As discussed earlier in this chapter, Panel 3 portrayed a scene of alliance between Piedras Negras and Yaxchilan. But if there was an alliance, it did not last, and Panel 3 itself would be transformed, most likely the result of another turn in the two polities’ history of alliance and conflict. Less than thirty years after it was made, Panel 3 was attacked. The head of every human figure carved on the monument was broken off, along with some parts of their bodies (see fig. 1.2). Also destroyed were K’inich Yat Ahk II’s Throne 1 and his Stelae 15 and 12.
This damage happened most likely in the early ninth century. Stuart (1998b) and Houston (2004:276) have hypothesized that Yaxchilan warriors inflicted this destruction during the battle in which they seized K’inich Yat Ahk II in 808 ce, a capture recorded on Yaxchilan Lintel 10. If this hypothesis is correct, the capture and destruction constituted yet another episode in the long-term history between these two sites. Lintel 10’s narration of K’inich Yat Ahk Il’s capture is the last record of conflict between the polities, and it is Yaxchilan’s last inscription as well; both cities soon were abandoned (Houston 2004:276; Houston, Escobedo, Child, et al. 2003:228, 238-39).
These sculptures were not a simple casualty of other violence; their destruction was directed and intentional. The sculptures were located in hard-to-reach places. One was K’inich Yat Ahk II’s throne room in the Acropolis, amid a maze of buildings; another was the top of Structure O-13, where K’inich Yat Ahk II had installed sculptures and performed ceremonies. With K’inich Yat Ahk II’s capture and the destruction of his monuments, the marauders attempted to remove both the man and his memory from Piedras Negras. Nonetheless, they attacked sculptures of other rulers as well, including Panel 7 from Structure K-5, and they burned buildings, including Structure J-12 in Court 2 in the Acropolis (Houston and Escobedo 2001:625), probably because they were also symbols of the polity’s identity and power.
An analogous situation occurred at Yaxchilan, for many sculptures of Itzamnaaj Bahlam IV, who reigned from circa 769 to at least 800 ce (Martin and Grube 2008:134), contemporary with K’inich Yat Ahk II, were destroyed. The carnage appears to have been violent and deliberate, perhaps as part of a program to destroy the ruler’s image at the site (M. Miller and O’Neil 2004). Yaxchilan Stelae 4 and 7, of Itzamnaaj Bahlam IV, were smashed where they stood in front of Structure 20; in both cases the ruler’s face was destroyed, as if specifically targeted. In addition, his Stelae 21, 22, and 29, which stood in front of Structure 44, were also destroyed. Finally, his Stela 24 was broken and reused in the masonry of Structure 64, a late building (Tate 1992:264). Some stelae of previous rulers were smashed as well, though they may have been collateral damage, for most were located next to Itzamnaaj Bahlam IV’s damaged stelae in front of Structures 20 and 44. Alternatively, the Structure 44 stelae may have been destroyed because they were in the Pequena Acropolis, the site of a late battle (Kaneko 1998).
Because of the history of conflict between Yaxchilan and Piedras Negras, the evidence for roughly contemporaneous destruction at both sites, and the glyphic record of the capture of K’inich Yat Ahk II, Piedras Negras is a good candidate for the aggressor in the battle at Yaxchilan (M. Miller and O’Neil 2004). And although there was damage inflicted on other sculptures and buildings at Piedras Negras and Yaxchilan, the evidence surrounding the sculptural destruction suggests the violence at both sites was directed primarily at the sculptures of K’inich Yat Ahk II and Itzamnaaj Bahlam IV, the rulers reigning then at each site, and the intention of the destruction was to extinguish those kings’ images. These are only a few of the many examples of ancient Maya sculptural destruction. The Piedras Negras and Yaxchilan sculptures were destroyed at the end of the sites’ major occupations and were never cleaned up, though in other times and places, the Maya retrieved destroyed sculptures and buried them in buildings. Examples are from Pomona (Garda Moll 2005:128), Copan (Fash 1998; Sharer 2004:305-16), and Tikal (W Coe
1990:479-87, 505; Jones 1991; O’Neil 2009; Shook 1958). As Sharer (2004:305-16) has argued for Copan, and Martin (2000b) for Tikal, much of the destruction appears to have taken place amid warfare. Destruction is thus another significant way that the Classic Maya engaged with stone sculptures, and the targeted destructions are testaments to their potency as animate objects or symbols of power that enemies tried to deactivate.
World History
