·     No glyphs given in K&H, 25EMC (listed in K&L under “undeciphered glyphs”).

·     For convenience, I’ve assigned this glyph the nickname “HKL” = “Half-Kneeling Legs” (half because only one of the knees actually touches the ground).

·     Do not confuse this with the visually similar “headless body sitting on the ground” variant of YAH.

·     There exists a drawing by Mathews, of YAX Lintel 11, but this turns out to be the same inscription as the one designated as YAX Lintel 60 in the Tate drawing. As more than two recent papers refer to the fixed set of YAX Lintels 60-49-37-35, I’m going to take YAX Lintel 60 as the more generally accepted number. Note however that MHD designates it at Lintel 11.

·     While there isn’t a full consensus on the reading and meaning of this glyph, it has been inferred (from context) that its meaning is connected with rulership. The syntax is <“HKL”>:AJAW followed by <name -of-the-ruler>:

o Some epigraphers read it to mean “ the accession to being ruler” of <name -of-the-ruler>.

o The difference between HKL-ajaw and chumwaan/chumlaj ti ajawlel is not clear. It could be a regionalism, or it could be a slight difference in meaning, with the former meaning the very first “coronation” and the latter meaning “sitting in rulership” on any occasion = initially on accession and subsequently during period end rituals. Or it could be a noun, while chumwaan/chumlaj ti ajawlel is clearly a verb.

o One source – “The Maya Glyphorarium” (https://sites.google.com/site/mayaglyphorarium/home) even reads it as CHUM. But I think it should be distinguished from CHUM and not seen as a variant of it:

§ It doesn’t take the verbal complement / prepositional object ti ajawlel, (which chum does, in the context of accessions).

§ It doesn’t have the end phonetic complement mu.

§ It doesn’t take the suffix -waan or -laj.

§ It might be a noun, whereas chum most often functions syntactically as a verb.

·     It corresponds to MHD.HLA:

o The example glyph used by MHD is more symmetrical and less resembles kneeling than “HKL”, i.e.:

§ “HKL” has both knees pointing left.

§ MHD.HLA has both knees pointing inwards.

o MHD treats the “AJAW” (= po + BEN, a.k.a. “ben-ich”) above the T700 as being an integral part of the glyph, whereas K&L, BMM9, and TOK do not include the “AJAW”.

o MHD assigns HLA a reading of ajaw.

o Statistics:

§ A search in MHD on “blcodes contains HLA” gives 20 hits.

§ The glyph is found in PAL and YAX inscriptions. There is one occurrence from NAR, but it’s very eroded and if it is an HLA, then this is more an inference from context than because it really looks like “HKL”. The PAL and YAX occurrences fall into two distinct sets.

§ PAL hits (9 in total):

·       Have symmetric legs (though a few of the PAL examples are very eroded, and it’s difficult to actually distinguish the legs).

·       Always have a ni after it.

·       Found in several different inscriptions.

§ YAX hits (10 in total):

·       Have asymmetric legs.

·       Never have a ni after it.

·       Found only on one inscription. The inscription may be spread over four lintels (YAX Lintels 60, 49, 37, 35), but it is one continuous narrative, commissioned by one ruler – K’inich Tatbu Jolom II /  K’inich Tatbu Jol II.

·     “HKL” corresponds to Bonn’s 0700st which gives only the asymmetric form, reading it as TAL?.

·     Sim:

o The falling of “HKL” and MHD.HLA into two such distinct groups, with such contrasting characteristics, makes me wonder whether these are two distinct glyphs.

o However, one argument in favour of treating them both as the same glyph and reading it as AJAW is that in the PAL context, they can all be read as AJAW-ni è ajawaan = “become (the) ruler” while in the YAX context, they can be read as u-<X>-TAL AJAW = “(the) <X>-th ruler”.

o The Bonn reading of TAL? makes less sense, as it would mean that the word tal occurs twice in succession, preceding the name of each of the 10 YAX rulers named in the inscription.