Despite the display of connections on Structure O-13, hints of drama and conflict appeared during the reigns of Rulers 5, 6, and 7 that possibly stemmed from quarrels related to succession because they were brothers (Escobedo 2004:279; Houston 2004:275). For example, Ha’ K’in Xook (Ruler 6) does not mention Yo’nal Ahk III (Ruler 5) in any of his texts, a possible sign of turbulence (Houston, Escobedo, and Webster 2008). In addition, there may have been conflict during the transfer of power between Ha’ K’in Xook and K’inich Yat Ahk II (Ruler 7), and Ha’ K’in Xook may have abdicated (see Houston, Escobedo, Child, et al. 2000:107; Houston, Escobedo, and Webster 2008; Stuart 2004a:1).
Another sign of conflict relates to the succession between Itzam K’an Ahk II (Ruler 4) and Yo’nal Ahk III (Ruler 5). There is evidence that there had been another heir to Itzam K’an Ahk II named T’ul Chihk, but as recorded on Yaxchilan Hieroglyphic Stairway 1 and La Pasadita Lintel 1, Yaxchilan captured this heir in 759 CE. Yo’nal Ahk III became the one to succeed Itzam K’an Ahk II and did not mention T’ul Chihk in any extant texts. However, decades later, K’inich Yat Ahk II (Ruler 7) would make reference to T’ul Chihk on Panel 3 and thereby recuperate his memory (Houston, Escobedo, and Webster 2008; Martin and Grube 2008:151). Also on Panel 3, K’inich Yat Ahk II connected himself to Itzam K’an Ahk II without mentioning the intervening Yo’nal Ahk III or Ha’ K’in Xook.
There also are indications of rupture in the naming patterns of these last three rulers. Contrasting with the previous five dynasts, Ha’ K’in Xook did not take a dynastic name (at least not one that is otherwise known), and K’inich Yat Ahk II took the name not of a recent predecessor but of the Early Classic ruler Yat Ahk I (Houston et al. 2001:70).
Nevertheless, despite the possible conflicts and the omissions, memory of these rulers was not erased, for Ha’ K’in Xook and K’inich Yat Ahk II left their predecessors’ sculptures on display and erected their own in physical association with them. Even if there had been conflicts or disgrace, these stelae were from predecessors who likely were considered divine ancestors. Indeed, the reigning ruler may have had to draw on their tradition to legitimize his rule and display stability and continuity, especially if there had been a succession dispute. The juxtaposition of monuments thus may have
Been as much about political strategy as ancestor veneration. In short, the presence of sculptures in juxtaposition, some emulating earlier monuments, created a display of smooth succession and continuity that may or may not have aligned with actual historical events. This is analogous to many other cultures’ practices of smoothing over ruptures in the construction of social memory (see Van Dyke and Alcock 2003:3).
World History
