Of gods, glyphs and kings: divinity and

rulership among the Classic Maya

STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART*
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 may 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
eods and men, and the contexts in which he was
able to assert his divinity'.
(BURGHART 1987: 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 (0'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: 112). 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, Brigham 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
290 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 'body politic', the domain of'cer-
tain truly mysterious forces (which) reduce, or
even remove, the imperfections of... fragile human
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 elites 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 ofunexamined, 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 (Sjoberg 1957-1971:481)
—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 (Bottero 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,1
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' in 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 ahaw, '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: 270-71); 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 ofsupernaturals 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 way 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,
292 STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART
b to that which Nicholson (1971b) has described
a among the Aztec, where we find hierarchical
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 -lei}. 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 Nahuati word teoti, 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 wind, 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).2 Other, 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
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
Chaico, 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 1), deci-
phered as a logograph with the value K'U(L)
or CH'U(L) (Barthel 1952: 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.
Guthrie (1993) offers a broad discussion of anthropomorph-
ization in all religious thought.
 OF GODS, GLYPHS AND KINGS: DIVINITY AND RULERSHIP AMONG THE CLASSIC MAYA
FIGURE 2. Vase of the Seven Gods (Coe 1973: 109).
a proper noun, this hieroglyph conveys the ideas
ofk'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 in 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
etal. 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
FIGURE 3. The glyph for
u-k'u-il, 'his/her god',
from the Tablet of
Temple XIV at Palenque,
block C10. (After
drawing by Linda
Schele.)
294 STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART
— comes next in the phrase. In this way the
term 'u-k'u-ilX' 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 'Gil', and the Temple of the Sun with 'GUI'.
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 alfarda} 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
Gil 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' oi K'inich
Kan Balam, the contemporary Palenque king,
'entered the house'. One may safely assume here
that the ruler's 'god' is Gil 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 Gil, now named, but states that the deity is
the 'cared-for thing' 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-il 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 Choltf Mayan
(Fought 1986). The corresponding hieroglyph,
shown in FIGURE 3, 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 ' u l , '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 status.3 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 in
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, tiahtoani,
'speaker': note proto-Cholan *aw, 'shout' (Kaufman & Nor-
man 1984: 116), resulting possibly in *aj-aw, '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: 124, for a similar pattern in
Ball). 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:
'Chaak is born from the sun' (FIGURE 4a), 'K'awil
is born from the sky' (FIGURE 4b), '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

FIGURE 4. Personal names of rulers incorporating

the name of the god K'awil.
a 'Chaak is born from the sun' from Macaquila
Stela 11. (Drawing after Graham 1967: figure 63.)
b 'K'awil is born from the sky' from an inscribed
vessel in a private collection.
c 'K'awil is conjured.' (After Kerr 1383.)

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
FIGURE 5. Depictions of ancestors.
a Tonina Monument 69. (Drawing bylan Graham.)
b Palenque sarcophagus lid. (Drawing by Merle
Greene Robertson.)
c Tikal Stela 31. (Jones 6- Satterthwaite 1982:
figure 51 c.)
Mesoamerican religions produce such great
quantities of deities is the deification of an
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
This type of transformation may have taken place
among the Maya of ancient Copan, who in their
later years erected the largest temples of the
site to the great historical founder K'inich Yax
fC'uk'Mo' (Fash 1988; Stuart 1992).
Posthumous royal portraits tend to fall into
three classes (McAnany 1995):
1 static images of seated or standing lords, pic-
tured as they might appear in life (FIGURE
5a);
2 views of rulers in transformation or meta-
morphosis, usually merged with the at-
tributes of the Maize God or plants (FIGURE
5b); and
3 depictions of disembodied, deceased lords,
wreathed in smoke (FIGURE 5c).4
Of these portraits, only rulers and their spouses
seem ever to adopt the features of divinity. Royal
fathers may occur as Sun Gods or individuals
encased in sun disks, while mothers are iden-
tified with the Moon Goddess. Sometimes re-
cently deceased rulers appear in the guise of
the Maize God. Thus royal parents pair with
the two most prominent features in the sky, each
diurnally opposed to the other, while the Maize
God, an emblem of youth, sustenance and
vegetal regeneration, represents a transforma-
tional cycle or a mortuary charter that likens
rulers to the first human, who was fashioned
of succulent maize dough (Houston 1995). Yet,
despite such explicit representations, we must
remember that living rulers seldom made un-
equivocal claims to divinity. Seemingly 'holy'
and 'god-like' during their life-times, they were
probably set apart from actual Maya deities.
A related topic is the naming of dynastic
founders, some of which seem to be described
as kinds of stars, as at DOS Pilas (Schele 1992;
Houston 1993: figure 4-5). By Classic times, the
Maya may have endowed these progenitors with
divinity, but there is nothing in their titles —
many use Emblem glyphs — that would sug-
gest a markedly different status from later lords.
One stela at Tamarindito, Guatemala, may show
a Late Classic lord dressed as the founder of
his dynasty (Houston 1993: figure 4-5). Regret-
tably, and rather strangely, no texts occur on
4 Stela 6, a monument from Caracol, Belize, may record
that a deceased ruler witnessed or 'saw' (yi-IL-a-hi, y-il-
ah-i, 'he was seeing it') a ritual performed by his succes-
sor (Beetz & Satterthwaite 1981: figure 7b, glyph B20). This
would seem to represent a textual description of the 'floating
ancestor' motif.
297
this monument, perhaps because the image was
intended to evoke a pre-literate period. (Other
early, fragmentary monuments were incor-
porated into the structure behind the stela,
suggesting later refurbishment of a building as-
sociated conceptually with the early years of
the Tamarindito dynasty.) The only ancestors
that seem to be depicted explicitly as gods are
those in the ascending generation or deceased
kings, often bearing the attributes of the god
K'awil. This contrasts with some central Mexi-
can beliefs, in which patron deities of particular
socio-political groups merge with the '"deified
tribal ancestor" or "first founder'" of a com-
munity. Temples dedicated to such gods were
'the symbol of the town's independence and
integrity, and, in one sense, its luck and fate',
so that military conquest 'was signalized by the
burning of the patron deity's shrine, frequently
followed by the carrying off of the latter's im-
age' (Nicholson 1971b: 409).
The gods made animate
Under special circumstances, the distinction
between rulers and deities appears to have been
purposefully vague. Kings and high nobles
possessed the special ability to assume the iden-
tities of certain gods through ritual impersona-
tion. Geertz (1977:157) describes impersonation
as an aspect of the ruler's charisma, 'liminally
suspended between gods and men'. At this point
the Aztec concept of teixiptia becomes impor-
tant, for it allows us to understand the subtle-
ties and implications of god impersonation in
Mesoamerica. The teoti, the divine energy,
manifests itself in the teixiptia, 'the physical
representation or incarnation of the teoti . . .
[which isl called forth by the creation of a
teixiptia' (Boone 1989: 4; see also Hvidtfeldt
1958: 76-100). In Postclassic central Mexico,
costumes, masks and effigies of gods do not
'represent' deities. They are gods in the sense
of being partial extensions of divinity. In some
instances, there 'is such a resemblance between
image and god that . . . visible forms charged
with sacred power are considered to be gods
themselves' (Lopez Austin 1993: 137, 138).
When dancers don masks or other elements of
godly costume, the 'essence of the god . . .
become [sl present in material form', much as
it does for Puebloan Kachina dancers (Markman
& Markman 1989: 69). In his study of 'man-
gods' in the Mexican Highlands, Serge Gruzinski
 STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART
298

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

FIGURE 6 God impersonation glyphs

a NaranjO Stela 24 E3-D4 (Drawing by lan Graham )
b Panel in the Dallas Museum of Fine Arts (Drawing by lan Graham )
U-ba-li ANUM c Tikal Lintel 3, Structure 5C-4, E5 (Jones Or- Satterthwaite 1982 figure 74 )

u-bah anum? god's name

FIGURE 7 God imper-

sonation expressions
a Maize god at Tikal
(Drawing after Jones &•
c Satterthwaite 1982
figure 74 )
b Sun god at Bonam-
pak (Drawing by
Stephen Houston )
c 'Lord of the black
h ole' (Dra wing after
Kerr 791)
(1989: 22, 23) 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 'his body'
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 ofANUL
or ANUM, perhaps related to Yucatecan anum,
'famous' (FIGURES 6a, 6b).5 Occasionally, these
signs are conflated or compressed into a single
elyph 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, Huehueteoti, 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 ' 1 8 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

FIGURE 8. Rulers in the guise of the fire god.

a Tikal Stela 9. (Jones 6- Satterthwaite 1982: figure 13a.) C
b Tikal Stela 13. (Jones &• Satterthwaite 1982: figure 19b.)
c Naranjo Stela 30. (Graham 1978: 79.)

qualities we might otherwise associate with manifestations of deities who 'participated' in

kingship were distributed more widely among
members of the Maya elite. 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
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 ofsupernaturals 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

U-ba-hi-h-ANUM? YAX-CHrP-HUN-7 NAH-KAN 7-HIX-CHAAK K'UL-pa-ka-bu-la-AHAW

The body of the famous(7) [god's name] [ruler's name] Holy Lord of Pakbul [Pomona]

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 Balam '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).6
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
FIGURE 9 Water serpent glyphs and head-dress
through the direct solicitation of the ruler.7 a Glyphs from Pom on a 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 the y rulers receive key regalia under the authority
ichnal 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 Bo/on 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 inscnp of Palenque, the triad of GI, Gil and GUI are of
tion of Monument 6 from Tortuguero, Mexico Here is re
corded a calendncal event in the early 21st century AD, at
special interest only to the local dynasty, sug-
which time, apparently, the god may 'descend' ye-ma, y-emal gesting the existence oftutelary 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 10. Impersonation of Teotihuacan god.
(Graham G- von Euw 1992: 168.)
'Gl-K'awil', perhaps a deity pair or, alternatively,
a hybrid form of two entities, rather like those
described above in some royal names (FIGURE
14). GI-K'awil owned a stela, according to one
text, and perhaps also took the form of a cult
effigy that was erected or dressed. According
to another inscription, an enemy may even have
destroyed the god's 'banner' in an act which
presumably humiliated the dynasty connected
to this god or god pair.
Another deity is closely linked to the Copan
dynasty and especially the unfortunate ruler
18 Ubah K'awil, who was taken captive by the
ruler ofQuirigua. Quirigua Stela I describes this
deity as 'the god of 18 Ubah K'awil' just a few
days before the captive lord was decapitated
(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
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 'GF 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).
Godly images
It would be a mistake, in our view, to assume
that the 'participation' of deities in royal ritual
was an abstract ideal, induced through hallu-
cinogenic visions and 'conjuring'. Rather, we
suggest that, much like in Postclassic Central
Mexico, Classic Maya courts possessed abun-
dant images of gods comparable to the Aztec
teixiptia, described above. A possible glyph for
such images occurs in the jumbled stucco in-
scription of Temple 18 at Palenque, Chiapas
(FIGURE 16a): U-wi-ni-BAH, u-winba, 'effigy, im-
age' in Yucatec Maya. Another glyph of the same
meaning occurs on DOS Pilas Stela 15, and glyphs
for k'oh, 'mask' or 'image', have been found in
several inscriptions (Freidel et al. 1993: 65).
In artistic representations, as well, cult effigies
are commonly depicted. At Palenque an im-
 OF GODS, GLYPHS AND KINGS: DIVINITY AND RULERSHIP AMONG THE CLASSIC MAYA 303

FIGURE 11. Floating

gods, Ixlu Stela 2.
(Jones &• Satterth-
waite 1982: figure
80.)

age of a god is presumably unwrapped from
an enclosing bundle (FIGURE 16b). According
to Maori (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 of wood and stucco for the
most part. A large Preclassic figure of the rain
god Chaak was discovered within a ritual cave
by lan Graham (see Stuart & Stuart 1977: 53).
304 STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART
FIGURE 12. The hieroglyph for tsak, 'conjure'
(second glyph). (After drawing by Linda Schele )
Archaeologists at Tikal, Guatemala, found disin-
tegrated wooden effigies of the god K'awil — very
similar to those bundled figures depicted in the
Palenque tablets — in Burial 195, a royal burial
near the centre of the city (FIGURE 16c; Coe 1990:
figure 198). Accordingly, we have textual refer-
ences to effigies as well as their physical remains.
We should mention one final category of
image. El Zapote Stela 1 (FIGURE 17), a monu-
ment dating to the Early Classic period, depicts
the image of a Maya deity, a variant of Chak,
the rain god. The text on the back of the stela
clearly specifies that the stela {u-lakam-tun-il)
belongs to this god, who in turn is the deity (u-
k'u-il) of a local lord. Later, the text apparently
establishes an equivalence between the god and
his monument, as though both were one and
the same. Effigies may also have taken the form
of vessels, such as the GI cache vessels of the
Early Classic period, that received the same sort
of animating force attested for later Lacandon
He receives the helmet [ruler's name]
his gods [godi]
Maya 'pot gods', Idk-il k'uh (McGee 1990: 51-
2). Like teixiptia, 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
changed during the transition between the Clas-
sic and Postclassic eras. Indeed, this issue has
received far less attention than deserved. Ac-
cording to much received wisdom, derived
largely from native Maya chronicles composed
during colonial times (see Tozzer 1941: 23), the
'collapse' of numerous Classic-period kingdoms
was followed by a period of intense 'Mexican'
influence, where the veneration of rulers in the
'stela cult' gave way to idolatry and, according
to at least one source (Seler 1898), 'bloody sac-
rificial rites'. As Taube (1992a) has demon-
strated, however, the gods of the Postclassic
era were closely linked to Classic period ante-
cedents. Although the infusion of central Mexi-
can culture into northern Yucatan in the
Terminal Classic period did involve the adop-
tion of new deities, 'cults' and new iconographic
ideals, the essential 'Maya-ness' of the religion
encountered in the conquest of Yucatan can-
not be denied. Certainly sacrificial rites were
as old as Mesoamerican religion itself. This is
why the later traditions of Central Mexico and
Yucatan are reasonable models for many as-
in the company of
FIGURE 13. The
company of gods on
Piedras Negras Panel
2, Hl-Kl. (Drawing by
[god 2] [god 3] David Stuart)
 OF GODS, GLYPHS AND KINGS: DIVINITY AND RULERSHIP AMONG THE CLASSIC MAYA
nects 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
flowting] 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 (Earth 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 seasonal processions, 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 14. Local god
of the Petexbatun
kingdom, from
Aguateca Stela 1.
(Graham 1967:
figure 3.)
k'u-yu-?-ki a-ha-wa (god's name)
U-K'U-il 18-(u)ba(h)-K'awil
(ruler's name)
FIGURE 15. Local god ofCopan ruler, from
Quirigua Stela 1, D8-D10. (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 16. God effigies

in Classic Maya art
and writing.
a Effigy glyph
(wmba), Palenque
Temple XVIII stuccoes.
(After Schele 6-
Mathews 1979:431.)
b Image of effigy,
Palenque Temple XIV
tablet. (After drawing
by Linda Schele.)
c God effigy from
Tikal 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

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-
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
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 (After field drawing
bylan 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
nobles could claim an obvious qualitative dif-
ference from those of lower social and politi-
cal standing. The ritual acts that displayed and
presented such roles were certainly important
in defining the category oiahaw, 'lord', yet they
were perhaps not the exclusive domain of high
rulers. What set rulers apart, then, denning them
as true divine rulers? We have suggested that a
more 'quantitative' distinction may be crucial,
specifically with regard to the relative strength
or heat of one's life essence or soul, widely
known as ch'ulel (literally 'holiness'). The wide-
spread title of high kings, k'ul ahaw or 'Holy
Lord', may intimate that kings, through their
close connexions to the spiritual realm, were
the 'hottest' of all living people.
A compelling theological framework for
understanding the Classic Maya idea of divin-
ity, especially as resident in masks, clothing
and effigies, comes from near-by central Mexico.
General comparisons, once common in Meso-
american studies and evident in this paper, are
unfashionable; research tends now to focus on
comparisons within sub-regions and language
groups. That approach is defensible analytically
in that scholars preserve control over context
and historical setting. But there is also a cost:
broader patterns become less clear, and students
lose sight of the essential fact that Mesoamerica
remains a region of intense interaction and
homologous, tandem development. In our view,
the 'Mesoamericanist' and 'sub-regionalist'
approaches are neither wrong nor right. Both
remain essential to a balanced perspective on
Mesoamerican antiquity, and the tension be-
tween the two defines a crucial zone of research.
We have also touched on the role of divin-
ity and kingship in even broader terms. In au-
thorizing royal action, appeals to divinity appear
to come 'from a realm beyond history, society,
politics, beyond the terrain in which interested
and situated actors struggle over scarce re-
sources' (Lincoln 1994: 112). This transcend-
ent quality of divine or divine-centred rule is
fundamental, for it contravenes 'massive chal-
lenges' to a king's decisions in virtue of his link-
age to godly force (Bendix 1978:17). Yet saying
that one rules with divine authority is not the
same thing as exercising absolute rule. Far from
it: '[w]herever authority rests on religion, any
slip in authority can be interpreted as a with-
drawal of divine favor, and the charter of reli-
gious failing can be strategically used in a cam-
paign of de-authorization' (Lincoln 1994: 207).
Supernatural mandates, laden with possibili-
ties, are also fraught with risk; the prudent lord
favours routinized ritual over unpredictable and
falsifiable divination (David Webster pers.
comm.). The same point was made long ago
in Weber's (1978: 1114-15) study of charis-
matic domination and legitimacy. Once cha-
risma and its supernatural supports were made
routine and institutionalized, 'charisma and
charismatic blessing [could be transformed]
from a unique transitory gift of grace of ex-
traordinary times and persons into a perma-
nent possession of everyday life' (Weber 1978:
1121). Whether such efforts are successful is
another matter.
For scholars, a difficult issue is the nature
of the strategies documented for the Classic
Maya. Were these held by the entire society,
and how did they shift through time? We have
described a system of legitimation predicated
on dynastic assertions of divinity and monopo-
listic attempts to control divine mediation. These
efforts may have met with variable success, and
almost certainly shifted subtly as elites began
to play a more ostentatious role in sculpture
and writing towards the middle of the Late
Classic period (Fash 1991: 160-61; Houston
1993: figure 5-4). Following Giddens (1984:29),
we see royal 'power' not as an abstraction, to
be linked inflexibly to certain titles, or as a set
of static propositions, but as the tangible con-
sequence of interaction between flesh-and-blood
actors. Power derives from social and political
discourse involving assertion, on the one hand,
and acceptance or rejection by persons for whom
that message is intended, on the other. As with
any institution, divine kingship involves, as
Baines (1995: 6) contends for ancient Egypt,
human mortals fulfilling divine roles that have
to be 'continually renegotiated and redefined'.
The system of beliefs about Maya kings stud-
ied here is only one part of that equation.
Whether it was widely held, whether it was
believed firmly by the larger population, is
another. A system of rule does not exist in the
abstract, divorced from people. To operate, that
system must have people who believe in its
validity on an unreflective or subjective level
(Weber 1978: 33).
 OF GODS, GLYPHS AND KINGS DIVINITY AND RULERSHIP AMONG THE CLASSIC MAYA
The views expressed in Classic 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 elite.
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 al. 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 elites 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,mO'Connor&Silverman(1995b) 3-47 Leiden E J
Brill
BARTH, F 1993 Bahnese worlds Chicago (IL) University of
Chicago Press
BARTHEL.TS 1952 Die Morgensternkult in den Darstellungen
der Dresdener Mayahandschnft Ethnos 17 73-112
BEALS,RL 1945 Ethnology of the western Mixe Berkeley(CA)
University of California Press University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology
42(1)
BEARD, M 1990 Priesthood in the Roman republic in Beard &
North (ed ) 19-48
BEARD M & J NORTH (ed ) 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 mandate to
rule Berkeley (CA) University of California Press
BERJONNEAU, G , E DELETAILLE & J L SONNERY 1985 Redis
covered masterpieces of Mesoamenca Mexico-Guate
mala-Honduras Boulogne Editions Arts
BERLIN, H 1963 The Palenque triad Journal de la Societe des
Amencamstes 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 dark, Cecilia Klem, 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 the National
Endowment for the Humanities through a Collaborative
Projects grant awarded to the authors through Bngham
Young, Yale and Harvard Universities, and from funds gen-
erously awarded by Dean Clayne Pope of Bngham Young
The NEH, an independent Federal Agency, takes no respon
sibihty for our comments, nor do other friends who have
contributed ideas and bibliography to this manuscript Jose
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 in the Justm Kerr archive that he
has most generously shared with us Superb drawings by lan
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 Cannadme & Price (ed ) 271-97
BOONE,EH 1989 Incarnations of the supernatural the image
of Hultzilopochtli in Mexico and Europe Philadelphia
(PA) American Philosophical Society
BOTTERO, J 1992 Mesopotamia writing, reasoning and the
gods Chicago (IL) University of Chicago Press
BURGHART, R 1987 Gifts to the gods power, property, and cer
emomal in Nepal, in Cannadine & Price (ed ) 237-70
BURKHART,LM 1988 The slippery earth Nahua Christian moral
dialogue in 16th century Mexico Tucson (AZ) Univer
sity of Arizona Press
CANNADINE D 1987 Introduction divine rites of kings, in
Cannadine & Price (ed ) 1-19
CANNADINE, D & S PRICE (ed ) 1987 Rituals of royalty power
and ceremonial in traditional societies Cambridge Cam
bridge University Press
CARRASCO, P 1950 Los Otomies cultura e histona prehispamcas
de los pueblos mesoamencanos de habia otomiana
Mexico Institute de Histona Universidad Nacional
Autonoma de Mexico
COE, M D 1973 The Maya scribe and his world New York
(NY) GrolierClub
1978 Lords of the underworld masterpieces of Classic Maya
ceramics Pnnceton (NJ) Art Museum Pnnceton University
 OF GODS, GLYPHS AND KINGS DIVINITY AND RULERSHIP AMONG THE CLASSIC MAYA
I.OPEZ AUSTIN, A 1993 The myths of the Opossum pathways
of Mesoamencan mythology Albuquerque (NM) Univer-
sity of New Mexico Press
IOUNSBURY, FG 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 (TX) University of Texas Press
McANANY, P 1995 Ancestors and the Classic Maya built envi
ronment Paper presented at the Dumbarton Oaks Fall
Symposium, 'Function and Meaning in Classic Maya
Architecture'
McGEE, R J 1990 Life, ritual, and religion among the Lacandon
Maya Belmont (CA) 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 (CA)
MADSEN, W 1960 The Virgin's children life in an 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 10(2) 172-
91
1983 Topic 97 Zapotec religion, in K V Flannery & J Marcus
(ed), The Cloud People divergent evolution of the Zapotec
and Mixtec civilizations 345-51 New York (NY) Aca
demic Press
1989 Zapotec chiefdoms and the nature of formative reli
gions,inRJ Sharer&DC Grove (ed ), Regional perspec-
tives on the Olmec 148-97 Cambridge Cambridge
University Press
1992 Mesoamencan writing systems propaganda, myth,
and history in four ancient civilizations Pnnceton (NJ)
Pnnceton University Press
MARCUS, J & K FLANNERY 1994 Ancient Zapotec ritual and
religion an application of the direct historical approach,
in C Renfrew & E B W Zubrow (ed ), The ancient mind
elements of cognitive archaeology 55-74 Cambridge
Cambridge University Press
MARKMAN, PT & R H MARKMAN 1989 Masks of the spirit
image and metaphor in Mesoamenca Berkeley (CA) 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, in T P Culbert
(ed ), Classic Maya political history hieroglyphic and
archaeological evidence 19-29 Cambridge Cambridge
University Press
MICHALOWSKI, P N d On the early toponymy of Sumer a con
tnbution to the study of early Mesopotamian writing Un-
published paper, University of Michigan Ann Arbor (MI)
MOERTONO, S 1968 State and statecraft in old Java a study of
the later Mataram period 16th to 19th century Ithaca
(NY) Southeast Asia Program Department of Asian Stud-
ies Cornell University
NICHOLSON,HB 1971a Pre hispamc central Mexican histono
graphy, in Investigaciones contemporaneas sobre la
historia de Mexico memonas de la tercera reunion de
histonadores Mexicanos y Norteamencanos (1969) 38-
81 Mexico (DF) Universidad Nacional Autonoma de
Mexico
1971b Religion in pre-hispanic central Mexico, in R
Wauchope (ed ) Handbook of Middle American Indians
10(1) 395-446 Austin (TX) University of Texas Press
O'CONNOR, D & D P SILVERMAN 1995a Introduction, in
O'Connor & Silverman (ed) xvii—xxvn
( E d ) 1995b Ancient Egyptian kingship Leiden E J Brill
311
PEMBERTON.J 1994 On the subject of'Java' Ithaca (NY) Cornell
University Press
PRICE, S 1987 From noble funerals to divine cult the consecration
of Roman emperors, in Cannadme & Price (ed) 56-105
PROSKOURIAKOFF, T 1965 Sculpture and ma)or arts of the Classic
Lowlands, in R Wauchope (ed ), Handbook of Middle
American Indians 2 469-97 Austin (TX) 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 Maya universe royal ce
ramies of the Classic period Durham (NC) Duke Uni
versity Press
RINGLE,WM 1988 Of mice and monkeys the value and meaning
ofTi 016, the GodC hieroglyph Washington (DC) Center
for Maya Research Research Reports on Ancient Maya
Writing 18
SAHLINS, M 1981 The stranger king or Dumezil among the
Fi)ians, Journal of Pacific 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 Mesoamenca 3 135-44
SCHELE, L & D FREIDEL 1990 A forest of kings the untold
story of the ancient Maya New York (NY) Morrow
SCHELE, L &PMATHEWS 1979 The Bodega of Palenque, Chiapas
Mexico Washington (DC) Dumbarton Oaks
SCHELLHAS.P 1904 Representation ofdeities ofthe Maya manu
scripts Cambridge (MA) Harvard University Papers of
the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Eth
nology 4(1)
SCHROEDER.S 1991 Chimalpahm and the kingdoms ofChaico
Tucson (AZ) University of Arizona Press
SELER.E 1898 Quetzalcouatl-Kukulcan in Yucatan Zeitschnft
fur Ethnologic 30 377-410
SJOBERG,A 1957-71 Gotterreisen, mReallexikon derAssyno-
logie und Vorderasiatischen Archaologie 3 480—83 Ber
lin Walter de Gruyter
SPORES, R 1967 The Mixtec kings and their people Norman
(OK) University of Oklahoma Press
1984 The Mixtecs in ancient and colonial times Norman
(OK) University of Oklahoma Press
STONE, A 1989 Disconnection foreign insignia, and political
expansion Teotihuacan and the warrior stelae ofPiedras
Negras, in R A Diehl & J C Berlo (ed ), Mesoamenca af
ter the decline of Teotihuacan, AD 700-900 153-72 Wash
ington (DC) 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 321-54 Washington (DC)
Dumbarton Oaks
STUART, D S & S D HOUSTON 1994 Classic Maya place names
Washington (DC) Dumbarton Oaks Studies in Pre
Columbian Art & Archaeology 33
STUART, G E & G S STUART 1977 The mysterious Maya Wash
ington (DC) National Geographic Society
TAUBE, K A 1985 The Classic Maya maize god a reappraisal,
in M G Robertson (ed ), Fifth Palenque Round Table, 1983
171—81 San Francisco (CA) Pre Columbian Art Research
Institute
1992a The ma]or gods of ancient Yucatan Washington (DC)
Dumbarton Oaks Studies in Pre Columbian Art & Ar
chaeology 32
1992b The Temple of Quetzalcoati 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
310 STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART
COE.WR 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 Pnnceton (NJ) Pnnceton
University Press
FASH,WL 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 An
(hropo7ogy36 307-25
FOUGHT. J 1986 CholtiMaya a sketch, in M S Edmonson(ed ),
Supplement to the handbook of Middle American Indi
ans2 Linguistics 43-55 Austin (TX) University 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 (ed ), Ideology and Pre Columbian civili-
zations 115-33 Santa Fe(NM) School of American Re-
search Press
FREIDEL, D A & L SCHELE 1988 Kingship in 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 New York (NY) William
Morrow
GARLAND, R 1990 Priests and power in Classical Athens, in
Beard & North (ed ) 75-91
GAUR,A 1992 A history of writing New York (NY) Cross River
Press
GEERTZ, C 1977 Centers, kings, and charisma reflections on
the symbolics of power, in 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 state in 19th-century Ball Pnnceton
(NJ) Pnnceton University Press
GIDDENS, A 1984 The constitution of society outline of the
theory of structuration Berkeley (CA) University of Cali-
fornia Press
GOSSEN.GH 1972 Temporal and spatial equivalents in Chamula
ritual symbolism, in W A Lessa & E Z Vogt (ed ), Reader
in comparative religion an anthropological approach
135-49 New York (NY) Harper & Row
1986 Mesoamencan ideas as a foundation for regional syn-
thesis, in G H Gossen (ed ), Symbol and meaning beyond
the closed community essays in Mesoamencan ideas
1-8 Albany (NY) Institute for Mesoamencan Studies
GRAHAM, I 1967 Archaeological explorations in El Peten, Gua
temala New Orleans (LA) Middle American Research
Institute, Tulane University Publication 33
1978 Corpus ofMaya hieroglyphic inscriptions 2(2) NaranJO,
Chunhuitz, Xunantunich Cambridge fMA) Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard Um
versity
1980 Corpus ofMaya hieroglyphic inscriptions 2(3) Ixkun,
Ucanal, Ixtutz, Naran]o Cambridge fMA) 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(1) Naran]o Cambridge ("MA) Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard Uni
versity
1992 Corpus of Maya hieroglyphic hnscnptions 4(3) Uxmal,
Xcalumkm Cambridge fMA) 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
GRUBE N & W NAHM 1994 A census of Xibalba a complete
inventory of way characters 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 colonial society, 1520-1800 Stanford (CA)
Stanford University Press
GUITERAS HOLMES, C 1961 Penis of the soul the world view
of a Tzotzil Indian Glencoe (NY) The Free Press
HANKS, WF 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 Classic Maya 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 (CA)
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 TeotI and Ixiptlath some central con-
ceptions in ancient Mexican religion Copenhagen
Andreassen
JONES, C & L SATTERTHWAITE 1982 The monuments and in
scnptions 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 Pnnceton (NJ) Pnnceton
University Press
KAUFMAN, T S & W M NORMAN 1984 An outline of proto
Cholan phonology, morphology, and vocabulary in J S
Justeson & L Campbell (ed ), Phoneticism in Mayan hi
eroglyphic writing 77-166 Albany (NY) Institute for
Mesoamencan 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-
tory of Religions 17 211-25
KELLEY.DH 1965 The birth of the gods at Palenque Estudios
de Cultura Maya 5 93-134
KEMP, B 1989 Ancient Egypt anatomy of a civilization Lon-
don Routledge
KERTZER D 1988 Ritual, politics, and power New Haven (CT)
Yale University Press
K L E I N , C F 1986 Masking empire the material effects of masks
in 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 WG 1979 Continuity and change in Ro
man 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 Indians of central Mexico, 16th
through 18th centuries Stanford (CA) Stanford Univer
sity Press
312 STEPHEN HOUSTON & DAVID STUART
TOWNSEND.RF 1979 State and cosmos m 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 Relacion de las cosas de Yucatan
Cambridge (MA) Harvard University Papers of the
Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnol
ogy 18
VOGT, E Z 1969 Zmacantan a Maya community in the high
lands ofChiapas 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 Tortillas for the gods a symbolic analysis of Zma
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 Economy and society an outline of interpre
tive sociology Berkeley (CA) University of California Press