·     God-GIII of the Palenque Triad has a very long, complex name, with many parts. The very last part consists of K’INICH and then two glyphs, both of which have not yet been deciphered.

o Very last part (Part 1):

§ This is a glyph identified by MHD as PY2 and by Bonn as 0239st.

§ I have given it the nickname “MNA” = “Maybe Not Ajaw”.

o Very last part (Part 2):

§ This is a glyph identified by MHD as ZD4 and by Bonn as 0594st.

§ I have given it the nickname “CHEQUERBOARD”.

§ For more information see “CHEQUERBOARD”.

·     The naïve approach would be to read “MNA” as, indeed, AJAW, and to view the wa-suffix as its end phonetic complement (even though it’s attached to the “CHECKERBOARD” rather than the “MNA”). However, neither MHD nor Bonn gloss (respectively) PY2 or 0239st as AJAW.

o Like AJAW, “MNA” also has a “beauty spot” (cross-hatched dot) on the cheek.

o However, “MNA” has an “inverted-L” in the top and right of the head, which is distinctly different from the “ajaw-band”:

§ The horizontal and vertical sections of the “ajaw-band” meet more or less at right angles whereas the horizontal and vertical sections of the element in “MNA” are more curved where they meet.

§ There appear to be (optionally) two struts (short, slightly diverging, cross-hatched bands) within the “inverted-L”, which are never seen in the “ajaw-band” of AJAW.

§ There is a cartouche around the head. The usual AJAW doesn’t have a cartouche – there is only a cartouche when AJAW is used as a day-name, and in that context, the cartouche is always the “day-name cartouche”, which has three “blood scrolls” at the bottom. The cartouche of “MNA” has no “blood scrolls” at the bottom.

These are probably the reasons that “MNA” is not read as AJAW.

·     It’s difficult to know how much weight to give to the similarities between “MNA” and AJAW and how much weight to give to the differences. The fact that the wa-element is so often present tends to favour an AJAW reading, but the fact that this wa-element is always attached to the “CHECKQUERBOARD” rather than to the “MNA” might argue against the AJAW reading. On the other other hand, genuine end phonetic complement wa is often written separated from the reduced (“ben-ich”) AJAW, attached to the main sign of the EG itself, in the K’uhul <EG> Ajaw expression. It seems that both MHD and Bonn allow the negative factors to outweigh the positive factors, and leave “MNA” as an undeciphered glyph.