|
Kan B'ahlam I is also depicted on the side of Pakal's sarcophagus. The caption for his portrait is an intriguing puzzle. Here we see the logograph K'INICH above the name Kan B'ahlam (KAN[B'ALAM]-ma), suggesting that this seventh king of Palenque was actually named K'inich Kan B'ahlam. The word k'in means "sun" and more particularly the sun-god, while -ich is an ancient nominal suffix that might not affect the translation (Marc Zender, personal communication, 2000). Thus K'inich is simply "Sun (God)" or perhaps "Great Sun" (epigraphers differ on the reading). All but one of the known kings of Palenque after and including Pakal the Great adopted K'inich as part of their names. For instance, one of Pakal's sons called himself K'inich K'an Joy Chitam, which is the name of Palenque's fifth ruler with the addition of "K'inich". It is possible that Pakal styled himself K'inich Janahb' Pakal in order to distinguish himself from his grandfather, Janahb' Pakal. With the single exception of the reference to Kan B'ahlam I depicted on this page, there is no evidence that K'inich was used in the name of any Palenque ruler before Pakal. Note: K'inich, originally thought to be a title, has come to be considered part of the name proper, although the pendulum may be swinging back again (see below). The eldest son of Pakal ruled as K'inich Kan B'ahlam. He quite evidently took the name of Kan B'ahlam I as his rulership name, and in keeping with his father's precedent he would have ruled as K'inich Kan B'ahlam even if his remoter predecessor had not been named K'inich. One must allow for the possibility that the scribes made a mistake in captioning the portrait of Kan B'ahlam I on the side of the Sarcophagus. There is a school of thought that holds that the Sarcophagus was created by Kan B'ahlam after his father's death (rather than by the father himself in anticipation of his own demise). In this case, the scribes might have been aware that Kan B'ahlam II was styling himself K'inich Kan B'ahlam. Arguing against this is the fact that K'inich Kan B'ahlam II did not accede until nine months after his father's death. During this time the Sarcophagus would in all probability have been completed (if indeed it had not long since been so). So the scribes would not necessarily have known the name by which Kan B'ahlam II intended to rule. Further complicating the picture is the consideration that all references to previous kings of Palenque were inscribed by Pakal the Great and his successors. We have no contemporaneous records of what these earlier kings called themselves. It is possible that the full name of Kan B'ahlam I was K'inich Kan B'ahlam, and that other early kings had K'inich as part of their names as well. Citing a paper by Pierre Robert Colas, Stanley Guenter (personal communication, 2001) argues that K'inich is a title when it appears at the beginning of names. He points out that in Palenque's "El Bulto" Tablet from Temple XVI and Tablet of the Slaves, the names of the kings Kan B'alam II, K'an Joy Chitam II and Ahkal Mo' Nahb' III are all written without K'inich. Furthermore, in fuller spellings of the names of Ahkal Mo' Nahb' III and K'uk' B'alam II, the K'inich part seems to be joined with preceding Yajawte' titles. Guenter thinks that K'inich in frontal position is only a title and could merely be a short form for Yajawte' K'inich. |