The site of El Resbalón (RSB) in Quintana Roo, Mexico, features three hieroglyphic stairways (HS I–III) with 203 inscribed blocks (Figure 1). The stairways were investigated in 1973 to 1978 and then moved to storage (Carrasco Vargas and Boucher Le Landais Reference Carrasco Vargas, Le Landais, Adams, Jones and Stuart1987; Esparza Olguín Reference Esparza Olguín2012). HS I appeared complete, whereas HS III was missing multiple blocks (Figure 1). HS II consisted of plain blocks with some inscribed blocks. The present project digitized the blocks and then reconstructed the layout of HS I and III (Tokovinine and Balanzario Reference Tokovinine, Balanzario, Álvarez, Salinas and Aragón2025).

Figure 1.

Location of HS I–III at RSB (based on Tsukamoto Reference Tsukamoto2005:Figure 5) and the distribution of chronological data on HS I and III.

Figure 1 Long description

The map illustrates the site of El Resbalón in Quintana Roo, Mexico, featuring hieroglyphic stairways labeled HS I, HS II and HS III. The layout includes the Main Plaza, Central Plaza and Elevated Plaza. HS I is located near the Main Plaza, while HS III is adjacent to the Elevated Plaza. A scale bar indicates distances from 0 to 100 meters. An inset map shows the location of El Resbalón relative to major sites such as Tikal and Copan. The legend at the bottom categorizes stairway blocks from Stairways I and III into the kind of calendrical information that they contain: Long Count, Lunar Series, Tzolkin and Haab (Calendar Rounds), 9-day Week, and Distance Numbers. Asterisks mark blocks from Stairway I shown here as part of Stairway III. Each calendrical category is represented with a distinct hatching pattern . Blank blocks contain no calendrical information. Overall, the drawing reveals the spatial distribution of blocks with calendrical information in the reconstructed layouts of Stairways I and III.

Three individuals are consistently mentioned on HS I and III. Lak’nes/Lak’ne’ch Bahlam (Figure 2a–d) is contemporaneous with the dedication of the stairways. Ti’ Chan K’inich Xan Bahlam (Figure 2e–g) and Num Joloom (Figure 2h–i) are deep-time characters: the former accedes to the kingship in 337 BC (Figure 3d); the latter supervises the accession and dies shortly after (see the later discussion). This distinction clarifies the chronology of the passages with absent or ambivalent temporal anchors. Num Joloom carries the kaloomte’ title of paramount rulers and resides in Chih Ka’ (Figure 2i).

Figure 2.

Protagonists of RSB texts: (a–d) Lak’nes Bahlam; (e–g) Ti’ Chan K’inich Xan Bahlam; (h–i) Num Joloom; (j) Siyaj K’ahk’; (k) . . . K’inich; (l) Yuknoom Ek’ Ti Chan; (m) “Sky Witness.” Block labels here and elsewhere contain the last three digits of the INAH registry (10-389XXX) and von Euw’s designations (see Esparza Olguín Reference Esparza Olguín2012:60).

Figure 2 Long description

The image A shows blocks A8 through A11 of Stairway I with five cartouches containing the hieroglyphic spelling of Lak’nes Bahlam’s full name. The image B shows blocks AX13 and AX14 of Stairway III with a partial spelling of Lak’nes Bahlam’s name. The image C shows block A5 of Stairway II with a partial spelling of Lak’nes Bahlam’s name. The image D shows blocks BB2, CC1, and CC3 of Stairway III with four cartouches containing a spelling of Lak’nes Bahlam’s full name. The image E shows block CX8 of Stairway I with a spelling of Ti’ Chan K’inich Xan Bahlam’s name. The image F shows the same name as in image E recorded across blocks BX3 and AA3 of Stairway I. The image G shows the same arrangement as in the image F with different TI’ and XAN allographs in blocks BX12 and BX 13 of Stairway III. The Image H shows two blocks DD21 and AA8 of Stairway I containing Num Joloom’s full name. The Image I shows blocks AX10. AX11, and AX12 of Stairway III containing Num Joloom’s full name. Image J shows block CX23 of Stairway III with Siyaj K’ahk’s name. The image K shows blocks BX24 and BX25 of Stairway III with the name of an unknown Kaanu’l ruler. The image L shows block A22 of Stairway I containing two cartouches with the name of a Kaanu’l ruler that begins with Yuknoom. The image M shows blocks AA3, BB8, and CX14 through CX19 of Stairway III with the name and titles of “Sky Witness”. A bracketed ellipsis marker between blocks BB8 and CX19 in the image indicates that a section of the name has been omitted in the illustration.

Figure 3.

IS dates at RSB: (a) historical date on HS I; (b) partial historical date from HS II and III; (c) deep-time date on HS I; (d) deep-time date on HS III.

Figure 3 Long description

A black-and-white line drawing arranged as four labeled groups: a, b, c and d. a: Two horizontal rows of outlined stairway blocks. Each block contains between one and three cartouches with hieroglyphs. Small catalog-style text labels appear in the lower section of every stairway block providing INAH and von Euw’s block designations. b: A set of outlined stairway blocks awith gaps indicating missing sections. Small catalog-style text labels appear in the lower section of every stairway block. c: Two horizontal rows of outlined stairway blocks with cartouches containing hieroglyphic inscriptions. A bracketed ellipsis marker appears at the left side before a sequence of glyph blocks, indicating an omitted portion. Small catalog-style text labels appear in the lower section of every stairway block.. d: Two horizontal rows of outlined stairway blocks with cartouches containing hieroglyphic inscriptions. A bracketed ellipsis marker appears at the left side before a sequence of glyph blocks, indicating an omitted portion. Small catalog-style text labels appear in the lower section of every stairway block..

The narratives on HS I and III are anchored to the historical time frame using an Initial Series (IS) comprising the IS Introductory Glyph (ISIG), Long Count (LC), Lunar Series (LS), “Lords of the Night” (LN), and Calendar Round (CR). The date on Steps A and B of HS I (Figure 3a) was reconstructed by Schele and Mathews (Reference Schele and Mathews1990). The LC of 9.4.14.10.4—paired with a CR of 5 Kan 12 Kayab, G6 in the LN, and with a New Moon in the LS—corresponds to AD 2/25/529; they are followed by the stairway dedication statement. The event is then linked to a 20-year anniversary of Lak’nes Bahlam’s accession (Tokovinine and Balanzario Reference Tokovinine, Balanzario, Álvarez, Salinas and Aragón2025).

The anchor date on Step D of HS III is indicated by a haab of 4 Uo and a block with the name of the lunation. Following Esparza Olguín’s (Reference Esparza Olguín and Olguín2022) proposal that the inscribed blocks of HS II may have originated from HS III, we added the blocks with calendrical information from HS II to that hypothetical IS on HS III. The result is 9.X.15.X.X X 4 Uo and a complete LS (Figure 3b). Taking the LS into account (see Supplementary Material 1) results in a single plausible reconstruction: 9.[6].15.[5.1 11 Imix] 4 Uo (AD 4/13/569). The date is nearly one tzolkin away from a 60-year anniversary of Lak’nes Bahlam’s accession. The first blocks of Step C contain his name, which must be a continuation of the clause on Step D (Figure 2d).

References to Lak’nes Bahlam are followed by statements of his subordination (yajaw) to Kaanu’l (Dzibanché) rulers. For AD 529, the overlord’s name begins with yuknoom and ends with chan (Figure 2l). The date falls within the reign of Yuknoom Ek’ Ti Chan (Martin Reference Martin2017). The name in AD 569 (Figure 2m) belongs to “Sky Witness” (Esparza Olguín and Velásquez García Reference Esparza Olguín and Velásquez García2013). His paramount rank is indicated by the “east kaloomte’” title. The last known date linked to his predecessor K’ahk’ Ti’ Ch’ich’ is AD 4/4/568 (Estrada Belli and Tokovinine Reference Estrada Belli and Tokovinine2022). The date at El Resbalón refines the time of the succession to between AD 4/4/568 and 4/13/569.

The stairways also feature deep-time IS dates. On HS III, a deep-time IS date is located on Step B (Figure 1). The LS is 7.0.16.14.10 (Figure 3d), which corresponds to 12/28/338 BC. The event is Xan Bahlam’s accession supervised by Num Joloom. Although the baktun coefficient in the deep-time IS on HS I is damaged (Figure 3c), the number 7 is likely, given the complete overlap between protagonists and location with the deep-time event on HS III (Tokovinine and Balanzario Reference Tokovinine, Balanzario, Álvarez, Salinas and Aragón2025). Therefore, the LC on HS I may be reconstructed as 7.6.7.4.18 (11/14/229 BC). It reports Xan Bahlam’s escape to Chih Ka’ on Num Joloom’s orders. This date was erroneously reported as 9.7.6.4.13 in prior publications (Grube Reference Grube and Nalda2004:120).

The two deep-time dates are 108 years apart. That exceeds the plausible lifespans of the protagonists. The count of 888 years to Num Joloom’s death (Figure 4h) from no later than AD 569 on HS III directly contradicts the chronology of HS I, unless Num Joloom acted as a deified ancestor in that narrative. It is equally plausible that the deep-time history at RSB underwent a revision between AD 529 and 569. Such “adjustments” of Maya dynastic histories are attested elsewhere (Tokovinine Reference Tokovinine and Díaz2020:261).

Figure 4.

Clauses with chronological data on RSB HS I and III: (a) 4 Ahau; (b) 3 Chicchan; (c) 4 Cimi 8 Yaxkin; (d) 3 Imix; (e) 2 Oc; (f) 1 Chuen 11 Zek; (g) DN of 0.6-10.16.4.19; (h) DN of 2.4.8.17.10.

Figure 4 Long description

The illustration shows line drawings of sets of inscribed stairway blocks with calendrical information and accompanying clauses. Each set corresponds to a single date or a distance number. The image A shows the date 4 Ahau and related events on blocks CX4, CC5, and CC3 of Stairway I. The image B shows the date 3 Chicchan and related events on blocks CC7, CC8, CX15, and CX16 of Stairway I. The Image C shows the date 4 Cimi 8 Yaxkin and the kajaay clause on blocks CX16, BB9, CC9, AA5, BB10, and BB12 of Stairway I. The image D shows the date 3 Imix and related events on blocks BX15, BX16, and BX17 on Stairway III. The Image E shows the date 2 Oc and stela dedication by a Kaanu’l ruler on blocks BX21, AA12, BX23, BX24, and BX25 of Stairway III. The image F shows the date 1 Chuen 16 Zec and the associated death statement on blocks BB1, BB5, AX2, and AX3 of Stairway III. The bracketed “missing” ign between blocks BB1 and BB5 highlights that there is likley a missing block. The image G shows a distance number of 16.4.19 on blocks AX19 and AA13 of Stairway III. The image H shows a distance number of 2.4.8.17.10 and the associted reference to Num Joloom’s death on blocks AX4, AA4, BB9, AA6, AX9, AX8, AX10, AX11, and AX12 of Stairway III.

Chih Ka’ is the source of royal authority according to multiple Classic period narratives, which usually place Chih Ka’-linked events in the second century AD (Grube Reference Grube and Nalda2004:128–129; Tokovinine Reference Tokovinine and Díaz2020:259–261). The narrative at RSB diverges from that “consensus history” in moving the Chih Ka’ connection four centuries earlier and evoking an otherwise unknown Chih Ka’ overlord. Dzibanché rulers also traced themselves to Chih Ka’, but the earliest starting point of the Kaanu’l dynasty was in AD 128 (Martin Reference Martin2017). Whereas RSB HS I predates Kaanu’l’s rise, HS III reflects a changed political and ideational landscape: it mentions a stela dedication by a Kaanu’l ruler (Figure 2k, 4e) close to 338 BC. It also links “Sky Witness” to Siyaj K’ahk’ (Figure 2j), the fourth-century conqueror with Teotihuacan connections (Stuart Reference Stuart, Carrasco, Jones and Sessions2000).

The most unusual feature of the deep-time dates at El Resbalón is the misalignment of LC, CR, LN, LS, and tzolkin and haab cycles of some CR dates. For the LC of 7.6.7.4.18 on HS I, the corresponding LN should be G8, and the CR date should be 3 Edznab 6 Zip (Table 1). The tzolkin is eroded, but the coefficient is either 2 or 4, but not 3 (Figure 3c). The LN is either G5 or G7. The haab date is 11 Kayab, instead of 6 Zip. The LC of 7.0.16.14.10 on HS III (Figure 3d) should correspond to a CR of 2 Oc 3 Zotz and to G2 in the LN. However, the inscription lists 11 Cib 4 Yaxkin and G5 in LN. The CR of 11 Cib 4 Yaxkin is possible, but it does not correlate with anything else. The CR of 4 Cimi 8 Yaxkin coupled with G4 on HS I (Figure 4c) might correspond to a nighttime 3 Chicchan > 4 Cimi 8 Yaxkin on the LC of 7.6.16.11.5-6 (2/2–3/219 BC), but then the LN should be G9 or G1.

Table 1.

Summary of the Chronology of El Resbalón Texts.

Table 1 Long description

The table lists the chronology of El Resbalón events. Each horizontal row corresponds to a single event or a reported distance number between events. The left column contains Long Count dates of the events or the distance numbers recorded in the same system. The central column contains the corresponding Calendar Round dates. The left column contains the corresponding Gregorian dates. The dates range from 229 BC to 569 AD. Some events only have Calendar Round or sole Tzolkin dates becase the corresponding Long Count and Gregorian dates may not be reconstructed. Bracketing is used to mark the dates or sections of the dates which have been reconstructed.

Note: Brackets indicate reconstructed elements.

Another CR on HS III—1 Chuwen 16 Zec (Figure 4f)—is impossible unless it represents an alternative tzolkin–haab correlation. Such a correlation, known as Type I, is attested in Naj Tunich cave inscriptions, where Drawing 82 combines Type I with a regular Classic Maya tzolkin–haab correlation (MacLeod and Stone Reference MacLeod, Stone and Stone1995:160–164). MacLeod and Stone suggested that the motivation for the use of Type I correlation was ritual. The inscriptions at Naj Tunich mention visitors from Campeche and Southern Quintana Roo (Tokovinine Reference Tokovinine2023). RSB Type I dates could, in theory, be attributed to the same scribal community and similar beliefs.

The aberrant dates on HS I and III are unlikely to be mere calculation mistakes, because there is no other example of so many mistakes in a set of back-calculated dates on Classic Maya monuments. The more nuanced approach would be to consider the dates as part of the construction of El Resbalón’s history. Maya calendar cycles have divinatory and other ritual functions, with special emphasis placed on the recurrence of certain combinations (Lacadena García-Gallo Reference Lacadena García-Gallo, Rivera and Fort2007; Stuart Reference Stuart2005:183–185, Reference Stuart2011:274–282). Although the usual presentation of these cycles entails correlating dates, one can imagine a situation when shifting political and ritual needs resulted in a narrative where an established correlation between the cycles was sacrificed in favor of the recurrent patterns. The anomalous dates may also be interpreted as a rhetorical device placing the events within a special kind of nonhistorical time during which the usual correlations no longer applied, as with some Naj Tunich inscriptions. Perhaps, the author(s) of the texts also wanted to contrast the contemporaneous calendar to a system that was culturally or ethnically “other.”

The presentation of time in the narrative on HS I further departs from the typical Classic Maya discourse in that, with the exception of the accession anniversary at the very end, there are no counts of elapsed time between the events (“distance numbers”; DNs). There is also no attempt to connect the deep-time and the historical sections of the text. The modern timeline is simply introduced with a new IS (Figure 1). The narrative does make a distinction between a set of events linked to the first deep-time date and the subsequent happenings anchored to individual tzolkin days and CRs. All three verbs in that first set of events (e.g., Block BB8 in Figure 3c) are prefixed with a xa- particle that means “again” and “already” (Robertson et al. Reference Robertson, Law and Haertel2010; Wisdom Reference Wisdom1950:646).

The narrative on HS III is structured differently: the deep-time section follows a historical segment with the AD 569 date and ends with another historical section and a reference to the completion of the stairway (Figure 1). The DNs are present, but they are not used to connect different sections of the narrative in a conventional way. The first DN of 0.6–10.16.4.19 has an uncertain placement in the narrative (Figure 1; Figure 4g). If the count is from AD 569, it links to an event in AD 356–434. The second DN of 2.4.8.17.10 (Figure 1, Figure 4h) connects a presumably historical death anchored by 1 Chuen 16 Zec to Num Joloom’s death. The DN may be numerically significant (888 years and 350 days). If this CR is a Type I date, it should correspond to a standard CR of 1 Chuen 14 Zec. The likeliest LC would be 9.5.7.1.11 (AD 6/29/541). Subtracting the distance number takes the reader to 7.0.18.2.1 (4/12/336 BC), about a year after Xan Bahlam’s accession.

In some ways, the chronology of the narratives on HS I and III fits a typical Classic Maya pattern: current dedication events are juxtaposed to the time of the dynastic foundation. Yet, the narratives present a clear example of “alternative facts” that depart from the consensus chronology. The most basic aspect of Maya timekeeping—correlations between different cycles—is visibly manipulated. The deep time at El Resbalón diverges from the regular flow of historical time. It is presented as at least partially incalculable. There is also strong evidence that the “alternative history” at El Resbalón was continuously modified to reflect the present and, perhaps, to obtain numeral combinations of greater ritual significance.

With respect to the “consensus history” sections of the inscriptions, the stairways at El Resbalón help refine the chronology of the nearby Kaanu’l dynasty by linking known Kaanu’l kings—Yuknoom Ek’ Ti’ Chan and “Sky Witness”—to specific points in time. The reference to “Sky Witness” is especially significant because it narrows down the timing of his accession to the high king office.