·    Distinguishing characteristic is the “bar-and-dot” form of “7” + main sign:

o It can be on the left or on top of the main sign.

o It (often) has no filler(s) in between the two external dots and can be beside or above the main sign, generally:

§ Beside in the head variant

§ Above in the abstract variant

But this tendency might be an illusion caused by the small sample size.

·    Gronemeyer-GGF.p6.pdfp6.fig5 has a typo where the figures are labelled a, b, c, e, f, g with accompanying text a, b, c, d, e, f for their sources – it’s safe to assume that e is actually d; f is actually e; and g is actually f

·    Variants (2) of main sign:

o A. Representational, divided into two halves by a horizontal line at nose level:

§ Outline:

·      The head of a (young?) male with open mouth (with optionally bold lips), divided into two halves by a horizontal line

§ Top:

·      A bold semi- or 3/4- or full circle – a LEM-like element infixed in the top of the head.

·      A small eye, optionally with a few tiny non-touching dots in a horizonal line to the right

§ Bottom:

·      2 vertical bars (optionally with cross-hatching in between), or just two vertical lines; alternatively, an “ajaw strap”.

·      The 2 vertical lines might just be reduced/eroded forms of the 2 vertical bars and cross-hatching, or of the “ajaw strap”.

o B. Abstract:

§ Top: left and right feeler, each with its own protector. These are very common, but absent in, for example, IXK Stela 2 A6).

§ Bottom – an IB-like element with boulder outline, divided into two halves by a horizontal line:

·      Top half: 3 non-touching dots in a triangular formation, triangle pointing up.

·      Bottom half: an element resembling an “ajaw strap”, except that the main long curved vertical band is replaced or supplemented by a slightly curved arc of touching dots.

Do not confuse the abstract variant of Glyph-G₄ with the “face” variant of Glyph-G₂: they both have two “leaves” (or left and right feelers with protectors) on top, but Glyph-G₂ is definitely face/HAAB-like on the bottom, whereas Glyph-G₄ is SIBIK-like. More importantly, Glyph-G₄ always has a “7” associated with it, while Glyph-G₂ never has.  

·    Gronemeyer-GGF.p6.pdfp6 reads both the head and abstract variant as WAJ = “tamale”. The variants with an “ajaw strap” are viewed as conflations of WAJ and the head version of AJAW (which has the “ajaw strap”): the top half with the circular element is the circle in the top of WAJ and the “ajaw strap” in the bottom half is the distinctive element of the head variant of AJAW. [Sim: this seems to me more related to IB, especially given that there are variants with two symmetrical leaves or scrolls above. It might even be related to SIBIK, but analysis has shown that IB tends to have the leaves/scrolls and SIBIK has the “KUCH” on top.]

·    The representational and abstract variants are not as independent of one another as might initially appear. The representational variant has an IB-like sub-variant (DPL Stela 8 A6, above) where:

o The infixed LEM-like element in the top of the head lacks the curved internal band of LEM and could be seen as a bolded top dot of the abstract variant.

o It has a “dotted ajaw strap”.

o The vertical bars of the bottom half could be seen as a fancy form of the vertical bar of the “ajaw strap”.