons, such as the royal drum
of the Ankole kingdom in East Africa, the
magical pusaka, ‘holy relics of inheritance’,
of 18th-century Java or the ting tripods of
early China (Moertono 1968: 65; Pemberton
1994: 32; Ferrie 1995: 317). Alternatively,
sacrality may connect with an aura of ’dan-
gerous, sacred force’ emanating from roy-
alty: the tapu restrictions surrounding
traditional Hawai’ian Blites or prohibi-
tions regarding the imperial person in
17th-century Japan exemplify this force
(Kertzer 1988: 46-7).
3 The ruler achieves divine status only on
occasion, through the ritual summons of
god-like forces which he appropriates for
himself (Hocart 1970: 92.-3). By this form
of possession, godly words form on a rul-
er’s tongue. His statements pass into the
realm of unexamined, unquestioned truth,
and his body becomes, as in ancient Egypt,
‘suffused with the same divinity manifest
in his office and the gods themselves’
(O’Connor & Silverman 1995: xxv).
Another mode of relating kings to divinity
involves less the practice of sharing in divin-
ity - the three customs outlined above - as
fulfilling a central role in communications be-
tween gods, humans and, frequently, royal an-
cestors, who operate as crucial intermediaries
(Bendix 1978: 18; Keightley 1978: 212-13). To
the ruler goes the important task of interpret-
ing divine will and controlling ‘human ap-
proaches to the divine and the communication
of gods to men’ (Beard 1990: 30; see also Moer-
tono 1968: 40-41). Contrast with this situation
the case of Classical Athens, where religious
functions took place on many different levels,
involving people of varying status (Garland 1990:
90). Perhaps the unique characteristic of royal
interpretation of divine will is its applicabil-
ity to all subjects in a polity. Finally, a divine
ruler’s human qualities, particularly his mor-
tality, may be cast in such a way as to exem-
plify larger, cosmic cycles or patterns. In this
manner the symbolic attributes of the ruler
negate common, human ones, or at least elevate
them to another dimension of meaning (Feeley-
Harnik 1985: 281-2). To quote Bagehot, ‘a
princely marriage is the brilliant edition of a
universal fact, and, as such, it rivets mankind’
(cited in Cannadine 1987: 7).
Royal divinity can also be reinforced by myth
and ritual. To those who believe, myths pro-
vide incontrovertible, narrative rationales for
why things exist in the way that they do. A
subset of myths includes royal charters, stories
that justify or explain regal behaviour. Simi-
larly, as ‘highly structured, standardized se-
quences’, rituals often engage distant events,
forces, or beings that are described in myth or
charters and make them tangible and potent in
the present (Kertzer 1988: 9). The parading of
god effigies - seen extravagantly in ancient
Egyptian processionals (Kemp 1989: 205) or
Sumerian Gotterreisen (Sjoberg1957-1971: 481)
-underscores royal pretensions of affinity with
the gods. To spectators, the gods concretely and
visibly participate in the ruler’s ceremonies. In
much the same way, Mesopotamian rulers boast
of ‘housing’ gods in sumptuous dwellings and
enjoy, particularly in the late 3rd millennium
BC, the role of physical proxy in the marriages
of gods (BottBro 1992: 225-6).
Broadly speaking, then, there exists consid-
erable variety in royal identifications or inter-
ventions with gods. Rulers may lay direct claim
 OF GODS, GLYPHS AND KINGS: DIVINITY AND RULERSHIP AMONG THE CLASSIC MAYA
to divinity, or do so rhetorically by using god-
like titles and demanding the ritual veneration
due to gods. They may possess divine force
intermittently, employing godly costumes and
behaviours to summon supernatural presences.
Further, lords may invite gods to witness and
validate ceremonies (Liebeschuetz 1979: 43),
often through god effigies or physical proxies
that may be paraded ceremonially. A more subtle
invocation of divinity consists of stories that
liken royal lives to the immutable patterns set
by gods. Implicit here is not only the notion of
remote events and beings, but the continual
repetition of such patterns in later times. For
Mesoamerica, Nicholson (1971a) calls this
‘pattern history’, founded on the idea of re-
currence: as calendar cycles, or certain per-
mutations of these cycles, repeat, they produce
like-in-kind repetitions of mythological or
historical events.
The artistic and documentary sources of
the Classic Maya employ all these methods
for linking rulers with the divine. Kings make
frequent use of the explicit title k’ul ahaw,’
or ‘divine lord’. In rituals, lords also frequently
‘impersonate’ gods by the wearing of deity
masks, clothing and ornament. Gods or spir-
its may also appear in ceremonial situations
as actual witnesses or participants, perhaps
as effigies of wood, stucco, or stone. Before
documenting these manifestations of divine
rule, however, we must address the complex
nature of ‘gods’ i n Classic Maya and Meso-
american belief.
The nature of Maya gods
Ancient Maya sources are replete with depic-
tions and mentions of supernatural beings, most
of which are commonly called ‘gods’ by stu-
dents of Mesoamerican religion. The Mayan
word is k’u or ch’u, the pronunciation being
dependent on the particular language, be it of
the Yucatecan or Greater Tzeltalan branches.
But ‘god’ is not always a satisfactory transla-
tion. K u or ch ’u-which more accurately means
a ‘sacred entity’ when used as an adjective k’ul
or ch’ul (as in k’ul U ~ Q W ‘holy
, lord’) -has the
meaning of ‘holy, sacred, divine’. With these
cautions, we retain the term ‘god’for most major
1 For glyphic notation we use a system advocated by
George Stuart for his ‘Research Reports’ series: bold indi-
cates literal glyph transcription, italic the probable ren-
dering in Classic Mayan.
291
deities while recognizing its limitations and
understanding that not all supernatural enti-
ties can be grouped under a single, inclusive
term.
Partly in reaction to Schellhas’compilation
of Maya divinities (1904),Tatiana Proskouriakoff
and others (Proskouriakoff 1965: 470-71; 1978:
113, 116-17; Marcus 1978) make four, related
assertions: that the idea of ‘gods’ results from
the spurious application of Old World paral-
lels (Marcus 1978: 180; Proskouriakoff 1978:
113; Marcus 1983: 345,349,351;Marcus &Flan-
nery 1994: 57); that the concept pertains only
to a few, late periods in Mesoamerican antiq-
uity, especially those at a state or imperial level
of political organization (Kubler 1969: 32; Grove
1987: 426; Marcus 1992: 270-711; that the no-
tion of a ‘god’ inherently distorts nuances of
indigenous belief (Beals 1945: 85; Marcus 1989:
150-52); and that most ‘gods’ in Mesoamerica
represent euhemerized ancestors (Proskouriakoff
1978: 116-17). Rather than devising a pantheon,
a roster of gods organized into a family on a
Greco-Roman model, ancient Mesoamericans
categorized and worshipped vital, impersonal
forces of nature. These forces embodied essences
that animated all (or most) things in nature and
incorporated the powerful, intercessionary
spirits of ancestors (Spores 1984: 85). There is
some merit to such views, and the critics are
correct in questioning indiscriminate use of the
term ‘god’.
To illustrate the complexities, we can point
to an important category of supernaturals known
as wayob (singular way), the ‘animal compan-
ion spirits’ that helped constitute the psycho-
logical and spiritual make-up of Maya lords,
rulers and places (Houston & Stuart 1989; Grube
& Nahm 1994). Among modern native Meso-
americans, these entities are often called na-
guales, and remain an essential aspect of native
Mesoamerican spirituality. They are consistently
viewed as an aspect of the human soul, some-
times wandering at night from their sleeping
hosts. This connexion is no doubt reflected in
the alternate meaning of WQY as the verb ‘to
dream’. In their depictions in Classic Maya art,
usually on the exteriors of polychrome drink-
ing vessels, wayob are shown as animal com-
posites or as animals with unusual behavioural
or bodily attributes. They are also explicitly
linked with people. These depictions, then, are
of ancient royal souls, or parts of these souls,
2 92 STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART
FIGURE 1. Glyphs for k’u, ‘god’.
a The ‘God C’ head.
b Its common abbreviation.
and constitute an important key in the study
of ancient Maya religion. Significantly, the way
entities seem separate from the notions of k’u
or ch’u, and we prefer not to call them ‘gods’.
This, at least, is a distinction the Maya were
apparently careful to make.
Ch’u is the foundation of the word ch’ulel,
which appears in Chol Mayan and the Greater
Tzeltalan languages with the meaning like ‘vi-
tality’, but perhaps more literally ‘holiness’ [the
term is composed of ch’u and the abstractive
suffix -1eI).Widely translated as ‘soul’or ‘spirit’,
it more correctly refers to the vital force or power
that inhabits the blood and energizes people
and a variety of objects of ritual and everyday
life (Vogt 1969: 369-71). This general Maya
conception is essentially identical to concep-
tions of divinity found elsewhere in Meso-
america. The Classical Nahuatl word teotl, also
widely translated as ‘god’, is more appropri-
ately understood as ‘a numinous, impersonal
force diffused throughout the universe’ (Towns-
end 1979: 28; see also Hvidtfeldt 1958).Burkhart
(1989: 37) aptly classifies this system of belief
as ‘polytheist monism . . . (a) divine principle
manifested . . . in multiple forms, some am-
bivalent, some expressing opposite principles
in their different manifestations’. Ethnographic
research among Mixtec-speaking peoples in
Mesoamerica confirms the durability of this
concept: potent forces, some linked to the
earth, others to w i n d , water and the sky,
present different faces or aspects for human
apprehension [John Monaghan pers. comm.).
Humans receive only partial glimpses of a di-
vine totality, often in manifestations we call
‘gods’ (Townsend 1979: 28).
Not surprisingly, then, it is difficult to de-
velop an inclusive and satisfactory definition
for Maya ‘gods’. They may assume special hu-
man or animal forms [often both), and embody
certain specific natural forces, such as light-
ning, wind, or the essence of maize [Taube 1985;
1992a).2Other, more specialized supernaturals
seem to be narrowly conceived in connexion
with specific places or socio-political entities.
The Maya situation is similar in many respects
to that which Nicholson (1971b) has described
among the Aztec, where we find hierarchical
categories of supernatural figures, each with
diverse ‘aspects’ and sometimes overlapping
attributes. According to extant fragments of
Classic period mythology, some supernaturals
have birth-dates and named parents (Berlin
1963; Kelley 1965).Also, many Maya gods ex-
isted in two or more planes, living within sa-
cred narratives far-removed from the present
world as well as participating directly in the
ritual activities of humans. As Michael Coe
(1973: 22) and others suggest, sacred narratives
not only worked to explain the patterning of
natural events, but could establish charters for
human, usually royal, behaviour. As actors and
participants in rituals, gods could interact with
powerful humans in an almost routine man-
ner. Interestingly, many of these basic features
of native religion survived the European con-
quest, and remain prevalent in Mesoamerica
to the present day (Gossen 1986).
In regionalized incarnations, Mesoamerican
gods enjoyed tutelary relationships with par-
ticular socio-political groups (Lockhart 1992:
16), with whom they had an almost contrac-
tual relationship of quid pro quo transactions
[Thompson 1970: 170). Nobility was defined
in part through its direct association with par-
ticular gods. Crucial titles of rulership, as in
Chalco, Mexico, involved the concept of ‘god-
possessor lord’, perhaps reflecting an earlier
notion of lords as carriers of god effigies (Schroeder
1991: 122-3, 142, 172-3). Similar evidence ap-
pears in the Mixtec region of Mexico (John Mona-
ghan pers. comm.). Below we demonstrate the
ways in which Maya rulers associated themselves
with gods, often in similar ways.
Glyphs for gods
The key glyph in discussing Maya conceptions
of divinity is the ‘God C’ sign (FIGURE
I),deci-
phered as a logograph with the value K’U(L)
or CH’U(L) (Barthell952: 94; Ringle 1988).As
2 Taube (1992a) provides an excellent discussion of spe-
cific Maya deities, and Bottero (1992: 211) gives a compara-
ble emphasis on theo-anthropomorphization in Mesopotamia.
Cuthric j1993) offers a broad discussion of anthropomorph-
ization in all religious thought.
 OF GODS, GLYPHS AND KINGS: DIVINITY AND RULERSHIP AMONG THE CLASSIC MAYA
FIGURE2. Vase of the Seven Gods (Coe 1973: 1091.
a proper noun, this hieroglyph conveys the ideas
of k’u,‘god, sacred entity’, as already described:
when prefixed to other signs, it also may be
read as the adjectival form k’ul, ‘sacred’. The
sign is extremely common in the inscriptions
of the Classic period, suggesting that the an-
cient texts are a rich source for understanding
Classic beliefs.
A basic function of the K’U(L) sign appears
on the so-called ‘Vase of the Seven Gods’,which
shows two rows of seated supernatural figures
before an enthroned underworld deity (FIGURE
2; see Ringle 1988: 3, 5). According to Maya
convention, these individuals - clearly non-
human in their faces -rest on two base-lines,
sitting side-by-side i n two rows. The extruded
eyeballs and dark background of the scene lend
a sinister, nocturnal quality to the image. The
hieroglyphic text in the middle includes a long
list of deity names, each followed by the K’U
glyph. Each of the right-facing figures, then,
are designated as the ‘so-and-so “god”’.A verb
293
precedes this list of god names and follows, in
turn, the 4 Ahau 8 Cumku date of Maya crea-
tion. The event may indicate that these gods
are ‘multiplied’, ‘ordered’, ‘added together’ at
the beginning of the current creation (Freidel
e t a ] . 1993: 67-9).
Often certain prefix and affix signs qualify
the sign for ‘god’ in ways that affect its reading
and meaning. For example, the K’U sign often
takes the prefix element U-, serving as the pro-
noun u-, ‘his, hers, its’, and the nominal suffix
-il (FIGURE 3). In Mayan syntax, these affixes
signal possession, so that the name of the pos-
sessor -the person to whom the ‘god’belongs
FIGURE3. The glyph for
u-k’u-il, ‘hidher god’,
from the Tablet of
Temple X I V at Palenque,
block C10. (After
drflwing by Linda
Schele.]
294 STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART
- comes next in the phrase. In this way the
term ‘u-k’u-il X’ would render ‘X’s god’. As one
might suspect, the appearance of this phrase
in the inscriptions helps us to understand the
relationships between deities and humans.
Several related inscriptions from the ‘Cross
Group’ temples at Palenque, Mexico, contain
many such explicit statements of god ‘owner-
ship’, and thus merit a more detailed analysis.
The texts of the three temples in the Cross
Group generally relate information about the
‘Palenque Triad’ gods, three mystical brothers
who were important tutelary deities of the lo-
cal dynasty (Berlin 1963; Kelley 1968). Each
of the three temples concerns one member of
the Triad: the Temple of the Cross with the deity
known as ‘GI’,the Temple of the Foliated Cross
with ‘GII’,and the Temple of the Sun with ‘GIII’.
Each god was born in the far distant past; the
main tablets associated with them connect their
mythic history with the early Palenque kings
(see Lounsbury 1979). Secondary inscriptions
located outside the inner shrines of the temple
give important dedicatory information on the
construction of the temples and the ‘housing’
of the gods within. Significantly, the inner
shrines of these temples are explicitly ‘owned’
by the deities themselves. This concept is re-
flected throughout Mesoamerica, where tem-
ples are almost universally considered ‘gods’
houses’.There are a few other instances in which
gods possess things. A text on the lid of a stone
box parallels the Palenque material (Coe 1973:
plate 7). The inscription, beginning with a date
and verb, continues with an expression prob-
ably reading U-PAS-TUN-li, glyphs spelling
‘open stone’ (a reference to the lidded box) along
with the usual possessive affixes. To judge from
the remainder of the inscription, the box be-
longed to two gods, identified as ’the gods’ of
a ruler of Tonina, a site relatively close to
Palenque.
Typical of the dedicatory texts of the Cross
Group is the inscription from the balustrade
(or alfurda) of the Temple of the Foliated Cross.
According to this text, on the day 1.18.5.4.0 1
Ahau 13 Mac (8 November 2360 BC) the god
GI1 was born at a place called Matawil, and
some 3000 years later, on 9.12.19.14.12 5 Eb 5
Kayab (12 January AD 692), the ‘god’ of K’inich
Kan Balam, the contemporary Palenque king,
‘entered the house’. One may safely assume here
that the ruler’s ‘god’ is GI1 himself, although
he is not named in this second dedicatory pas-
sage. A related inscription from the door jamb
of the shrine of the same temple presents the
information in a slightly different way. This text
states the same ‘house entering’ event involv-
ing GII, now named, but states that the deity is
the ‘cared-forthing’ or ‘precious thing’ (huntan)
of the ruler K’inich Kan Balam. Interestingly,
the word huntan is more often used to express
the relationship between a child and its mother
(‘K’inich Kan Balam is the precious thing of
the Royal Lady Ts’ak’, for instance). Although
no precise kin relationship is expressed, it would
seem that a ruler was thought to ‘care for’ a
god, perhaps through sustaining sacrifices, much
in the way a mother cares for her offspring. It
is doubtful, however, that such statements can
be extended to mean that rulers were consid-
ered ‘mothers’ of deities (cf.Schele & Freidel
1990: 475; Stuart 1984).
These inscriptions and their alternative
phrasings demonstrate beyond doubt that the
rulers could be considered ‘owners’ of impor-
tant deities. The possessed u-k’u-if glyphs do
not allude to concepts of ‘temple’ nor to any
abstract, impersonal invocations of ‘holiness’
(cf.Schele & Freidel 1990: 473, figure 6:15),
but rather pertain to distinct and personalized
sacred entities. One may go so far as to suggest
that such references may allude to specific
images of gods, for the identical phrase u-ch’u-
il means ‘his idol’ in Colonial Cholti Mayan
(Fought 1986). The corresponding hieroglyph,
shown in FIGURE3, is common in many dif-
ferent types of Maya texts, including several
touching on themes of warfare and conquest.
Inscriptions at Tikal, for example, refer to ‘the
gods’ of a ruler from El Peru and another of a
Naranjo lord, both of whom were apparently
the victims of military defeats. Although the
readings of these passages present certain prob-
lems of interpretation, we concur with the sug-
gestion by Simon Martin and Nikolai Grube that
the defeat of neighbouring kingdoms may have
involved the appropriation, capture or desecra-
tion of foreign god effigies ‘owned’ by royal
victims (Martin n.d.).
Ideas of god ownership are not the sole source
of divine qualities ascribed to rulers. In an icono-
graphic usage, the k’u glyph appears as streams
of liquid falling from the hands of rulers in
sacrificial costume. The streams represent royal
blood shed in self-sacrifice (Stuart 1984; 1988);
 OF GODS, GLYPHS AND KINGS: DIVINITY AND RULERSHIP AMONG THE CLASSIC MAYA
their depiction as the k’u motif most likely sig-
nals the concept of the ch’ulel, which according
to numerous ethnographic sources, constitutes
a part of the soul and inhabits the blood of all
humans (Vogt 1969). Power and prestige are
defined by many modern Maya groups by the
degree of one’s ‘heat’ and the corresponding
strength of one’s ch’ulel (Guiteras-Holmes 1961:
72). Ancient rulers, much like high-ranking
Maya of today, may have had ‘stronger’or ‘hotter’
souls which could be channelled, in effect, to
sanctify and bless ritual objects and subordi-
nate persons. The ch’ulel of the rulers -it may
have gone by another term in Classic times -
was probably a central focus of much royal blood
ritual, and, perhaps, a major factor in defining
the divine qualities of royal office.
Rulers as gods
Classic Maya rulers made direct claims to di-
vinity by means of certain royal titles that make
use of the K’U(L) sign. The ‘Emblem glyph’, an
exalted title used almost exclusively by kings,
is the most important of these. The Emblem
title includes the term for ‘lord’,ahaw, the name
of a place over which the lord exercised or
claimed dominion, and - as its distinguish-
ing attribute -k’ul, ‘sacred’ or ‘holy’ (Mathews
1991: 24; Stuart 1993: 326). The ‘holy’intimates
that the ruler holds a quality shared with few
others, a quality that presupposes a claim to
divinity or, more precisely, god-like tatu us.^ In
an intriguing pattern, the k’ul ahaw epithet is
common only rather late in the Classic period
(Houston 1989: 55). An argument can be made
that the Emblem title -rather like hueitlahtoani
(‘great ruler’) of the Mexica Aztec - reflects a
need for new, more exalted grades in society
and a distinction between the ruler and a bur-
3 In our opinion, Freidel & Schele’s (1988: 348, 363) dis-
cussion of Classic Maya rulers as ‘conduit(s)of supernatu-
ral power and direct divine inspiration’ goes too far i n
connecting divine or supernatural power with the ahaw
(‘lord’] title. Apparently restricted to the royal family, the
title does not in itself connote divinity, but may rather supply
the Mayan equivalent of the central Mexican term, tlnhfouni,
‘speaker’:note proto-Cholan “aw, ‘shout’ (Kaufman & Nor-
man 1984: 116), resulting possibly i n *aj-uw, ‘he of the
shout’, ‘shouter’.The rhetorical connection with ‘Big Men’
is obvious. Moreover, Freidel contends that the title of ‘di-
vine lord’ (in fact, ‘holy [place] lord’) came into being as
an ‘institution’ and ‘definition of central power’ by AD 199
(Freidel 1992: 119). We believe that common use of this
title took place far later, c. AD 500.
295
geoning group of nobles, many of royal descent.
There is increased emphasis on royal ladies who
use the honorific title k’ul ixik, ‘holy woman’,
at about the same time. To restrict the number
of ahawob, rulers may have used the expedi-
ent of bilateral descent to define royalty through
paternal and maternal blood-lines, a pattern
well-documented among Mixtec rulers, who
lived within ‘a closed social universe that could
be legally penetrated only by birth’ (Spores 1967:
141).Nonetheless, present Mayan hieroglyphic
evidence shows somewhat more flexibility than
existed among the Mixtec.
Another claim to divinity is evident from
the personal names of Maya rulers (see Geertz
1977: 158; 1980: 1 2 4 , for a similar pattern in
Bali). Many names incorporate references to
deities, one of the most common being the ini-
tial element K’inich (‘Sun-faced’,a descriptive
name for the sun),as in K’inich Kan Balam (‘Sun-
faced Snake Jaguar’).Other royal names describe
aspects of deities, such as the Yaxchilan ruler
Itsamnah Balam, or ‘Itsamnah Jaguar’ (widely
known as ‘Shield Jaguar’), Itsamnah being the
name of the very important deity sometimes
known as ‘God D’. This name would seem to
describe a jaguar that assumes a partial iden-
tity with the deity Itsamnah. Two rulers of Clas-
sic times share the name Itsamnah K‘awil. K’awil
is the name of another deity of great impor-
tance (widely dubbed ‘God K’); again the name
seems to intimate that these kings are some-
how ‘hybrids’of these supernaturals. Other royal
names, more descriptive, are hardly less opaque:
‘Chaakisborn from the sun’ (FIGURE 4a), ‘K‘awil
is born from the sky’ (FIGURE4b), ‘K’inich is
born from the sky’, ‘K’awil is conjured’ (FIG-
URE 4c) and ‘K’awil is born’ (Chaak is the Rain
God, K’inich the Sun God). The significance
of these names is unclear. Decipherments pro-
vide readings of names but, to date, little un-
derstanding of why the Maya favoured certain
names over others. Sometimes royal names skip
one or more generations, suggesting that that
they could have only one living bearer. Often,
scholars focus on the initial elements of names
and conclude, erroneously, that the shared signs
point to use of the same name at different sites
(FIGURE 4). In fact, it is the final sign, usually a
deity, that forms the crucial component; pre-
ceding glyphs simply provide subtle, adjecti-
val modifications of the god name. We have
seen in the examples just cited how two out-
296 STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART

a a

4. Personal names of rulers incorporating

FIGUKE
the name of the god K’owil.
a ‘Chaak is born from the sun’from Macaquila
Stela 1 1 . (Drawing after Graham 1967:figure 63.)
b X’awil i s born from the sky’jrom an inscribed
vessel in a private collection.
c X’awil i s conjured.’ (After Kerr 1383.1

wardly similar names beginning with the same

glyphs pertain to different gods.
As in ancient Egypt, the outright assertion
that Maya rulers were considered ‘gods’remains
problematic (Baines 1995: 6,10-11).Texts which
apply god names to rulers suggest they are ‘holy’
(an epithet often limited to the ruler, his spouse
and royal ancestors), but not once are living
kings said directly to be gods. Much clearer
fusions of gods and royals occur with deceased
rulers, who may begin to be venerated as an-
cestral heroes or founder-leaders but over time
take on the guise of deities. As Carrasco (1950:
143, translation in Townsend (1979: 34)) states
with regard to Central Mexican religious his-
tory, ‘one of the main processes by which
5. Depictions of ancestors.
FIG~JRE
a Tonina Monument 69. (Drawing by Ian Graham.]
b Palenque sarcophagus lid. (Drawing b y Merle
Greene Robertson.)
c Tikal Stela 31. (Jones b Satterthwaite 1982:
figure 51c.)
Mesoamerican religions produce such great
quantities of deities is the deification of a n
ancestral tribal leader, who assumes the at-
tributes of the gods of the tribe he represents’.
 OF GODS, GLYPHS AND KINGS: DIVINITY AND RULERSHIP AMONG THE CLASSIC MAYA 297

This type of transformation may have taken place this monument, perhaps because the image was
among the Maya of ancient Copan, who in their intended to evoke a pre-literate period. (Other
later years erected the largest temples of the early, fragmentary monuments were incor-
site to the great historical founder K‘inich Yax porated into the structure behind the stela,
K’uk’ Mo’ (Fash 1988; Stuart 1992). suggesting later refurbishment of a building as-
Posthumous royal portraits tend to fall into sociated conceptually with the early years of
three classes (McAnany 1995): the Tamarindito dynasty.) The only ancestors
1 static images of seated or standing lords, pic- that seem to be depicted explicitly as gods are
tured as they might appear in life (FIGURE those in the ascending generation or deceased
54; kings, often bearing the attributes of the god
2 views of rulers in transformation or meta- K’awil. This contrasts with some central Mexi-
morphosis, usually merged with the at- can beliefs, in which patron deities of particular
tributes of the Maize God or plants (FIGURE socio-political groups merge with the ‘“deified
5b); and tribal ancestor” or “first founder”’ of a com-
3 depictions of disembodied, deceased lords, munity. Temples dedicated to such gods were
wreathed in smoke (FIGURE SC).~ ‘the symbol of the town’s independence and
Of these portraits, only rulers and their spouses integrity, and, in one sense, its luck and fate’,
seem ever to adopt the features of divinity. Royal so that military conquest ‘was signalized by the
fathers may occur as Sun Gods or individuals burning of the patron deity’s shrine, frequently
encased in sun disks, while mothers are iden- followed by the carrying off of the latter’s im-
tified with the Moon Goddess. Sometimes re- age’ (Nicholson 1971b: 409).
cently deceased rulers appear in the guise of
the Maize God. Thus royal parents pair with The gods made animate
the two most prominent features in the sky, each Under special circumstances, the distinction
diurnally opposed to the other, while the Maize between rulers and deities appears to have been
God, an emblem of youth, sustenance and purposefully vague. Kings and high nobles
vegetal regeneration, represents a transforma- possessed the special ability to assume the iden-
tional cycle or a mortuary charter that likens tities of certain gods through ritual impersona-
rulers to the first human, who was fashioned tion. Geertz (1977: 157) describes impersonation
of succulent maize dough (Houston 1995). Yet, as an aspect of the ruler’s charisma, ‘liminally
despite such explicit representations, we must suspended between gods and men’. At this point
remember that living rulers seldom made un- the Aztec concept of teixiptla becomes impor-
equivocal claims to divinity. Seemingly ‘holy’ tant, for it allows us to understand the subtle-
and ‘god-like’during their life-times, they were ties and implications of god impersonation in
probably set apart from actual Maya deities. Mesoamerica. The teotl, the divine energy,
A related topic is the naming of dynastic manifests itself in the teixiptla, ‘the physical
founders, some of which seem to be described representation or incarnation of the teotf . , .
as kinds of stars, as at Dos Pilas (Schele 1992; [which is] called forth by the creation of a
Houston 1993: figure 4-5). By Classic times, the teixiptla’ [Boone 1989: 4 ; see also Hvidtfeldt
Maya may have endowed these progenitors with 1958: 76-100). In Postclassic central Mexico,
divinity, but there is nothing in their titles - costumes, masks and effigies of gods do not
many use Emblem glyphs - that would sug- ‘represent’ deities. They are gods in the sense
gest a markedly different status from later lords. of being partial extensions of divinity. In some
One stela at Tamarindito, Guatemala, may show instances, there ‘is such a resemblance between
a Late Classic lord dressed as the founder of image and god that . . . visible forms charged
his dynasty (Houston 1993: figure 4-5). Regret- with sacred power are considered to be gods
tably, and rather strangely, no texts occur on themselves’ [Lbpez Austin 1993: 137, 138).
When dancers don masks or other elements of
4 Stela 6, a monument from Caracol, Belize, may record godly costume, the ‘essence of the god . . .
that a deceased ruler witnessed or ‘saw’ (yi-IL-a-hi,y-il- become[sl present in material form’, much as
oh-i, ‘he was seeing it‘) a ritual performed by his succes-
sor (Beetz & Satterthwaite 1981: figure 7b, glyph B20). This it does for Puebloan Kachina dancers (Markman
would seem to represent a textual description of the ‘floating & Markman 1989: 69). In his study of ‘man-
ancestor’ motif. gods’ in the Mexican Highlands, Serge Gruzinski
298 STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART

U-ba-hi-li a-nu U-ba-hi-li a-ANUM?

FIGURE6. God impersonation glyphs.

a Naranjo Stela 24: E3-D4. (Drawing b y Ian Graham .]
b Panel in the Dallas Museum of Fine Arts. (Drawing by Ian Graham.]
U-ba-li ANUM c E k a l Lintel 3, Structure 5C-4, E5. (Jones b Satterthwaite 198Z:figure 74.)

u-bah anum? god’s name

- 0 .
b

FIGURE 7. God imper-

son a tion expressions .
a Maize god at Tikal.
(Drawing after Jones 6.
C Sa tterth waite 1982:
figure 74.)
b S u n god at Bonam-
p a k . [Drawing by
Stephen HOuston.)
c ‘Lord of the black
hole’. (Drawing after
Kerr 791.)
(1989: 2 2 , 2 3 ) comments that, through associa- Recent decipherments of Maya hieroglyphs
tion with divine force, often present in ‘sacred indicate that similar concepts prevailed among
relics’, ‘something penetrated the man, pos- the Classic Maya. A distinctive, formulaic phrase
sessed him, transformed him into a faithful is now identified that introduces the names of
replica of god’, made him part of ‘the very au- kings and their close relatives, often accompa-
thority he adored’. nying portraits of rulers as impersonators. The
 OF GODS, GLYPHS AND KINGS: DIVINITY AND RULERSHIP AMONG THE CLASSIC MAYA
relevant glyphs read u-bah-il, possibly ‘hisbody’
or ‘image’, followed by a sign representing a
banner or flag decorated with bar-and-dot num-
bers. This banner sign can be replaced by the
syllables a-nu,suggesting its full value of A W L
or ANUM, perhaps related to Yucatecan m u m ,
‘famous’ (FIGURES 6a, 6b).5Occasionally, these
signs are conflated or compressed into a single
glyph block (FIGURE 6c). One example includes
the addition of the suffix K’U. After these com-
binations come two phrases that complete the
expression: first, the name of a deity (along with
some rare prepositional phrases); and second,
the personal name of a ruler or noble. We in-
terpret this expression as ‘(it is) the image of
. . . the famous “god”’, followed by the name
of the ruler, lord, or lady who impersonates
the god. As it happens, tracing this pattern
throughout the inscriptions leads to the iden-
tification of several previously unknown Maya
deities.
Several deities mentioned in this ‘impersona-
tion phrase’ are clearly identifiable. The Maize
god occurs in several cases (FIGURE 7a), as does
the Sun God (FIGURE 7b) and a sinister-sounding
deity named the ‘the black hole lord’ (FIGURE
7c). Several of these phrases occur in direct
association with portraits of rulers in the ac-
tual guise of the named deity. FIGURE 8 shows
three examples. The first illustrates a corre-
spondence between rulers holding staffs and
dressed in elaborate capes with agnathous jag-
uars; jaguar markings occur on the face of one
figure (FIGURE 8). The god impersonation glyphs
show this deity is a being, the Jaguar God of
the Underworld, whose name in two cases here
is preceded by the sign for smoke or fire. We
suspect this god parallels a central Mexican
5 The banner-like sign is identical to the motif Michael
Coe (1978: 106) first identified as the ‘number tree’ or ‘com-
puter print-out’ in Maya art. The element often extrudes
from beneath the arms of scribal gods (Reents-Budet 1994:
figure 2:27), and one sculpture of Early Classic date shows
a youthful deity writing on similar vegetation (Berjonneau
et al. 1985: plate 364). We suspect that the Maya thus de-
picted a perishable medium for more casual script, rather
like the palm-leaf employed in India and southeast Asia
(Gaur 1992: 40, 50-51). The fact that only numbers occur
on such vegetation suggests its typical content: rapid
accountings unaccompanied by explanatory, linguistic
glosses. Theoretically, these notations underline an important
point made by Piotr Michalowski (n.d.: 11, 14) for Meso-
potamian script, namely, that we are dealing not with one,
unitary notational system, but with many, each potentially
of different origin and developmental trajectory.
299
deity, Huehueteotl, the old fire god (Nicholson
1971b: 412-13). Apparently, the Maya rituals
kindled fires with a lashed staff, perhaps a cer-
emonial fire-drill. One image, on Naranjo Stela
30 (FIGURE 8c), carries several records of such
events as they are linked to calendrical rituals.
Another deity impersonated by Maya lords
and ladies is named with the glyphs in FIGURE
9. Unlike the Jaguar God of fire, this deity seems
to be aquatic, represented as a serpent with a
water-lily bound to its head. Previously the name
of this ’water serpent’, as we shall call it, has
been erroneously interpreted as a blood-letting
expression (Schele 1982: figure 50). The name
glyphs of the deity include the term for ‘snake’
or ‘snake-house’, as well as, in the case of male
impersonators, the enigmatic term yax chit (?),
perhaps a mythological referent.
Another important supernatural may be
impersonated in a portrait on a sculpted door
jamb from Xcalumkin, Campeche (FIGURE 10).
Here the inscription identifies something known
as ‘18 Ubah Kan’ with the exotic costuming
usually linked with the great Mexican metropo-
lis of Teotihuacan. The name 18 Ubah Kan oc-
curs in other inscriptions in association with
Teotihuacan symbolism, and may refer to some
appropriated deity from that site. Maya lords
often linked themselves to Teotihuacan, long
after its decline as a major force in Mesoamerica
(Stone 1989; Taube 1992b; Freidel et al. 1993:
308-12; Stuart 1994).
The hieroglyphic commemorations of such
ritual impersonations are common; they clearly
provide important evidence conclusive to ques-
tions of divine kingship. Much like modern
Maya in highland Chiapas (Vogt 1993: 116),
Classic Maya lords episodically adopted the
names and costuming of particular gods and
performed rituals appropriate to those deities,
such as fire-drilling. The similarities to better-
documented practices in central Mexico (Hvidt-
feldt 1958; Klein 1986) are sufficiently striking
to suggest that Maya impersonations were not
simply mummery and costumed drama. Rather,
rulers and certain non-regnal figures shared in
some manner the divinity of those gods. The
costuming offered not so much a theatrical il-
lusion as a tangible, physical representation of
a deity. Significantly, these impersonations were
not reserved for high kings. As we have seen,
royal women and high-ranking nobles also as-
sumed these roles. Conceivably, those divine
300 STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART

\\ /

FIGUREa. Rulers in the guise of the fire god.

a Tikal Stela 9. (Jones 6.Satterthwaite 1982:figure 130.)
b Ekal Stela 13. (Jones 6.Satterthwaite 1982:figure 19b.)
c Naranjo Stela 30. (Graham 1978: 79.)
qualities we might otherwise associate with
kingship were distributed more widely among
members of the Maya Blite. Alternatively, in-
stead of diluting the singular divinity of rul-
ers, impersonations by political subordinates
may have been cast in terms of mythological
subordination. In some images on carved royal
thrones, high-ranking nobles are shown in mythi-
cal guises as supports of the king’s seat, just as
certain gods sustain the earth or heavens.
The question remains why certain gods were
selected for impersonation. Why was it deemed
necessary, for example, for a noble to assume
the identity of the Maize God or for the ’Water
Serpent’ to undertake certain rituals? Lost de-
tails of mythic narratives once held some of
the answers, no doubt. Impersonators, in any
event, may have been considered recurring
C
manifestations of deities who ‘participated’in
repeating ritual cycles.
As gods be our witness
Aside from rulers ‘possessing’gods and assum-
ing their identities on certain occasions, we find
in the Maya texts how deities could otherwise
become participants of sorts during royal cer-
emonies. Both iconographic and textual sources
reveal that gods were invoked or summoned by
various means to witness certain rituals. Several
depictions exist of supernaturals floating in clouds
near or above rituals, possibly emanating from
incense or burnt paper (FIGURE 11).In the inscrip-
tions, the act of conjuring spirits or deities is ren-
dered by the term tsak, literally ‘to conjure clouds’
in Yucatec Mayan. The hieroglyph for this event
is the so-called ‘fish-in-hand’, read TSAK, occa-
 OF GODS, GLYPHS AND KINGS: DIVINITY AND RULERSHIP AMONG THE CLASSIC MAYA 301

The body of the famous(!) ... [god’s name]

sionally spelled syllabically tsa-ka.In the inscrip-

tion of the Tablet of the Cross at Palenque, we
read that the ruler K’inich Kan B a l m ‘thrice (?)
conjures his god(s)’, apparently in reference to
the three deities of the Palenque Triad (FIGURE
12). Through such royal acts of conjuring, dei-
ties were somehow manifested to become par-
ticipants or witnesses in ceremonies.
Many ritual activities are said to occur ‘in
the company of‘ or ‘in the sight of‘ (y-ichnal)
deities (FIGURE 13).‘
An inscription from Piedras Negras, for in-
stance, records the ‘receiving’ of a war helmet
by a ruler ‘together with his god(s)’. A triad of
deities is named, perhaps constituting a set of
localized supernatural patrons, as found at
Palenque and other sites. Later in this same text
we read that the ‘Holy Lord conjured the gods’,
a phrase which tells us that the deities were
invited to participate and sponsor the ceremony
9. Water serpent glyphs and head-dress.
FIGURE
through the direct solicitation of the a Glyphs from Pomona Tablet 1.
6 The term -ichnal (spelled yi-chi-NAL) perhaps appears b Panel in Bowers Museum. (Drawing by John
in modern Yucatec Mayan as -iknal, an inalienably pos- Montgomery)
sessed noun with two possible meanings: ’home or habitual
place’ or the perceptual ‘inner space [that] can be encom- This evidence from the inscriptions shows
passed in a single visual field and is in practical reach of that ‘gods’ operate not as distant creator be-
any adult within it’ (Hanks 1989: 91-2). Linguistically, the ings, coupled exclusively with incidents in
term refers to the corporeal field of one person and as such
suggests a more precise understanding of the related glyphic remote time and space, but rather participate
expression: the gods appear as witnesses and not, prop- as ritual sponsors, particularly at moments when
erly speaking, as direct participants in ritual. When they- rulers receive key regalia under the authority
ichnol expression involves two human beings, the second of gods. Moreover, even though some of the rites
name corresponds to someone of higher status who spon-
sors the event.
described are approximately the same (the re-
ception of regal emblems), the emphasis on
7 One of the gods at La Mar, Bolon Yokte K’u, plays a role certain gods varies from site to site. In the case
in many texts, but the most enigmatic completes the inscrip- of Palenque, the triad of GI, GI1 and GI11 are of
tion of Monument 6 from Tortuguero, Mexico. Here is re-
special interest only to the local dynasty, sug-
corded a calendrical event in the early 21st century AD, at
which time, apparently, the god may ‘descend’ye-ma,y-emal gesting the existence of tutelary gods in purely
(there are some technical problems with this translation). The local association with dynasties. This is appar-
reference is notable for its uniqueness. Prophecy forms an ently also true of other centres, where the same
important body of colonial Maya literature but is poorly rep- deities may appear in different aspects as the
resented in Classic Maya texts, where future statements re-
late almost exclusively to impersonal temporal events that foci of distinct, localized cults. The records of
are safely predictable [e.g., the 13 baktuns will be finished at sites in the Petexbatun region of Guatemala,
13.0.0.0.0 in the Maya Long Count). for example, contain consistent references to
302 STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART

(FIGURE 15). The action recalls the Aztec prac-

tice of seizing effigies of enemy gods and then
housing them ‘as spiritual hostages in a special
building, the coateocalli’ (Townsend 1992: 91).
By this means, the Aztecs absorbed and usurped
I the cults of the vanquished, undermining their
claims to an independent spiritual identity.
We believe such patterns profoundly affect
our understanding of Classic Maya divinities.
Rather like central Mexico and even Classical
Antiquity, Maya deities display complex local-
ized aspects and political associations (see
Weber 1978: 413-14; MacMullen 1981: 1-7).
There may be a K’awil or a ‘GI’ venerated at
several sites, but it is not so much a single god
as multiple, distinctly conceptualized versions
forming a deity ‘complex’. Such deities also
suggest something of the extraordinary com-
plexity of Classic Maya theology. There is no
one set of gods codified and venerated by all
Classic Maya. Rather, there are localized cults.
A god revered at one site may partly share the
name of a god at another, but we cannot pre-
sume an identity of ritual roles, meanings, or
history of development. A ‘creation’ event at
Dos Pilas, Guatemala, indicates the participa-
tion of local gods at an event usually interpreted
in pan-Maya terms (cf. Freidel et al. 1993: 64-
75 and Houston 1993: figure 4-4). Future stud-
ies of Classic religion must take this variety into
account and avoid using one site, especially
Palenque, as a paradigmatic model for beliefs
elsewhere in the Yucatan peninsula (cf.Freidel
& Schele 1988).

FIGURE10.impersonation of Teotihuacan god. Godly images

(Graham b von Euw 1992: 168.)
It would be a mistake, in our view, to assume
‘GI-K’awii’, perhaps a deity pair or, alternatively, that the ‘participation’ of deities in royal ritual
a hybrid form of two entities, rather like those was an abstract ideal, induced through hallu-
described above in some royal names (FIGURE cinogenic visions and ‘conjuring’. Rather, we
14). GI-K’awil owned a stela, according to one suggest that, much like in Postclassic Central
text, and perhaps also took the form of a cult Mexico, Classic Maya courts possessed abun-
effigy that was erected or dressed. According dant images of gods comparable to the Aztec
to another inscription, an enemy may even have teixiptla, described above. A possible glyph for
destroyed the god’s ‘banner’ in an act which such images occurs in the jumbled stucco in-
presumably humiliated the dynasty connected scription of Temple 18 at Palenque, Chiapas
to this god or god pair. (FIGURE 16a):U-wi-ni-BAH, u-winba, ‘effigy,im-
Another deity is closely linked to the Copan age’ in Yucatec Maya. Another glyph of the same
dynasty and especially the unfortunate ruler meaning occurs on Dos Pilas Stela 15, and glyphs
18 Ubah K’awil, who was taken captive by the for k’oh, ‘mask’or ‘image’, have been found in
ruler of Quirigua. Quirigua Stela I describes this several inscriptions (Freidel et al. 1993: 65).
deity as ‘the god of 18 Ubah K‘awiI’ just a few In artistic representations, as well, cult effigies
days before the captive lord was decapitated are commonly depicted. At Palenque an im-
 OF GODS, GLYPHS AND KINGS: DIVINITY AND RULERSHIP AMONG THE CLASSIC MAYA 303

FIGURE 11. Floating

gods, lxlu Stela 2.
(Jones 6.Satterth-
waite 1982: figure
80.1

age of a god is presumably unwrapped from
an enclosing bundle (FIGURE16b). According
to Macri (1988: 116-17), the ritual dressing of
effigies of the Palenque Triad gods is a major
thematic focus of the texts within the Temple
of the Inscriptions at Palenque.
The physical remains of Classic period cult
effigies are understandably rare, apparently
being manufactured ofwood and stucco for the
most part. A large Preclassic figure of the rain
god Chaak was discovered within a ritual cave
by Ian Graham (see Stuart & Stuart 1977: 53).
304 STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART

Maya ‘pot gods’, lak-il k’uh (McGee 1990: 51-

2). Like teixiptla, the ‘pot gods’ are periodic
receptacles for divine force and the tangible
medium through which gods consume offer-
ings made to them.
To claim the Classic Maya made use of cult
effigies or ‘idols’may state the obvious, but some
debate exists on how Maya religion may have
FIGURE12. The hieroglyph for tsak, ‘conjure’ changed during the transition between the Clas-
(second glyph). (After drawing b y Linda Schele.) sic and Postclassic eras. Indeed, this issue has
received far less attention than deserved. Ac-
Archaeologists at Tikal, Guatemala, found disin- cording to much received wisdom, derived
tegrated wooden effigies of the god K’awil -very largely from native Maya chronicles composed
similar to those bundled figures depicted in the during colonial times (see Tozzer 1941: 23), the
Palenque tablets - in Burial 195, a royal burial ‘collapse’ of numerous Classic-period kingdoms
near the centre of the city (FIGURE 16c; Coe 1990: was followed by a period of intense ‘Mexican’
figure 198). Accordingly, we have textual refer- influence, where the veneration of rulers in the
ences to effigies as well as their physical remains. ‘stela cult’ gave way to idolatry and, according
We should mention one final category of to at least one source (Seler 1898),‘bloody sac-
image. El Zapote Stela 1 (FIGIJRE 17), a monu- rificial rites’. As Taube (1992a) has demon-
ment dating to the Early Classic period, depicts strated, however, the gods of the Postclassic
the image of a Maya deity, a variant of Chak, era were closely linked to Classic period ante-
the rain god. The text on the back of the stela cedents. Although the infusion of central Mexi-
clearly specifies that the stela (u-Zakam-tun-il) can culture into northern Yucatan i n the
belongs to this god, who in turn is the deity ( u - Terminal Classic period did involve the adop-
k’u-il) of a local lord. Later, the text apparently tion of new deities, ‘cults’and new iconographic
establishes an equivalence between the god and ideals, the essential ‘Maya-ness’ of the religion
his monument, as though both were one and encountered in the conquest of Yucatan can-
the same. Effigies may also have taken the form not be denied. Certainly sacrificial rites were
of vessels, such as the GI cache vessels of the as old as Mesoamerican religion itself. This is
Early Classic period, that received the same sort why the later traditions of Central Mexico and
of animating force attested for later Lacandon Yucatan are reasonable models for many as-

He receives the helmet [ruler‘sname1 in the company of

FIGURE 13. The

company of gods on
Piedras Negras Panel
2, H1-K1. (Drawing by
his gods [god 11 [god21 [god31 David Stuart. 1
 OF GODS, GLYPHS AND KINGS: DIVINITY AND RULERSHIP AMONG THE CLASSIC MAYA
pects of Classic period religion, including the
veneration of cult effigies. The chief disjunc-
tion between the Classic and the Postclassic
religious paradigms concerns the changing
nature of royal oversight of ritual activity, or at
least in the way this was presented in the hi-
eroglyphic writing and art. With the political
disintegration of many lowland kingdoms in
the 9th century, some royal ancestral cults no
doubt foundered; while the role of kingly ritual
underwent drastic transformations, the under-
lying nature of deities and the means of repre-
senting them remained startlingly similar.
The practice of using cult effigies continues
to be common, in one form or another. Today,
ritual processions take place among the high-
land Maya of Chiapas, Mexico, where move-
ment ‘consists of a group of ritualists walking
single-file, in fixed rank order, from one shrine
to another’ (Vogt 1993: 42). A few such proces-
sions, often stretching over days, are known
for Classic Maya rulers (Stuart & Houston 1994:
90-92). Remarkably, these resemble ritual move-
ments of modern Maya in that they involve east-
to-west movements (Gossen 1972: 147),which
set out ‘from the direction of the rising sun and
flow[ing] along its path’ (Vogt 1985: 488, 489;
1993: 43). More broadly still, they recall the
triumphal progress of charismatic rulers in the
Old World, who may employ processions to
‘locate the society’s center and affirm its con-
nections with transcendent things by stamp-
ing a territory with rituals signs of dominance’
(Geertz 1977: 153).Whether or not one accepts
Geertz’s notion of exemplary rulers -and there
are grounds for questioning its reductionistic
view of monarchy in the region where he de-
fined it (Barth 1993: 221-4) - these proces-
sions served as more than casual outings.
The custom of carrying god images during
the Classic period may contribute in part to the
current practice in some Maya communities,
which meld syncretic images of Catholic saints
with concepts of local sovereignty. When im-
ages sally forth in seasonalprocessions,they survey
the boundary of their domain and function ‘as
principal participants [in ritual] rather than mere
. . . objects of devotion’ (Watanabe 1992: 72).
‘[Vlisible,familiar,and generally predictable’,these
saintly images insist on clothing, feeding and
processing (Watanabe 1992: 75). Their relation-
ship with the community presupposes reciprocal
obligations,the saint to be tended, the community
305
FIGURE 1 4 . Local god
of the Petexbatun
kingdom, from
Aguateca Stela 1 .
(Graham 1967:
figure 3.)
ku-yu-?-ki a-ha-wa (god’s name)
U-K’U-il 18-(u)ba(h)-K’awil
(ruler’sname)
FIGURE 15. Local god of Copan ruler, from
Quirigua Stela 1 , 08-010. (After drawing by
Matthew Looper.)
to be protected and sanctified by its presence
(Watanabe 1992: 75). Visits of saintly images to
other towns may ‘preserve an earlier ritual of
obeisance by patron deities, through which re-
gional hierarchical integration was expressed and
reinforced’ (Farriss 1984: 152).
We do not suggest that the ‘cult of saints’ is
more Maya than folk Catholic, yet the ritual
behaviour connected with them does have in-
digenous parallels. Often, modern Maya saints
indulge in amorous intrigue and possess venge-
ful, bilious temperaments. Their human peti-
tioners demand more than revere (Madsen 1967:
381), and Maya have been known to suspend
unco-operative saints upside down in trees (John
Monaghan pers. comm.). Some of these surpris-
ing actions occur in medieval Europe as well
(Alan Kolata pers. comm.).But, at the least, we
can see in the profound social bonds between
saints and particular communities a reflection
306 STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART

FIGURE 1 6 . God effigies

in Classic Maya art
and writing.
a Effigy dYPh
(winba), Palenque
Temple XVIII stuccoes.
(After Schele S.
Mathews 1979: 431.1
b Image of effigy,
Palenque Temple XIV
tablet. (After drawing
b y Linda Schele.1
c God effigy from
Ekal Burial 185. (After
Coe 1967: 57.)
of the tutelary gods, some tangible as carved among the Classic Maya. We have evidence of:
images, that existed throughout ancient Meso- 1 declarations that living lords were god-like,
america. In Postclassic Mexico, these images alongside stronger claims for the divinity
supplied leaders with political authority as ‘god- of deceased rulers in the ascending gen-
bearers’ or ‘god-protector lords’ (see Schroeder eration;
1991: 122-3,142,172-3). Embodiments of the 2 royal epithets representing rhetorical, ana-
community, images were the targets of raids logical claims to divinity;
by antagonistic groups, just as saintly images 3 narratives or iconography likening royal
are sometimes stolen or spirited away today behaviour to the exemplary behaviour of
(Nicholson 1971b: 409). In all likelihood, Classic gods;
Maya architecture of the elite cannot be un- 4 intermittent possession by godly force
derstand solely in terms of mortuary or resi- through costuming and behaviour appro-
dential architecture -the prevailing mode of priate to certain deities;
interpretation - but as places where these 5 summons of gods to witness, presumably
images were housed in the splendour and with favour, the rituals of living rulers;
cosseted privacy due them [Houston in press). and
6 the possession and tending of god images
Divinity and rulership, authority and belief which, most sources indicate, served as
This article began with a list of devices to link receptacles of divine force.
rulers and divinity, all of which are present This last, involving the custodianship of im-
 OF GODS, GLYPHS AND KINGS: DIVINITY AND RULERSHIP AMONG THE CLASSIC MAYA 307

1
ages, argues powerfully for the assertion of le-
gitimate rule through royal possession of ‘eth-
nic’ or ‘tribal’ gods that prefigure the saints’
cults of the historic Maya region. The strate- .. .. .. ... ..
.;.: ;,-:.;
gies employed by Classic Maya rulers resem- ......

1
........
.....
ble general patterns documented for ancient .. ... ..
Egypt, where the king ‘is marginal to the world
of the gods, yet through him they rely on this
world and on human efforts to sustain them j;.....$
: .:. ,

and the cosmos’ (Baines 1995: 11).

... .. . ...,. ,. ... .’ ..
Armed with several recent decipherments, .......
. ., ..:..
. . ..:. .
......
we can return to the apparent paradox that Maya ’ : ’ . - . ’
,

kings were at once ‘gods’ and men. Through

their close interactions with deities, extending
to the point of apparently exerting control over

FIGURE 17.El Zapote Stela 1 . (Afterfield drawing

by Ian Graham, courtesy of the Corpus of Maya
Hieroglyphic Inscriptions, Peabody Museum,
Harvard University.]
308 STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART

them through acts of conjuring, kings and high drawal of divine favor, and the charter of reli-
nobles could claim an obvious qualitative dif- gious failing can be strategically used in a cam-
ference from those of lower social and politi- paign of de-authorization’ (Lincoln 1994: 207).
cal standing. The ritual acts that displayed and Supernatural mandates, laden with possibili-
presented such roles were certainly important ties, are also fraught with risk; the prudent lord
in defining the category of ahaw, ‘lord’,yet they favours routinized ritual over unpredictable and
were perhaps not the exclusive domain of high falsifiable divination (David Webster pers.
rulers. What set rulers apart, then, defining them comm.). The same point was made long ago
as true divine rulers? We have suggested that a in Weber’s (1978: 1114-15) study of charis-
more ‘quantitative’ distinction may be crucial, matic domination and legitimacy. Once cha-
specifically with regard to the relative strength risma and its supernatural supports were made
or heat of one’s life essence or soul, widely routine and institutionalized, ‘charisma and
known as ch’ulel (literally ‘holiness’).The wide- charismatic blessing [could be transformed1
spread title of high kings, k’ul ahaw or ‘Holy from a unique transitory gift of grace of ex-
Lord’, may intimate that kings, through their traordinary times and persons into a perma-
close connexions to the spiritual realm, were nent possession of everyday life’ (Weber 1978:
the ‘hottest’ of all living people. 1121). Whether such efforts are successful is
A compelling theological framework for another matter.
understanding the Classic Maya idea of divin- For scholars, a difficult issue is the nature
ity, especially as resident in masks, clothing of the strategies documented for the Classic
and effigies, comes from near-by central Mexico. Maya. Were these held by the entire society,
General comparisons, once common in Meso- and how did they shift through time? We have
american studies and evident in this paper, are described a system of legitimation predicated
unfashionable; research tends now to focus on on dynastic assertions of divinity and monopo-
comparisons within sub-regions and language listic attempts to control divine mediation. These
groups. That approach is defensible analytically efforts may have met with variable success, and
in that scholars preserve control over context almost certainly shifted subtly as elites began
and historical setting. But there is also a cost: to play a more ostentatious role in sculpture
broader patterns become less clear, and students and writing towards the middle of the Late
lose sight of the essential fact that Mesoamerica Classic period (Fash 1991: 160-61; Houston
remains a region of intense interaction and 1993: figure 5-4). Following Giddens (1984: 29),
homologous, tandem development. In our view, we see royal ‘power’ not as an abstraction, to
the ‘Mesoamericanist’ and ‘sub-regionalist’ be linked inflexibly to certain titles, or as a set
approaches are neither wrong nor right. Both of static propositions, but as the tangible con-
remain essential to a balanced perspective on sequence of interaction between flesh-and-blood
Mesoamerican antiquity, and the tension be- actors. Power derives from social and political
tween the two defines a crucial zone of research. discourse involving assertion, on the one hand,
We have also touched on the role of divin- and acceptance or rejection by persons for whom
ity and kingship in even broader terms. In au- that message is intended, on the other. As with
thorizing royal action, appeals to divinity appear any institution, divine kingship involves, as
to come ‘from a realm beyond history, society, Baines (1995: 6) contends for ancient Egypt,
politics, beyond the terrain in which interested human mortals fulfilling divine roles that have
and situated actors struggle over scarce re- to be ‘continuallyrenegotiated and redefined’.
sources’ (Lincoln 1994: 112). This transcend- The system of beliefs about Maya kings stud-
ent quality of divine or divine-centred rule is ied here is only one part of that equation.
fundamental, for it contravenes ‘massive chal- Whether it was widely held, whether it was
lenges’ to a king’s decisions in virtue of his link- believed firmly by the larger population, is
age to godly force (Bendix 1978: 171.Yet saying another. A system of rule does not exist in the
that one rules with divine authority is not the abstract, divorced from people. To operate, that
same thing as exercising absolute rule. Far from system must have people who believe in its
it: ‘[wlherever authority rests on religion, any validity on an unreflective or subjective level
slip in authority can be interpreted as a with- (Weber 1978: 33).
 OF GODS, GLYPHS AND KINGS: DIVINITY AND RULERSHIP AMONG THE CLASSIC MAYA
The views expressed in CIassic Maya art and
inscriptions were royal views of the universe
and its divine orderings, yet this is not to say
that such ideas were simply imposed upon the
ancient societies at large by a controlling Blite.
The presentation of royal power, divine authority
and the convergence between the two certainly
can be interpreted (sometimes too simply) as
forms of political propaganda (Marcus 1992),
but the underlying notions of divinity and power
likely derived from more ancient, pervasive
concepts that explained and personified the
natural world (Freidel et aI. 1993: 58). Notions
of rulership and divinity described here coa-
lesced within an idiom of an animating, godly
force and represented its compelling extension
into the realm of political authority. The graft-
ing of ever-changing ideas about political power
on to more broadly held concepts about the
nature of the universe probably made those
notions more compelling to royal subjects. In-
terestingly, some ancient notions of divine au-
thority and its manifestations may have survived
to modern times, despite even the removal of
native Blites at the conquest. The persistence
of ritual presentations, terminologies and even
some royal titles suggests ideas that continue
over long periods. But the emphasis on conti-
nuity, on the basic premisses that underlie Maya
existence, past and present, risks neglecting
References
BAINES, J. 1995. Kingship, definition of culture, and legitima-
tion, in O'Connor & Silverman (1995b): 3-47. Leiden: E.J.
Brill.
BARTH,F. 1993. Bolinese worlds. Chicago [IL): University of
Chicago Press.
BARTHEL,T.S. 1952. Die Morgensternkult in den Darstellungen
der Dresdener Mayahandschrift, Ethnos 17: 73-112.
BEALS,R.L. 1945. Ethnologyof the western Mixe. Berkeley (CA):
University of California Press. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology
4211).
BEARD,M. 1990. Priesthood in the Roman republic, in Beard &
North (ed.): 19-48.
BEARD, M. & J. NORTHled.). 1990. Pagan priests: religion and
power in the ancient world. London: Duckworth.
BEETZ, C.P. & L. SATTERTHWAITE. 1981. The monuments and
inscriptions of Caracol, Belize. Philadelphia (PA): Uni-
versity Museum, University of Pennsylvania. University
Museum Monograph 45.
BENDIX, R. 1978. Kings or people: power and the mondate to
rule. Berkeley (CAI: University of California Press.
BERJONNEAU, G., E. DELETAILLE & J.-L. SONNERY. 1985. Redis-
covered masterpieces of Mesoamerica: Mexico-Guate-
mala-Honduras. Boulogne: Editions Arts.
BERLIN, H. 1963. The Palenque triad, Journol de la Socikte des
Amiricanistes 59: 107-35.
309
important patterns of local variation. In this
essay, we have identified elements, strategies
and probable objectives of divine kingship
among the Classic Maya, and stressed their re-
lation to a complex, localized theology. Still
unwritten, but urgently needed, is a study of
how rulership changed through time - this it
surely did -and how the rhetoric of rulership
and divinity, our focus in this article, corre-
sponded to the political realities of the Classic
period.
Acknowledgements. This paper has several ancestors, in-
cluding a version presented by Houston at the University
of California, Riverside, and another presented by him at
Michael D. Coe's retirement symposium, sponsored by Yale
University. John Clark, Cecilia Klein, John Monaghan, Bridget
Hodder Stuart and Karl Taube helped throughout with good
advice, moral support, and references to relevant litera-
ture, supplied also by Peter Heather. Most of the research
here benefitted from support provided by t h e National
Endowment for the Humanities through a Collaborative
Projects grant awarded Lo the authors through Brigham
Young, Yale a n d H a r v a r d h i v e r s i t i e s , and from funds gen-
erously awarded by Dean Clayne Pope of Brigham Young.
The NEH, an independent Federal Agency, takes n o respon-
sibility for our comments, nor do other friends who have
contributed ideas and bibliography to this manuscript: Jos6
Miguel Garcia Campillo, Tom Cummins, Miguel Civil, Nick
Dunning, Bill Hanks, John Hawkins, Alan Kolata, John
Robertson, Evon Vogt and David Webster. Kerr numbers cor-
respond to roll-out images i n the Justin Kerr archive that he
has most generously shared with us. Superb drawings by Ian
Graham and his colleagues also illustrate this article.
BLOCH.M. 1987. The ritual of the royal bath in Madagascar:
the dissolution of death, birth and fertility into author-
ity, in Cannadine & Price led.): 271-97.
BOONE, E.H. 1989. Incarnotions of the supernatural: the image
of Huitzilopochtli in Mexico and Europe. Philadelphia
(PA): American Philosophical Society.
BOTT~RO, J. 1992. Mesopotamia: writing, reosoning, ond the
gods. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.
BURGHART, R. 1987. Gifts to the gods: power, property, and cer-
emonial in Nepal, in Cannadine & Price (ed.): 237-70.
BURKHART, L.M. 1988. The s1ippeIyearth: Nahua-Christian moral
dialogue in 3 6th-century Mexico. Tucson (AZ): Univer-
sity of Arizona Press.
CANNADINE, D. 1987. Introduction: divine rites of kings, in
Cannadine & Price (ed.1: 1-19.
CANNADINE, D. & S . PRICE led.]. 1987. Rituals ofroyalty:power
and ceremonial in traditional societies. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
CARRASCO,P. 1950. Los Otomies: cultura e historia prehispanicas
de 10s pueblos mesoamericonos d e habla otomiano.
Mexico: Instituto de Historia, Universidad Nacional
Autonoma de MBxico.
COE,M.D. 1973. The Maya scribe and his world. New York
(NY): Grolier Club.
1978. Lords of the underworld: masterpieces of Classic Maya
ceramics.Princeton INJ):Art Museum, Princeton University.
310 STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART
COE, W.R. 1967. Tikal: a handbook of the ancient Maya ruins.
Philadelphia (PA): University Museum, University of
Pennsylvania.
1990. Excavations in the Great Plaza, North Terrace and
North Acropolis of Tikal. Philadelphia (PA): University
Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Tikal Report 14,
Volume V. University Museum Monograph 61.
FARRISS, N.M. 1984. Maya society under colonial rule: the col-
lective enterprise of survival. Princeton (NJ]: Princeton
University Press.
FASH,W.L. 1991. Scribes, warriors and kings: the city of Copan
and the ancient Maya. London: Thames & Hudson.
FERRIE, H. 1995. A conversation with K.C. Chang, Current A n -
thropology 3 6 : 307-25.
FOUGHT, J. 1986. Cholti Maya: a sketch, in M.S. Edmonson (ed.),
Supplement to the handbook of Middle American Indi-
ans 2: Linguistics: 43-55. Austin (TX): [Jniversity of Texas
Press.
FREIDEL, D.A. 1992. The trees of life: ahau as idea and artifact
in Classic Lowland Maya civilization, in A.A. Demarest
& G.W. Conrad led.), Ideology and Pre-Columbian civili-
zations: 115-33. Santa Fe (NM): School of American Re-
search Press.
FREIDEL, D.A. & L. SCHELE. 1988. Kingship i n the late Preclassic
Maya Lowlands: the instruments and places of ritual power,
American Anthropologist 90(3): 547-67.
FREIDEL, D., L. SCHELE & J. PARKER. 1993. Maya cosmos: 3000
years on the shaman’s path. Ncw York (NY): William
Morrow.
GARLAND, R. 1990. Priests and power in Classical Athens, in
Beard & North (ed.): 75-91.
GAUR,A. 1992. A historyof writing. New York (NY):Cross River
Press.
GEERTZ,C. 1977. Centers, kings, and charisma: reflections on
the symholics of power, i n J. Ben-David & T.N. Clark (ed.],
Culture and its creators: essays in honor of Edward Shils:
150-71. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.
1980. Negara: the theatre statein 19th-centuryBali, Princeton
(NJ):Princeton University Press.
GIDDENS, A. 1984. The constitution of sociefy: outline of the
theory ofstructuration. Berkeley (CA): LJniversity of Cali-
fornia Press.
GOSSEN, G.H. 1972. Temporal and spatial equivalents i n Chamula
ritual symbolism, in W.A. Lessa & E.Z. Vogt (ed.), Reader
i n comparative religion: an anthropological approach:
135-49. New York (NY): Harper & Row.
1986. Mesoamerican ideas as a foundation for regional syn-
thesis, in G.H. Gossen (ed.), Symbol and meaning beyond
the closed community: essays in Mesoamerican ideas:
1-8. Albany (NY): Institute for Mesoamerican Studies.
GRAHAM, I. 1967. Archaeological explorations in El Peten, Gua-
temola. New Orleans (LA): Middle American Research
Institute, Tulane University. Publication 33.
1978. Corpus ofMaya hieroglyphic inscriptions 2(2): Naranjo,
Chunhuitz, Xunantunich. Cambridge (MA): Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard Uni-
versity.
1980. Corpus ofMaya hieroglyphic inscriptions 2(3): Ixkun,
Ucanal, Ixtutz, Naranjo. Cambridge (MA): Peabody Mu-
seum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.
1982. Corpus of Maya hieroglyphic inscriptions 3(3): Yax-
chilan. Cambridge MA): Peabody Museum of Archaeol-
ogy and Ethnology, Harvard University.
GRAHAM, I. & E. VON EUW. 1975. Corpus of Maya hieroglyphic
inscriptions 2 ( l ) : Naranjo. Cambridge M A ) : Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard Uni-
versity.
1992. Corpus of Maya hieroglyphic hnscriptions 4(3): Uxmal,
Xcalumkin. Cambridge M A ) : Peabody Museum of Ar-
chaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.
GROVE,D.C. 1987. Comments on the site and its organization,
in D.C. Grove (ed.), Ancient Chalcatzingo: 420-33. Aus-
tin (TX): University of Texas Press.
E & W. NAHM.1994. A census of Xibalba: a complete
G R ~ J BN.
inventory of waycharacters on Maya ceramics, in B. Kerr
& J. Kerr (ed.), The Maya vase book: a corpus of rollout
photographs of Maya vases 4. New York (NY): Kerr As-
sociates.
GRUZINSKI, S. 1989. Man-gods in the Mexican highlands: In-
dian power and coloniaf society, 1520-1800. Stanford (CA):
Stanford University Press.
GUITERAS-HOLMES, C. 1961. Perils of the soul: the world view
of a Tzotzil Indian. Glencoe (NY): The Free Press.
HANKS,W.F. 1990. Referential practice: language and lived space
among the Maya. Chicago (IL):University of Chicago Press.
HOCART,A.M. 1970. Kings and councillors: an essay in the
comparative anatomy of human society. Chicago (IL):
University of Chicago Press.
HOUSTON,S.D. 1989. Reading the past: Maya glyphs. London:
British Museum Publications.
1993. Hieroglyphs and history at Dos Pilas: dynastic politics
of the ClassicMaya. Austin (TX): University of Texas Press.
1995. Killing death: mortuary beliefs of the Classic Maya.
Paper presented at the symposium ‘Death, Burial, and
the Afterlife’, San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego (CAI.
In press. Symbolic sweatbaths of the Maya: architectural
meaning in the Cross Group at Palenque, Mexico, Latin
American Antiquity.
HOUSTON, S.D. & D.S. STUART.1989. The Way glyph: evidence
for ‘co-essences’ among the Classic Maya. Washington
(DC): Center for Maya Research. Research Reports on
Ancient Maya Writing 30.
HVIDTFELDT, A. 1958. Teotl and Ixiptlatli: some central con-
ceptions in ancient Mexican religion. Copenhagen:
Andreassen.
JONES,C. & L. SATTERTHWAITE. 1982. The monuments and in-
scriptions of Tikal: the carved monuments. Philadelphia
(PA): University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
University Museum Monograph 44.
KANTOROWICZ, E.H. 1957. The king’s two bodies: a study in
mediaeval political theology. Princeton (NJ): Princeton
University Press.
KAUFMAN, T.S. & W.M. NORMAN.1984. An outline of proto-
Cholan phonology, morphology, and vocabulary, i n J.S.
Justeson & L. Campbell (ed.), Phoneticism in Mayan hi-
eroglyphic writing: 77-166. Albany (NY): Institute for
Mesoamerican Studies, State University of New York at
Albany. Publication 9.
KEIGHTLEY, D.N. 1978. The religious commitment: Shang the-
ology and the genesis of Chinese political culture, His-
toryof Religions 17: 211-25.
KELLEY, D.H. 1965. The birth of the gods at Palenque, Estudios
de Cultura Maya5: 93-134.
KEMP,B. 1989. Ancient Egypt: anatomyof a civilization. Lon-
don: Routledge.
KERTZER, D. 1988. Ritual, politics, andpower. New Haven (CT):
Yale University Press.
KLEIN, C.F. 1986. Masking empire: the material effects of masks
i n Aztec Mexico, Art History 9(2):135-67.
KUBLER, G. 1969. Studies in Classic Maya iconography. New
Haven (CT): Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Memoirs 18.
LIEBESCHUETZ, J.H.W.G. 1979. Continuity and change in Ro-
m a n religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
LINCOLN, B. 1994. Authority: construction and corrosion. Chi-
cago (IL): University of Chicago Press.
LOCKHART, J. 1992. The Nahuas after the conquest: a social
and cultural history of the lndians of central Mexico, 16th
through 18th centuries. Stanford (CAI: Stanford Univer-
sity Press.
 OF GODS, GLYPHS AND KINGS: DIVINITY AND RULERSHIP AMONG THE CLASSIC MAYA
L6PEZ AUSTIN,A. 1993. The myths of the Opossum: pathways
of Mesoamerican mythology. Albuquerque (NMJ:Univer-
sity of New Mexico Press.
LOUNSSURY, F.G. 1980. Some problems in the interpretation of
the mythological portion of the hieroglyphic text of the
Temple of the Cross at Palenque, in M.G. Robertson (ed.),
Third Palenque Round Table, 1978, Part 2: 99-115. Aus-
tin (TXJ: University of Texas Press.
MCANANY, P. 1995. Ancestors and the Classic Mayabuilt envi-
ronment. Paper presented at the Dumbarton Oaks Fall
Symposium, ‘Function and Meaning i n Classic Maya
Architecture’.
MCGEE,R.J. 1990. Life, ritual, a n d religion among the Lacandon
Maya. Belmont (CAJ:Wadsworth.
MACMULLEN, R. 1981. Paganism in the Roman empire. New
Haven (CT): Yale University Press.
MACRI,M. 1988. A descriptive grammar of Palenque Mayan.
Ph.D dissertation, University of California, Berkeley (CAJ.
MADSEN,W. 1960. The Virgin’s children: life in on Aztec vil-
lage today. Austin (TX): University of Texas Press.
1967. Religious syncretism, in M. Nash (ed.), Handbook of
Middle American Indians 6: 369-91. Austin (TX): Uni-
versity of Texas Press.
MARCUS, J. 1978. Archaeology and religion: a comparison of
the Zapotec and Maya, World Archaeology l O ( 2 ) : 172-
91.
1983. Topic 97: Zapotec religion, in K.V. Flannery & J. Marcus
(ed.), The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec
a n d Mixtec civilizations: 345-51. New York (NY): Aca-
demic Press.
1989. Zapotec chiefdoms and the nature of formative reli-
gions, in R.J. Sharer & D.C. Grove (ed.),Regionalperspec-
tives on the Ulmec: 148-97. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
1992. Mesoamerican writing systems: propaganda, myth,
a n d history in four ancient civilizations. Princeton (NJJ:
Princeton University Press.
MARCUS,J. & K. FLANNERY. 1994. Ancient Zapotec ritual and
religion: a n application of the direct historical approach,
in C. Renfrew & E.B.W. Zubrow (ed.1, The ancient mind:
elements of cognitive archaeology: 55-74. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
MARKMAN, P.T. & R.H. MARKMAN. 1989. Masks of the spirit:
image and metaphorin Mesoamerica. Berkeley (CAJ:Uni-
versity of California Press.
MARTIN, S. N.d. Tikal’s ‘star war’ against Naranjo. Unpublished
paper, London.
MATHEWS, P. 1991. Classic Maya emblem glyphs, i n T.P. Culbert
(ed.1, Classic Maya political history: hieroglyphic a n d
archaeological evidence: 19-29. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
MICHALOWSKI, P. N.d. On the early toponymy of Sumer: a con-
tribution to the study of early Mesopotamian writing. Un-
published paper, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (MI).
MOERTONO, S. 1968. State and statecraft in oldfava: a study of
the later Mataram period, 16th to 19th century. Ithaca
(NY): Southeast Asia Program, Department of Asian Stud-
ies, Cornell University.
NICHOLSON, H.B. 1971a. Pre-hispanic central Mexican bistorio-
graphy, i n Investigaciones contempordneas sobre l a
historia d e Mexico: memorias de la tercera reunidn de
historiadores Mexiconos y Norteomericanos (1969): 38-
81. MBxico (DF): Universidad Nacional Autdnoma de
MBxico.
1971b. Religion in pre-hispanic central Mexico, i n R.
Wauchape (ed.), Handbook of Middle American Indians
l O ( 1 ) : 395-446. Austin (TXJ:University of Texas Press.
O’CONNOR,D. & D.P. SILVERMAN. 1995a. Introduction, in
O’Connor & Silverman (ed): xvii-xxvii.
(Ed.). 1995b. Ancient Egyptian kingship. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
311
PEMBERTON, J. 1994. On the subject of ‘Java’. Ithaca (NYJ:Cornell
University Press.
PRICE,S. 1987. From noble funerals to divine cult the consecration
of Roman emperors, in Cannadine & Price (ed.1: 56105.
PROSKOURIAKOFF, T. 1965. Sculpture and major arts of the Classic
Lowlands, in R. Wauchope (ed.), Handbook of Middle
American Indians 2: 469-97. Austin (TXJ: University of
Texas Press.
1978. Olmec gods and Maya god-glyphs, in M. Giardino,
B. Edmonson & W. Creamer (ed.), Codex Wauchope: 113-
17. New Orleans (LA]: Tulane University.
REENTS-BUDET, D. 1994. Painting the Mnya universe: royal ce-
ramics of the Classic period. Durham (NCJ: Duke Uni-
versity Press.
RINGLE,W.M. 1988. Ufmiceandmonkeys: the valueandmeaning
of TI01 6, the God C hieroglyph. Washington (DCJ: Center
for Maya Research. Research Reports on Ancient Maya
Writing 18.
SAHLINS, M. 1981. The stranger-king, or Dumbzil among the
Fijians, Iournal ofPacific History 16: 107-32.
SCHELE, L. 1982. Maya glyphs: the verbs. Austin (TX): Univer-
sity of Texas Press.
1992. The founders of lineages at Copan and other Maya
sites, Ancient Mesoamerica 3: 135-44.
SCHELE,L. & D. FREIDEL. 1990. A forest of kings: the untold
story of the ancient Maya. New York (NY): Marrow.
SCHELE, L. & P. MATHEWS. 1979. The Bodega of Palenque, Chiopas,
Mexico. Washington (DC): Dumbarton Oaks.
SCHELLHAS, P. 1904. Representation of deities of the Maya manu-
scripts. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University. Papers of
the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Eth-
nology 4(1).
SCHROEDER, S. 1991. Chimalpahin a nd the kingdoms of Chalco.
Tucson (AZJ: University of Arizona Press.
SELER, E. 1898. Quetzalcouatl-Kukulcan in Yucatan. Zeitschrift
furEthnologie 30: 377-410.
SJOBERG, A. 1957-71. Gotterreisen, in Reallexikon derAssyrio-
logie und Vorderasiatischen Archaologie 3: 480-83. Ber-
lin: Walter de Gruyter.
SPORES,R. 1967. The Mixtec kings a n d their people. Norman
(OK): University of Oklahoma Press.
1984. The Mixtecs in ancient a n d colonial times. Norman
(OK): University of Oklahoma Press.
STONE, A. 1989. Disconnection, foreign insignia, and political
expansion: Teotihuacan and the warrior stelae of Piedras
Negras, in R.A. Diehl & J.C. Berlo (ed.),Mesoamerica af-
ter the decline of Teotihuacan, AD 700-900: 153-72. Wash-
ington (DCJ: Dumbarton Oaks.
STUART, D.S. 1984. Royal auto-sacrifice among the Maya: a study
in image and meaning, RES 7/8: 6-20.
1993. Historical inscriptions and the Maya collapse, in J.A.
Sabloff & J.S. Henderson (ed.), Lowland Maya civiliza-
tion in the 8th century AD: 322-54. Washington (DCJ:
Dumbarton Oaks.
STUART, D. S. & S.D. HOUSTON. 1994. Classic Maya placenames.
Washington (DC): Dumbarton Oaks. Studies in Pre-
Columbian Art & Archaeology 33.
STUART, G.E. & G.S. STUART. 1977. The mysterious Maya. Wash-
ington (DCJ: National Geographic Society.
TAUBE, K.A. 1985. The Classic Maya maize god: a reappraisal,
in M.G. Robertson (ed.),Fifth Palenque Round Table, 2983:
171-81. San Francisco (CAJ:Pre-Columbian Art Research
Institute.
1992a. Themajorgods ofancient Yucatan. Washington (DC):
Dumbarton Oaks. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art & Ar-
chaeology 32.
1992b. The Temple of Quetzalcoatl and the cult of sacred
war at Teotihuacan, RES 21: 53-87.
THOMPSON, J.E.S. 1970. Maya history and religion. Norman (OK):
University of Oklahoma Press.
312 STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART
TOWNSEND, R.F. 1979. State and cosmos in the art of Tenochtitlan.
Washington (DC): Dumbarton Oaks. Studies in Pre-
Columbian Art & Archaeology 20.
1992. The Aztecs. London: Thames & Hudson.
TozzER, A.M. 1941. Landa's Relacidn tie las cosas de Yucatdn.
Cambridge (MA): Harvard University. Papers of the
Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnol-
ogy 18.
VOCT, E.Z. 1969. Zinacantan: a Maya communityin the high-
lands ofchiupas. Cambridge (MA):Belknap Press, Harvard
University Press.
1985. Cardinal directions and ceremonial circuits in Mayan
and Southwestern cosmology, National Geographic Re-
search Reports 21: 487-96.
1993. Tortiffasfor the gods: a symbofic analysis of Zina-
canteco rituals. Norman (OK): University of Oklahoma
Press.
WATANABE, J.M. 1992. Maya saints and souls in a changing
world. Austin (TX): University of Texas Press.
WEBER, M. 1978. Economyand society: an outline of interpre-
tive sociologv. Berkeley (CA):University of California Press.