·     No glyphs given in K&H, BMM9, 25EMC.

·     Listed in K&L.p45.r6.c4 under “undeciphered glyphs”. As an undeciphered glyph, it is sometimes referred to as the “quatrefoil glyph”. Do not confuse this with the “quadripartite badge”, which is a totally different glyph.

·     A search in MHD for “blcodes contains ZC4” produces 16 hits. The basic quatrefoil, with infixed:

o A. HA’ (“water”) / ba, or

o B. “EK’” (without the four circles, one in each corner), or

o C. “Bold cross” – this is probably just a very rectangular variant of “B”, without the four circles.

The sites are almost exclusively in the more eastern parts of the central lowlands: CNC, CPN, DPL, EDZ, QRG, RAZ, SBL – EDZ (Edzna) is the only one distinctly in the west (it’s in the Yucatan Peninsula, in modern day Campeche, quite near the Gulf coast).

·     The basic logogram could be the one with the “bold cross” in the centre, with it being covered when HA’ (“water”) / ba or “EK’”) is infixed as an additional word / syllable. Or they might be two different logograms (three, if the “EK’” is considered different from the “bold cross”).

·     It seems to be a different glyph from PAL TS H8:

 

PAL TS H8	KuppratApp K’IN = CPN Stela 9 B9

 

This one is also undeciphered, though some sources read it as just K’IN (probably incorrectly so).

·     Looper-TQTAC is a short (4-page) paper which is totally devoted to this glyph. It proposes that:

o The basic logogram is, indeed, the quatrefoil with the “bold cross” / “EK’” infixed (as an essential part of the logogram).

o It can be read as CH’EEN.

o The additional infixed or appended element is HA’.

o The compound Ch’een Ha’ is written with the HA’ either:

§ Infixed (K&L.p45.r6.c4, CNC Panel 3 D3 / ‘C3’) or

§ Appended (DPL Stela 15 B7).

o Indeed, it’s the existence of DPL Stela 15 B7 which enables us to reach this conclusion: without it, we wouldn’t be sure if “infixing” of the HA’‑element resulted in a totally different logogram (i.e. wasn’t infixing at all, but just a distinguishing element of a different logogram). [Sim: DPL Stela 11 B1 further supports this idea, as it too has a HA’ written outside the “quatrefoil”, though in this case, the na phonetic complement is written under both logograms.]

o The paper furthermore proposes that this logogram:

§ While maintaining a semantic relationship to “cave”, is not interchangeable with the (much) more common logograms for CH’EEN but instead has some related and more restricted meaning.

§ Has a relationship to altars.

§ Has a relationship to cenotes and plazas when combined with HA’.