·    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” (“QB”). Do not confuse this with the “quadripartite badge” (“QB”), which is a totally different glyph – the “QG” is very symmetric while the “QB” is quite asymmetric.

·    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 in the corners.

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’.

·    Although many of the “canonical” examples given have, symmetrically, a triangle of small dots (either three or six) in each of the four cardinal direcctions (North, South, East, West on the ceiling, floor, right wall, left wall, respectively), there are real-world examples which have only one or no triangles of dots, e.g., CPN Altar S J1-K1 and DPL Stela 15 B7. Indeed, there are even “canonical” examples without four triangles of dots, e.g., MHD.ZC4.2 and T510c.