Figure 1.
Bloodletting scene from Yaxchilan Lintel 17.
This image of Classic Maya bloodletting depicts a royal man using a stingray spine to pierce his penis and a noble woman pulling a thorny vine through her tongue in ritual acts of self-sacrifice. Drawing by Ian Graham [81], Yaxchilan, Lintel 17. © President and Fellows of Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, 2004.15.6.5.16. Digital file #101240031.
Figure 2.
Bowl containing instruments used in Classic Maya bloodletting rituals.
From Yaxchilan Lintel 25. Detail of drawing by Ian Graham [81], Yaxchilan, Lintel 25, front edge. © President and Fellows of Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, 2004.15.6.5.22. Digital file #101240034.
Figure 3.
Detail of ZYC graphemes showing variants of the ch’ahb’ bloodletting glyph.
Drawing by Matthew G. Looper [44].
Table 1.
Mayan words and their definitions associated with the transcription of the ZYC grapheme ch’ahb’ referring to bloodletting.
Figure 4.
Location and name of southern Maya lowland sites included in the study.
Red dot indicates sites that record the ch’ahb’ bloodletting glyph and black dot indicates sites where no reference to ch’ahb’ bloodletting has been found. Size of red dot refers to the relative abundance of dated monuments that record bloodletting rituals.
Figure 5.
Relative frequency of dated monuments with ch’ahb’ bloodletting glyph in each 20-year k’atun period.
References to bloodletting rituals exceed 15% during two k’atun periods, 9.8.0.0.0 (593–613 CE) and 9.13.0.0.0 (692–712 CE).
Figure 6.
Temporal distribution of dated monuments, political statements, and ch’ahb’ bloodletting statements included in the study.
X-axis is divided into 20-year increments known as k’atun periods in the Maya Long Count calendar system. Note the overall low frequency of ch’ahb’ bloodletting statements in comparison to the number of dated monuments during each k’atun period.
Figure 7.
Estimates for the negative binomial mixed model effects including the confidence intervals.
Table 2.
Negative binomial mixed models including the fixed effects (β) and random effects (γ) with corresponding AIC values.
Table 3.
Results of the Generalized Linear Mixed Model.
Figure 8.
Bubble graph of standardized Gi* scores at a lag distance of 150 kilometers.
Bubble area is proportional to |Gi*|. Red bubbles represent positive Gi* scores, where ch’ahb’ bloodletting rituals are recorded. White bubbles represent negative Gi* scores, where there are no bloodletting records. Sites labeled with ID number have significant Gi* scores and correspond to the site names and IDs in Figure 4.
Figure 9.
Network graph showing the sociopolitical ties between sites partitioned by the presence of ch’ahb’ bloodletting statements.
Sites labeled in red indicate the presence of ch’ahb’ (light pink indicates absence). The nodes are plotted using their geographic coordinates. Site IDs correspond to the names listed in Figure 4.