TABASCO, MAYAS
Vol. XI, issue 61, pp. 44-47

Moral-Reforma and the Contest
for Eastern Tabasco
Simon Martin

The fertile floodplain of Eastern Tabasco was home to a number of important Classic Maya kingdoms (AD 250-900). But recent evidence reveals the extent to which these kingdoms were subject to outside powers, most especially to nearby Palenque and distant Calakmul.

The meandering Usumacinta and San Redro Martir rivers laid down the rich soils of Eastern Tabasco which, together with their abundent year-round supply of water, make the region an especially productive agricultural zone. The region was divided politically between a number of modestly-sized cities, the most notable being Pomona, Santa Elena and Moral-Reforma. Although they have featured little in the developing history of the Classic Maya until now, a range of significant developments are putting them into new focus. Pomona, a hilltop city with a sizeable collection of monuments, is the best known, but equally important stories are now developing for Santa Elena— whose royal title or “emblem glyph” was recently identified by David Stuart—and Moral-Reforma whose lengthy inscriptions have received little attention in the modern era. These three centers were involved in a web of relations, both diplomatic and combative, with powerful neighbors such as Palenque and Piedras Negras, together with more distant contacts with Tonina, Yaxchilan, and Calakmul. To illustrate these complex ties we will concentrate on the little-known Moral.

Pomoná, Santa Elena y Moral-Reforma compartieron el dominio político del oriente de Tabasco, aunque la región estuvo muy influida por entidades externas como Palenque,Calakmul (que no aparece en el mapa, al N.E. de Moral-Reforma, a 160 km) y Piedras Negras. ilustración digital: raíces

El título de los reyes de Moral-Reforma puede transcribirsecomo K’UH-a-ma-?[AJAW?]-la, “divino señor de Ama…l”. El nombre del reino no puede ser leído con certeza. dibujo: simon martin

Moral-Reforma
Moral (which has been known by a number of different names) lies close to the Rio San Pedro Martir. Excavated by INAH projects in 1992, some of its major buildings, including a fine ballcourt, have been restored. It was found to contain five whole or damaged stelae and these are now divided between the Museo Balacan and the Museo Carlos Pellicer in Villahermosa. Together with a few other fragments, these monuments allow us to assemble a partial dynasty for Moral, covering the period from at least AD 622 to 756. The emblem glyph of Moral has been recognized for a number of years, but it remains only partly understood.

Stela 4
The most important document illuminating the political affairs of Moral is to be found on Stela 4, now in Balancan. The exquisite front face provides a portrait of the local ruler dominating two captives. His name is always damaged in the text, but part of it seems to read muwaan jol “Hawk Skull”, and that is how we will refer to him here. Hawk Skull was born in AD 656; the son of a previous king, and came to power in AD 661, at the age of only five years. His accession ceremony involved the presentation and tying of a royal headband, a phrase read k’al huun in the inscriptions which is among the most common of inaugural rites for the Classic Maya.

It is here that the inscription presents the first of its surprises. Uniquely, it tells us that less than a year later, in AD 662, he underwent a “second” headband ceremony. The reason for this new accession event is made clear by an appended phrase, which says that this rite was yichnal “overseen” by Yuknoom Ch’een II (el Grande), the ruler of Calakmul. It was by means of their “witnessing” or “supervision” of events such as these that dominant kingdoms like Calakmul can be seen to exercise power over their contemporaries. When combined with other records of diplomacy and warfare they reveal political hierarchies of a type I have examined for almost a decade in conjunction with Nikolai Grube. Yuknoom Ch’een II ruled throughout the middle of the seventh-century and enjoyed the status of “suprarey” across a wide swathe of the Maya region. We are further told uhtiiy “it happened at”, introducing the location where the Moral king traveled for this new investiture. Sadly, the name of this place is damaged and cannot be recognized.

What brought about this strange state of affairs? If we look to the records of Palenque and Piedras Negras we find an especially intense sequence of interactions at just this time, especially in the period between the two accession ceremonies. We know that Palenque’s Pakal the Great was deeply involved in the affairs of eastern Tabasco and in 659 took a lord of Pomona captive with five others, and shortly after received the Santa Elena ruler at his court, seemingly in an act of submission. Next, in an interpretation recently revived by Stephen Houston, the Calakmul king appears to have joined in a fire-making ritual at Piedras Negras in February 662. Only five days later, Piedras Negras stages an attack on a site now too damaged to read, and a day later on another that is clearly Santa Elena. In March 662, just a few days before the second accession at Moral, Palenque records the captures of two unidientified individuals it took on successive days. We can now see these diverse events as related, and can perceive a contest for control of not only Moral but the wider Tabascan region. The axis of Calakmul and Piedras Negras—despite individual claims of Palenque success—evidently triumphs and Hawk Skull’s re-installation reflects his political subjugation.

When Hawk Skull gives us further information it is from his adult life and in 687 he describes an important military victory and another, probably from 689, that seems to have produced the captives shown on the monument’s front face. But he has a further surprise for us when, three years later, we are told of his “third” headband ceremony in AD 690 . Once again, this event is “overseen”, but this time by none other than the Palenque ruler Kan B’ahlam II (“Snake Jaguar”). Kan B’ahlam had succeded his father Pakal the Great in 684 and within three years defeated Tonina and extended his influence along the Usumacinta as far as La Mar, a satellite town of Piedras Negras, and Anaite, seemingly the site of the same name today between Piedras Negras and Yaxchilan. The inclusion of Tabascan cities such as Moral in this sphere of control is unsurprising in this context. The ousting of Calakmul’s influence corresponds to a wider decline in its fortunes and five years later it would suffer a major defeat at the hands of Tikal. The new affiliation to Palenque is reflected even in the style of Stela 4, which shows clear connections to its western neighbor and may have been executed by specialists sent from there.

The phrase on Stela 4 that names Kan B’ahlam is followed by another: uhtiiy b’aakal “it happened at Palenque”. The Moral king was clearly obliged to visit the home of his new overlord and undertake his third headband-tying there. These two references at Moral are the first we have that demonstrate journeys to receive the insignia of office in foreign lands, and the whole text invaluable evidence for the “transfer” of political allegience.

Later Moral monument, Stela 1, seem less interested in macro-political affairs. This may reflect the declining influence of “superpowers” such as Palenque and Calakmul, a process that begins well before the famed 9th-century collapse. However, local rivalries continued unabated and probably intensified in the absence of the larger-scale alliances evident in earlier times. Stela 1 shows a leading ally or vassal of the Moral king—whose name includes a part regularly used by the royal line at Piedras Negras but is here a lord of the “tapir” site- in the act of brutally clubbing a captive. In this single vengeful scene we see the ultimate price of strategic failure in the Classic Maya world and taste the bitterness with which the rich soils of Tabasco were disputed.

Traducción: Elisa Ramírez