estudios de cultura maya xlviii: 129-162 (2016) The Caracol Disk of Chichén Itzá (929-932 CE). Some Thoughts on Epigraphy and Iconography El disco de El Caracol de Chichén Itzá (929-932 d.n.e.). Algunas consideraciones de epigrafía e iconografía Péter Bíró Abteilung für Altamerikanistik, Bonn eduardo Pérez de Heredia School of Humanities, La Trobe University, Melbourne Resumen: La escultura conocida como el “Disco con espiga” de El Caracol de Chichén Itzá es un monumento de forma peculiar decorado con un bajorrelieve de figuras históricas que se acompaña por un texto jeroglífico en el borde lateral. Este texto incluye varios nombres de personas y una fecha 8 Ajaw utilizando el fechamiento y el lenguaje maya yucateco. Por extrañas razones este monumento ha sido relegado en la construcción de la cronología del sitio. En nuestra opinión, representa un momento crucial en la historia de Chichén Itzá y de Yucatán en general: la llegada de gente “mexicana-tolteca” y la refundación de la ciudad bajo un nuevo contrato social que incluyó tanto a los extranjeros como a parte de la nobleza local. PalabRas clave: Posclásico Temprano maya, Chichén Itzá, epigrafía, iconografía, arqueología. abstRact: The sculpture referred to as the ‘Tenoned Disk’, which was recovered from the Caracol building at Chichén Itzá, is a monument decorated with a bass-relief carving displaying historical figures and an accompanying hieroglyphic text located on the rim of the monument. This text makes reference to several persons named using a Maya Yucatec language. The date 8 Ajaw is also recorded on the sculpture. For some unknown reason this monument has been overlooked by scholars who have sought to reconstruct the chronology of the site. Crucially, this monument re- cords an important moment in the history of Chichén Itzá and of Yucatán in general: the arrival of the “Mexican-Toltec” people, and the re-foundation of the city under a new social construct that included foreigners and local nobility KeywoRds: Early Postclassic Maya, Chichén Itzá, epigraphy, iconography, archaeology. RecePción: 18 de julio de 2015. acePtación: 23 de noviembre de 2015. DOI: 10.19130/iifl.ecm.2016.48.760 bíró y pérez / the caracol disk of chichén itzá (929-932 ce) 129 Introduction According to the traditional view, most of the major buildings of Chichén Itzá pertain to two distinct construction periods, named generally “Maya” and “Toltec”.1 This understanding of Chichén Itzá as a sequence of two distinct periods was challenged by the Overlap Model, which posited that there was a total or partial overlap between “Maya” and “Toltec” buildings and ceramics, leading to the chronological movement of the “Toltec” phenomena into the Terminal Classic period (Ball, 1979; Lincoln, 1986; Ball, 1986; Sabloff and Andrews, 1986; Ringle, Bey and Peraza, 1991, among others). In this study, we base our chronology of occupation at Chichén Itzá on recent ceramic studies which support the sequential model and agrees partially with the traditional viewpoint (Tozzer, 1957; Brainerd, 1958; Pérez de Heredia, 2002, Pérez de Heredia and Bíró, 2007, in press; Pérez de Heredia, 2010; Bíró, 2011). Two different arrivals are mentioned in the colonial documents; one by the Itzá, and another other led by K’uk’ulkan. However, as early as the middle of the 16th century, there was confusion over which migration occurred first (Diego de Landa, ca. 1546; in Tozzer, 1941: 20-23). Since the Colonial period, many theories have been proposed regarding these migration events. The search for the Itzá2 and the arrival of the Quetzalcoatl ac- counts for a great part of the scholarly research during the twentieth and early twenty first century. There are those who maintain a skeptical attitude toward the published accounts suggesting that migrations or ‘military invasions’ occu- rred in Northern Yucatán in the Postclassic Period (but see Hassig, 1992).3 While we concur that in isolation the k’atun history outlined in the Chilam Balam Books is not a reliable source to reconstruct the history of Chichén Itzá, the dates and events recorded in colonial accounts remain a valuable source of information that can shed some light on the history of Yucatán. With regard to the migration events at Chichén Itzá, it is likely that the first (being the “Itzá” migration) occurred during the early ninth century and was led by an elite who spoke a mix of Classic Yukatek, Classic Ch’olan, and proto-Nahuatl 1 We use these terms to refer to the two different architectural periods, only with a chronological meaning, and with no ethnic affiliation intended, except when we explicitly do so. 2 The Itzá is still a controversial term. Its etymology is also speculative, with possibilities either from Mayan languages (itz, “resin, sap”, and ha’, “water”; itz’, “wisdom, knowledge”) or from Nahuatl languages (itztli, “obsidian blade, mirror” [see Jones, 1998: 428; Ringle, Gallareta and Bey, 1998: 226; Voss, 2001: 154-155]) From epigraphy, the [i]-tza-a spelling is found in the emblem glyph of Itzimte Sacluk (Jun Pik Tok’ 771 CE), and in stone and ceramic inscriptions from Lake Petén Itzá area such as Motul de San José (ca. 771 CE) (Boot, 2005, 2010). The main element of an emblem glyph, as a title for the ruler and its family, was usually a toponym such as itza’ or itz ha’ (Bíró, 2012; Mathews, 1991; Stuart and Houston, 1994; Tokovinine, 2013). What was read as hi-tza-a from the texts of Chichén Itzá has turned out to be a local variant of the tza syllabic sign and therefore the intended collocation is simply tza-a (Grube, 2003: 361-362). Therefore, at the moment the Itzá are only mentioned in the colonial sources in Northern Yucatán, aside of the Classic Southern Lowlands. 3 For a critical review of the different theories of the history of Chichén Itzá see Smith, 2007. 130 estudios de cultura maya xlviii languages (Wichmann, 2006; Pérez de Heredia and Bíró, in press). This linguistic combination is evident in the phonetic components of ninth century epigraphic texts at Chichén Itzá. It has been posited that this arrival led to the construction of the city of K’ahk’ Upakal in a variation of the Puuc architectural style, and the introduction of Cehpech ceramics in the region. While the exact date for the arrival of the Itzá remains uncertain, epigraphic evidence supports a date on or slightly before 830 CE (Pérez de Heredia and Bíró, in press). On the other hand, we are of the opinion that the second arrival can be iden- tified with people associated with Sotuta ceramics, non-Maya architecture, an abundance of non-local graphemes, and the specific S-shaped serpent which later became an icon in the Great Terrace buildings (see Baudez and Latsanopoulos, 2010). Here we refer to this configuration as “Toltec”. What is interesting is the fact that the Classic Yukatek and Classic Ch’olan elite of the previous period still remained in the city with an important place in government, according to the preserved inscriptions. The date for the second arrival and the beginning of the “Toltec” configura- tion of Chichén Itzá has also been intensely debated, especially in relation with cera mics and architecture. Usually “Toltec” buildings exclude Classic Maya inscrip- tions, but for few exceptions. A most significant “Toltec” monumental building with Maya hieroglyphs is the Osario pyramid, which also contains an epigraphic date 998 CE (Graña-Behrens, Prager and Wagner, 1999). The Osario pyramid, as well as its underlying platform can be dated to the early phase of the Sotuta ceramic complex, and this association provide a provisional dating for the begin- ning of production of this pottery ca. 930-950 CE (Pérez de Heredia, 2010).4 In this paper we will present evidence that the later iconography in the Great Terrace buildings appeared for the first time at the Tenoned Disk of the Caracol building5 (Figure 1), and that this monument bears testimony of the arrival of a non-Maya group and the re-foundation of the city around 929 and 932 CE. We think that this date also marks the end of the Terminal Classic Period system with the instauration of a new political order which transcended the figure of kingship that characterized the Classic Maya period (see Ringle, 2004, 2009). This date is, in other words, the date of the beginning of the Early Postclassic Period at Chichén Itzá. In a general sense the Caracol Disk relates to a ritual known as toma de posesión (taking possession) or hedz luum (asentar la tierra, setting the land), which is men- 4 A note about the dates used in this article for the relevant periods: different chronologies have been proposed for Chichén Itzá, usually grouped as the Sequential, Partial Overlap, and Total Overlap theories (Sabloff and Andrews, 1986). We align with a modified sequential model in which the Terminal Classic at “Maya” Chichén Itzá is dated 800/830-932 CE, while the Early Postclassic “Toltec” city is dated ca. 932-1150 CE (Pérez de Heredia, 2010; Bíró, 2011; Pérez de Heredia and Bíró, 2016). 5 In this paper we will refer to the Tenoned Disk simply as the Disk.The monument was named in this manner because its shape: a tenon is a projecting member in a piece of wood or other material for insertion into a mortise to make a joint. It refers to the shape of the monument. bíró y pérez / the caracol disk of chichén itzá (929-932 ce) 131 A B C D E F G H I J K L M O P Q R S T U W V X Y A B C D E F G H I J K Figure 1. Text and Image of the Disk at the Caracol Tower (text drawing by Alexander Voss, 2001; figures by Mark Van Stone, April 13, 1997 in FAMSI Schele Drawing Collection no. 5085). 132 estudios de cultura maya xlviii tioned in the Chilam Balam and was an archetypical ceremony all over Meso- america (Oudijk, 2002; Boot, 2005: 110-123; Nielsen, 2006). This ritual involved the ‘coming of the torch’, the same event that took place at Tikal in the 4th century. This new foundation of Chichén Itzá was marked by the K’atun 8 Ajaw which will be a particularly significant date in the Chilam Balam. The Caracol Building The Caracol Tower (Figure 2) was excavated and restored by Karl Ruppert, and its peculiar architectural characteristics and astronomical associations have been thoroughly described in a number of publications (Ruppert, 1935; Marquina, 1950; Aveny, Gibbs and Hartung, 1975). The building consists on a circular tower constructed atop three earlier versions of a circular construction (Figure 3). The latest stage dates by 890 CE, while the first one possibly as early as 830-840 CE (Pérez de Heredia, 2010) and was possibly constructed by the predecessors of K’ahk’ Upakal. As such, this edifice accounts for 60 years of continuous building, which was in all probability dedicated to the Ehecatl-Quetzalcoatl cult from its first stage of development. Figure 2. The Caracol Tower seen from the Casa Colorada. (Tatiana Proskouriakoff, 1946). bíró y pérez / the caracol disk of chichén itzá (929-932 ce) 133 Figure 3. The Caracol stages by Ruppert (1935). Figure 4. The Caracol Panel (drawing by Voss, 2001: 170, fig. 6). The construction and subsequent dedication of the Caracol Tower in its latest configuration (see Figure 2) can be dated with some precision because of asso- ciated carved inscriptions providing an inauguration date of 890 CE. Collectively, there are three hieroglyphic inscriptions associated with the building, which are in various states of preservation, either eroded or broken. There are at least 10 dates associated with the building, they are carved on the Caracol Panel, the Hie- roglyphic Serpent and on the Disk all inscribed using the Short Count notation in the Yucatecan writing system (Thompson, 1937). The first two monuments are contemporaneous with the construction/dedication of the building with the last being carved almost 40 years later (Voss, 2001). The inscription on the Caracol Panel (Figure 4) displays 16th and 17th tun da- tes in K’atun 1 Ajaw, and also the 1st tun in K’atun 12 Ajaw or 884-885, 885-886 134 estudios de cultura maya xlviii and 889-890 CE, respectively (García Campillo, 2000; Voss, 2001; Boot, 2005). Within the text there is also an unknown verb followed by a list naming both gods and humans. One of the names listed is that of K’ahk’ Upakal. The verb pek- is also contained within the inscriptions, which means “to invite”; a verb not only used to assemble nobility but also to gather the gods. The last human named on the Caracol Panel is Aj B’olon K’awil Lem? Taj Tza’, meaning “He of the Many Kawiil, the Jeweled Obsidian from Tzaj”. This descrip- tive title lists the toponyms as he was from Tz’iknal (the Caracol Building) from the neighbourhood of Tzaj in Wak[hab’?]nal, which was the name of Chichén Itzá itself (Voss, 2001; Boot, 2005: 345). His title was aj k’ahk’ (“he of fire”) and k’uhul aj kan (“divine speaker”; Voss, ibid., 160).6 Although the Hieroglyphic Serpent is broken in several fragments, there are at least four legible dates that correspond to the periods 876-877, 884-885, and 885 CE, respectively (Voss, op. cit.). Importantly, it appears that the text refers to the same individuals mentioned in the Caracol Panel; specifically, K’ahk’ Upakal (the ruler of Chichén Itzá), Uchok Wata’ab’ (believed to be K’ahk’ Upakal’s father) and Aj B’olon K’awil (speaker and possibly the leader of Caracol) from Tz’iknal Wak[hab’?] nal. The last two ashlars (10-7) are important because they mention not only the local nobility but also a non-royal noble (anab’) who maybe came from a site that was later mentioned in the Caracol Disk in block W. Indeed, the other lords re- ferred in the text could be coming from non-local sites and were maybe connected to individuals mentioned in the Disk of Caracol, dedicated almost 40 years later. The events surrounding the death of K’ahk’ Upakal, as well as his succession to power, remain a mystery. Presently, we do not know exactly when he died but we estimate it must have occurred before 910 CE or slightly later (see Pérez de Heredia and Bíró, in press). The Caracol Disk The next date to occur at Chichén Itzá is 929-930 CE7 and appears on the Cara- col Disk (Figure 1). This monument records two ritual scenes on its front and a hieroglyphic text around its rim, which describes an event maybe accounting for 6 At the end of the sentence comes the date 1st tun of K’atun 12 Ajaw (889-890 CE). The side texts of the panel mention Uchok Wata’ab’ (possibly the father of K’ahk’ Upakal K’awil) and some other women of the dynasty. Later it refers to the ‘creation’ of the date 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk’u, and finally the 1st tun of K’atun 12 Ajaw (889-890 CE). 7 According to Boot (2005: 135-136) the Disk is a retrospective monument made in the 9th century (because of the iconography) but the event recorded occurred in 673-674 CE (the previous K’atun 8 Ajaw). Also, he used the Chilam B’alam chronicles and he believed that the Disk narrated the arrival of the Itzá, as he had identified the Itza lexeme in the text. He worked with the chronology of the overlap ceramics (Sotuta 700-1000 CE etc.). According to our position the Sotuta complex began ca. 930/950 CE and in the 7th century the city was a small village (associated with Yabnal ceramic complex). Regarding the Itza lexeme, it is nowadays read as tza’/tzaj, a toponym of the Caracol area. bíró y pérez / the caracol disk of chichén itzá (929-932 ce) 135 the arrival of a central-Mexican people and the re-foundation of the city as Tollan through the installation of a new variety of the cult of Quetzalcoatl. While the Disk is the best preserved of the monuments from the Caracol building, the text is more complicated, because being of a later date it is not connected paleographically to the previous texts of Chichén Itzá. Also the ori- ginal position that the monument held in the Caracol remains unknown, which some view as problematic (Ruppert, 1935). The date on the Disk reads 2nd tun of K’atun 8 Ajaw, or 10.5.1.0.1-10.5.2.0.0 (929-930 CE; Voss, ibid., 157). Epigraphy8 The text analysis is the following (see the glyphs in Figure 5): (A) u/k’a?-u/k’a?-lu (B) u-?-tu-?-EK’ (C) TZ’AK-ka-AJAW-wa (D) AJ-ja-?-? (E) MAK?- b’a-? (F) AJAW-wa (G) TE’-?-si (H) AJAW-wa (I) ?-CHAN?-? pe-ka (J) ?-ta-?-? (K) ?-AJAW-wa (L) K’AK’ #-#-# (M) #-#-AJAW-wa (N) ?-?-TUN-ni (O) u-2-pi-si-8 AJAW (P) #-#-?-?-# (Q) AJ-k’a-k’a (R) AJAW-wa tz’u- nu-li (S) ?-ka a-hi (T) tza-AJAW-wa (U) AJ-jo-lo-TUN-ni (V) b’a?-la?-ma? (W) PET?-ni ITZAM?-ma-la (X) TZ’AK-AJAW-wa ha-i (A) ... (B) u-t? ek’? (C) tz’ak ajaw (D) aj ja... (E) ma[h]k b’a[h] ... (F) ajaw (G) te’ ...is (H) ajaw (I)...chan?... pek[‘] (J)... (K)... ajaw (L) k’a[h]k’ ... ... ... (M) ... ajaw (N)... ... tun (O) uka’ pi[s] waxak ajaw (P) ... ... (Q) aj k’a[h]k’ (R) ajaw tz’unil (S) ...k ah (T) tza’ ajaw (U) aj jol tun (V) b’alam? (W) pet[e]n itzamal?9 (X) tz’ak ajaw ha’i “(A) ... (B) the ... Star? of (C) Tz’ak Lord (D) Aj Ja... (E) Turtle Head ... (F) Lord (G) Tree ...is (H) Lord (I) ...Sky... Dog (J) ... (K) ... Lord (L) Fire ... ... ... (M) ... Lord (N) 10-19? ... Stone (O) [in] second Stone of 8 Ajaw (P) ... ... (Q) He of the Fire (R) Lord Young (S) ...k He of (T) Tza’ Lord (U) Aj Joltun (V) B’alam? (W) Pet[e]n Itzamal? (X) Tz’ak Lord here” 8 A note about written conventions used in this text for Maya words: when a given hieroglyphic text is presented there will be either a full broad transliteration and/or a broad transcription, using the al- phabet designed by the Guatemalan Academy of Maya Languages. Single question marks <?>, directly following a grapheme indicate uncertain decipherment or unknown reading (using Thompson’s 1962 catalogue); the sign <#> indicates erosion and </> means an alternative reading of a sign. Translit- eration will be written in bold face letters, with syllabographs in lower case and logographs in UPPER CASE, separated by hyphens. As we do not accept the existence of morphosyllables, this category of signs will not be represented in our transliterations nor the long-vowels signs. Transcription appears in italics, and every independent lexeme will be written in lower case letters. Any reconstruction (histori- cal, internal, and palaeographical) is written in square brackets […]. Literal translations will be given between quotation marks “…” and the non-deciphered signs will be expressed as three dots. 9 Other suggestion is WAY?-wa-la/waywal, “dreamer, magician” (pers. comm. by Carlos Pallán, June 2014). 136 estudios de cultura maya xlviii Figure 5. Detail of the text of the Disk (drawing by Voss, 2001: 170, figure 7). The first verb, unfortunately, has not been deciphered yet and the object also is unique in the corpus of the Maya inscriptions. Recently, Boot (2005: 121-122), suggested that the verb can be read as u’ul or “to arrive”, however at the moment there is no definitely proof of the reading. Although the drawing is excellent, the photos lend some doubt to the u grapheme. However, if the spelling is u-u-lu then by the rule of the Maya writing it is obligatory to reconstruct it as u’ul, or in the linguistic ʔuʔul with the glottal stop. The form is the imperfective stem in the Modern and Colonial Yucatec (Bricker, Po’ot Yah and Dzul, 1998: 344). Indeed, in Yulá Lintel 1:B1 appears as u-li-ya with the imperfective stem and the -iy suffix. Other epigraphers read it as k’a-k’a-lu/k’ak’ul10 (García Campillo, 2000; Voss, op. cit., 2001). We have checked the same k’a in the other line (Q) and the former one is slightly different. However sometimes the grapheme appears without the thumb, for example in Temple of the Three Lintels, Lintel 1: F1; but one of the pho- tos maybe shows a part of the thumb. If it is k’ak’ul then we have the “lantern” in Colonial Yucatec (Bolles, 2001) and since the sentence begins with a noun, it will read as “there was the lantern/torch of...”. Apparently then, the second option coincides better with the iconography of the disk. The object possessed by the lords has not been deciphered before, but the ergative pronoun is certain (u “he, his, she, her”) and the head grapheme comes next before tu.11 Barbara MacLeod (email May 30, 2014) has suggested that the 10 K’ak’ul is composed of the k’ak’-0 “to roast” in the incompletive plus the abstract -ul suffix; the literal meaning would be “roasting the… (something, presumably a branch of a tree or torch)” (Smailus, 1989:116). 11 Here we are speculating from the statistics pattern of the Classic Maya writing. First, the head is usually a logogram and has either a CVC or CVCVC pattern (because of the ergative pronoun). The phonetic complement tu leads to the suggestion that the morpheme would be either Cut or Cat be- cause the Cu syllabogram is usually composed of a synharmonic word (CuC-Cu) or dysharmonic word (Cac-Cu). However the phonetic complement tu is rare after a logogram. bíró y pérez / the caracol disk of chichén itzá (929-932 ce) 137 grapheme can be HUT “face, fruit, seed”. Notice has to be made of the fact that the HUT term is connected to the arrival of the ‘face’ of the gods in other texts, such as in Copan Stela 11, even though the logogram is different from the sign in the disk. However it is possible that tu is not linked with the previous grapheme but reads as t-u- or “with his...”. Therefore the reading of the clause would list two objects owned by the lords. The last part of the block B is the STAR sign12 with a possible feather K’UK’ attached on its right side (Figure 6a). It is worth mentioning that usually there is no feather in the grapheme for EK’. This same design of a feathered star will appear in other later buildings as the House of the Dancing Jaguars in the Initial Series Group (Figure 6b; Osorio, 2004; Schmidt, 2007). Although the glyph EK’ is not Venus per se, we suggest that, in the context of the Caracol Disk, K’uk’[ul] Ek’ (Feathered Star) would be referred to the Feathered Venus, and therefore to Quetzalcoatl. Figure 6. a) Photo of Caracol Disk, blocks A-B (by Carl Callaway); b) Venus with feather on the House of the Dancing Jaguars of the Initial Series Group (by Guido Krempel). In sum, there are at least three different possibilities: “arriving the ... t STAR of...”, “arriving the ... with the STAR of...”, and “there was the torch of the ... STAR/with the STAR of...”. The text states later that the owners of the object/s are eight lords or 8 ajaw, exactly as the date 8 Ajaw in the inscription, which divides them into two groups (Figure 7). Unfortunately, the five names positioned before the date are badly eroded and only partially legible. As such, we have not been able to transcribe their names completely. We will refer to them here as Lord Tz’ak, Lord Turtle 12 The first epigapher to identify the logogram as a “star” was Beyer (1937: II-16; “Venus”). 138 estudios de cultura maya xlviii