Talk:Kʼinich Janaabʼ Pakal

Ruling and Age
I am under the impression that the dates in the infobox don't seem to make any sense. It says Pacal ruled until August 31, 683. However, it also says in the "Died" line that Pacal died exactly five months before his reign ended. This is either a mistake, or I am simply ignorant of Mayan culture where people are still king after their death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shade9009 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * thats right - the dates showing mysterious things:
 * beginning Line: born 23 March 603 - died 28 Aug.683
 * infobox: born 26 March 603 - died 31 March 683 - reign till 31 Aug.683
 * the spanish Version says, he was born 6 March 603 and died 30 Aug.683, the german and french Version agree with 23 March 603 and 28 Aug.683
 * this is complete weird and should be corrected with exquisit sources. A explanation are probably the different "Correlations" to convert the Maya Long Count into gregorian calendar (see also here) but still than all datings in the Articles should be based on one of the possibilities. -- Hartmann Schedel  cheers  14:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I found a possible explanation but it is impossible, linking to the site because famsi has an empty space in the url. The URL is  http://research.famsi.org/whos_who/monuments.php?mathewsnumber=PAL 11 (note the empty space on the end before the 11, this space and the 11 are a part of the url - I dunno how famsi did this). There are the Dates and they are listed in "Julian Dates". -- Hartmann Schedel  cheers  15:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, again it don't work so take this Link scroll down and click to "Complete List of references" - I really don't know how he did this -- Hartmann Schedel  cheers  15:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ok now I got it: HERE - sorry for all this stuff; the webmaster of FAMSI helped out by email (*lol*?) -- Hartmann Schedel  cheers  16:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Pacal Votan
I have heard of a Mayan sage-king by the name Pacal Votan of Palenque. Apparently, he is one in the same as Pacal the Great. Is this true? I think this deserves some looking into. —This unsigned comment is by 199.79.112.254 (talk • contribs) 16 March 2006.


 * No, definitely not. "Pacal Votan" is a figment, conjured from the rather overactive imagination of the esotericist and New Age-fantasist author Jose Arguelles, who has written much (but, it seems, learned little) on aspects of mysticism and the Maya. "Pacal Votan" is Arguelles' name for some mystical prophet-like figure he supposes that he has identified, and who he indeed does conflate with the historical Pacal 'the Great' figure; but as with the rest of his ideas he has taken some details from Maya scholarship and blended them with a larger body of cosmological and mystical speculation of his own creation. His views are decidedly beyond the fringes of mainstream studies, and his conception of Pacal Votan bears no relation to the historical ruler of Palenque, Pacal.--cjllw | TALK  04:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Pacal Tomb Lid
The pivot points on the Tomb lid of Lord Pacal reveal rotation points and when rotated intead of a single picture /glyth, images of different scenes are revealed that amount to a drama or picture book. And those pictures detail important points of a key ritual, as e.g. the bat god pulling the soul out of Lord Pacal, interpreted to be a death or rebirth scene. (but step on path to enlightenment)

See The Mayan Prophecies: Unlocking the Secrets of a Lost Civilization by Maurice Coterell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.110.2 (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but there's no way this book by Cotterell and Adrian Gilbert qualifies as anywhere near a reliable source, and no way that any original statement in it is going to be put in the article. The book has nothing to do with serious Mayanist scholarship and none of it is in any way endorsed by the sources which as an encyclopaedia we are bound to use. The book has even been panned as seriously deficient and poorly researched by others in the "independent Maya research" authorship game, eg by John Major Jenkins. Sorry, but there are no grounds to even mention that book in passing here, or elsewhere. Regards, --cjllw ʘ  TALK 00:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * CJLL, having confirmed scenes from the "Pacal tomb lid book", the book overall is confirmed; and indicates the extreme advanced nature of Lord/King Pacal & Mayan civilization, way beyond today. The lack of knowledge of any researchers, doesn't refute any of that. I Witness Willy Jr 76.195.234.117 (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Confirmed"? By whom? Sorry, not even Cotterell & Gilbert themselves would be audacious enough to pretend that their 'scholarship' has any support (or even, acknowledgement) by actual and qualified Mayanist researchers. Indeed, their whole 'marketing strategy' relies upon them being outsiders. For the kinds of sources we will be relying upon here, pls see WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Cobbled-together pseudoscientific marketing exercises like this are not among them.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 02:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarcophagus lid drawing
I have uploaded a drawing of mine of the sarcophagus lid. I've been working on this for a while, and finally decided to upload it despite its being somewhat unpolished.

My primary concern is that it is difficult to easily see/read/interpret the drawing on the article page. It might be best if it were coloured somehow, but I don't believe that this would be historically correct. Some drawings I've seen have the background dappled, to try to replicate the 3D nature of the lid in 2D. Thoughts, anyone?? Madman (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Rulers known as "the Great"
The template Rulers known as "the Great" has been added and removed several times from this article; I've started a discussion concerning possibly deleting this template entirely from Wikipedia; interested editors are invited to comment here: Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_14 ClovisPt (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good call, Clovis- it's been in the back of my mind for some time to nominate this template for deletion as arbitrary and of no informational value. There's also a related "List of.." article, IIRC; that shld prob go too. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ  TALK 00:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Name change
Finally got around to renaming this article to align with his actual deciphered nameglyph, rather than one (among several) nicknames or epithets he's been assigned in the past. Prob a little more tidyup & cross-referencing required to set up a full disambiguation system to differentiate btw the various other K'inich Janaab' Pakals, Janaab' Pakals, and Pakals that are known from inscriptions, but this'll do for now. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 03:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice job - a definite improvement. ClovisPt (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Pacal's sarcophagus lid shows Pacal using a telescope
It is representing the favourite hobby of Mayan aristocracy : astronomy. Their astonishing knowlage in astronmy, the fact they described jupiter's moons : they had telescopes. Well, you can see one here. Since they didn't know how to make large lense, they made one composed of small piece of glass or maybe natural polished stone like quartz, that could be perfectly adjusted to for a composite lense, the same famous way the stones of their buildings are adjusted (by simple friction). You can see the principle of a telescope here : 2 (composite) lenses whose distance can be adjusted, and that Pacal is adjusting focus. The curved material could be some sort of mirrors. Above the telescope is the sky and the names of the celestial objects. Don't tell me nobody ever though of that, it is blindingly obvious. Erudihen (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think it is "blindingly obvious" that Pacal has a telescope I won't argue with you, for the same reason I wouldn't argue with you if you said it was "blindingly obvious" that a cloud you saw was a bunny riding a bicycle. However if you wish Wikipedia to accept your hypothesis that the Pre-Columbian Maya used optical telescopes, I suggest you present third party verified evidence. Thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * One need a third party evidence to ask if someone got a third party evidence ? I think too it's blindingly obvious that it is obvious that this hypothesis need a third party evidence. This last thing I am precisely asking here. I want to point ou that the official interpretation states that it is blindingly obvious this is showing a tree and the jaws of a snake. If this is a tree and if this is jaws, logically the characters would look like some sort of cephalopod with a cow face or something. But it's not. The characters are extremly well rendered, so why would a tree and jaws would not look like what they actually look. The official interpretation is actually the one being eccentric. - Erudihen (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you know so little about Pre-Columbian iconography that you think it plausible it shows "a cow face", I suggest you spend some time (more than a few minutes) looking at other examples of Classical Maya art, and at least peruse what people who have spent years studying the field have said (I'm not saying to accept what anyone else says on "faith" - quite the contrary I'm suggesting you do your own in depth study, read up on what others have written, and then evaluate the plausibility of interpretations) before rushing to proclaim everyone who has looked at the image has it wrong. Thanks, -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Eeer... Where did I say it shows a cow face, but did you even make sense of my phrases ? Have an adult reading it to you, I can't help you there. --Erudihen (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sarcophagus lid discussion
I created an additional section to separate scholarly and popular discussion of the lid's meaning more clearly, and brought the scholarly discussion section up to date.Retal (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Dates in first paragraph
Citing Tiesler and Cucina, the article states that Pacal's birth date was 9.8.9.13.0, March 23, 603 and that he died on 9.12.11.5.18, August 28, 683. Using the GMT correlation these should be March 21, 603 and August 26, 683 in the Julian calendar and March 24, 603 and August 29, 683 in the proleptic Gregorian calendar which is popular with some Mayanists. One could arrive at Tiesler and Cucina's dates by using the Thompson correlation of 584285 days and the Julian calendar, however this correlation constant is not accepted by most mainstream scholars, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar#Correlations_between_Western_calendars_and_the_Long_Count. Since the book is in Spanish on Google books, it's difficult for me to figure out how the authors arrived at these dates. Given these uncertainties, wouldn't it be just as well to give these dates as Long Counts in the article? Senor Cuete (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete
 * Long count dates don't mean much to most people - but I think the correlation problem could be sidestepped by just giving the month and year alongside the long count date, then anyone interested enough can plug that into an online date converter to get a fixed date in the calendar of their choice. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion. The on-line converters I know about aren't very good. It's a crap shoot. They might use the bogus Thompson correlation or the revisionist proleptic Gregorian calendar. Can you suggest one? Senor Cuete (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete
 * I haven't used one for ages - and can't remember the one I did use. I do remember that I had to try out quite a few before finding a decent one. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I edited the article as per this discussion. Also note that the illustration used a different death date than the article. If the article has to use exact dates they should use the same correlation constant and calendar as the ones used in the Maya calendar and Long Count articles. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete


 * As per this discussion I removed the date added to the biography section because it used the proleptic Gregorian calendar and the incorrect Thompson correlation, see Correlations between Western calendars and the Long Count. Maybe the reference should be removed as an unreliable source as well. Because so many books contain calendar conversions that use either the mainstream Proleptic julian calendar or the revisionist proleptic Gregorian calendar and errors such as this one, these were removed in favor of using just the month and year but include the Long Count. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete


 * As per this discussion, I changed the dates recently added by Mabarlabin to comply with this discussion. They appear to have been Julian/Thompson, dates. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As per this discussion, I reverted the edit of an IP editor who put a specific date on Pakal's accession to the throne of Palenque. The date would be correct *IF* one used the Proleptic Gregorian calendar and the discredited Thompson (584285) correlation. The History Channel is about as unreliable of a source as one can find. The cited article would have to provide footnotes that would cite primary or secondary sources to count as reliable sources. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As per this discussion I removed the dates added by user:Mały koleżka. These are Julian dates and use the Thompson (584285) correlation. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed these dubious western calendar dates again and also text that cited no source. Senor Cuete (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I just wanted to get rid of a nonsense sentence by reintegrating text that had been deleted. Feel free to remove what you feel is uncited. Drmab (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Bàak'
I would like to change all of the text where Palenque is referred to as Bàak' back to Palenque. Mainstream scholarly references call it Palenque and article is about Palenque. The article should be consistent. It might be worthwhile to note that the Name of Palenque was "Bàak'" in Mayan (citing reliable sources). Senor Cuete (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say go ahead and change it, we should refer to these places by their modern names, with their ancient names mentioned as a note. In any case, Martin & Grube Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens, p. 155 has B'aakal as the ancient name of the city (which is certainly in keeping with Mayan orthography, whereas Bàak' isn't). Stuart & Stuart have "Baakal", but if my memory serves me right, there is no straight B in Mayan, only B'. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. The editor who added the content that refers to Palenque as Bàak' added a lot of unreferenced text. I feel like I should deface the article with a whole lot of s. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Father - K'an Mo' Hix
This wikilink is being redirected to a page about his mother. Sak kuk mo. How might I find the page redirecting this and nuke it? Senor Cuete (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * When you click on the link to K'an Mo' Hix, when it arrives at the redirect target, it displays (Redirected from K'an Mo' Hix) just under the article title - if you click on the link, it will take you back to the redirect page. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

K'inich as part of page name?
Should K'inich really be included in the page titles for Maya kings such as Janaab' Pakal and Yax K'uk' Mo'? K'inich was a title, not a name, meaning "sun-faced" or "sun-like" (see here). Not only was it almost invariably the first part of the nominal phrase of a k'uhul ajaw, but K'inich Yax K'uk' Mo' was only described as such after his accession to the rule of Copán, and simply bore the name K'uk' Mo' Ajaw before that, indicating that his personal name was K'uk' Mo' and that the k'inich was a part of a royal title. Since rulers of other kingdoms aren't given with their titulary as part of the page title (see Elizabeth II, Mswati III, Ramesses V), I think it's appropriate to remove k'inich from the page titles for all relevant Maya rulers, and merely mention the appropriate titles in the lede or perhaps a separate section if appropriate. Thefamouseccles (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The Palenque Code
There is a new (ancient aliens type) hypothesis around the pattern of the sarcophagus lid. It interprets the face masks, the three-circled items and the two star symbols as forming together a geometrical method to encode a message about an ancient interstellar travel (a quick overview of the decoding procedure can be found here). Might be worth mentioning in the Pseudoarchaeology section? 86.101.112.30 (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on K'inich Janaab' Pakal. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://members.shaw.ca/mjfinley/vondaniken.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Error in reference?
The Long Counts for Pakal's birth and death are matched with correct Calendar Rounds but the Calendar Round for his ascent to the throne is not correct. The article gives 9.9.2.4.5 as 8 Lamat 1 Mol. This should be 2 Chikchan 18 Yaxk'in. I don't have a copy of Martin & Grube. Could someone who has this, look at page 162 and see if this is a mistake in citing the reference or if this is wrong in the reference itself. The next possible 8 Lamat 1 Mol after 9.9.2.4.5 would be on 9.9.18.8.8. The preceding one would be 9.7.5.13.8. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Searching Martin & Grube on Google books, I can't find 9.9.2.4.5, 8 Lamat or 1 Mol. It looks to me like this reference is bogus Senor Cuete (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Give me a couple of hours - I have the book at home, and can check. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * http://research.famsi.org/whos_who/monuments.php?mathewsnumber=PAL%20011
 * lists seven inscriptions with the date of his accession as 9.9.2.4.8 5 Lamat 1 Mol. This date is three days later and the Long Count correlates correctly to the Calendar Round. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the day after his birth was the cosmical rising of Venus - the first day when it was visible as the evening star. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I just checked the source and it certainly says 9.9.2.4.8 5 Lamat 1 Mol, given as 23 March 603. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll change the Maya calendar date. This Long Count would actually be July 24, 615 (Julian GMT) or July 27 in the proleptic Gregorian calendar, two days later with the dubious 585 correlation. Generally the conversions are consistent in citations to this book so I don't know how they got this one so wrong. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Better drawing of sarcophagus lid relief?
The sarcophagus lid drawing, apparently dating back to 2008, is unreliable in its details (as an enlargement mercilessly reveals). A well-lighted, sharp picture or a professional drawing is needed.Retal (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)