First, excellent job and thanks for bringing this to our attention. Just a few quick notes. First, In glyph 7, could the sign you read as he actually be a lu? It looks pretty lu-ish to me, and I do recall the name of Copan's Ruler 9, SAK-lu. For Glyph 8, I rather doubt the infixed CHAN. No sign of this is present, and the supposedly infixed na resembles as much to me the 'mirror' sign that is fairly often attached to the bodies of divine beings, especially gods. Chan could very well be omitted but meant to be understood, and we have a number of examples of this, especially from Dos Pilas — B'ajlaj (Chan) K'awiil and K'awiil (Chan) K'inich, for example. The EG in Glyph 9 is really interesting, as the form of the tie is very reminiscent of the one on Tikal Temple I, Lintel 3. This could help in dating this vessel to the early- to mid-eighth century. Sounds like a reasonable date, anyway. I doubt Glyph 10 reads u b'aah, as the third sign doesn't closely resemble the "Imix" syllable b'a, and the second sign is definitely not a hi. It most resembles xa. I can't posit a reading myself, as the third sign is rather unusual, but its basic form reminds me of the jaguar-covered throne, TZ'AM. Glyphs 11 and 12a appear to me to be a form of EG, Ik'a' Ajaw. Glyph 11, in any event, appears to be a clear reference to Motul de San Jose. Mike McBride showed me an Ik' vessel currently in Texas (I think in San Antonio) that appears to give the famous Ik' ruler K'inich Lamaw Ek' a Tikal EG, before he becomes king of Motul. I wonder if this vessel isn't another in that vein — Tikal princes who ended up as lords of Motul de San Jose. One final note: the Tikal king K'inich Waaw actually does carry the Kaloomte' title on a vase in the Popol Vuh Museum