·     Distinguishing characteristic: “9” + (a variant of) SIM (but this “9” is shared with Glyph-G₁).

·     The 9 is beside the main sign.

·     Features – like SIM/Glyph-Y/“Baby K’awiil”/“beetle glyph”, the main sign consists of 3 stacked parts – top, middle, bottom:

o Top part – horizontal, “rectangular”, 3-component element:

§ Left: head with long up-curving nose ~= “leaf-nosed bat head” (resembles the left component of T267).

§ Middle: washer.

§ Right: grip – a bold quarter-circle, north-east quadrant.

 

This 3-component element is treated in different ways by different epigraphers.

 

T267	MHD.3MB.1 K’AAS?	0267bt	0267bv	MHD.3MB.3 K’AAS?	0031bt	0031bv	MHD.3MB.2 K’AAS

 

§ Thompson:

·       Treats it as an independent glyph – with the outline being a horizontal “rectangle”.

§ MHD:

·       Treats it as an independent glyph – with the outline being a horizontal “rectangle”.

·       Recognizes three variants in total:

o   a 3-element variant with a bat-head on the left (MHD.3MB.1).

o   a 2-element variant with a “knot-like” element on the left (MHD.3MB.3).

o   a 3-element variant with a protected scroll on the left (MHD.3MB.2).

·       Assigns all three variants a tentative reading of K’AAS?.

§ Bonn:

·       Treats MHD.3MB.1 and MHD.3MB.3 as “reduced variants” (0267bt and 0031bt) of much larger “full variant” glyphs (0267bv and 0031bv respectively), where these reduced variants can “peek out” above other glyphs which may cover the main part of the full variant.

·       Gives no reading and hence leaves open whether 0267 and 0031 are related.

 

In the examples above, YAX Stela 6 A6 and RAZ Tablet 1 A5 are both Glyph-G₆, and they have MHD.3MB.1 and MHD.3MB.3 at the top (respectively). This implies that MHD.3MB.1 and MHD.3MB.3 are indeed just variants of one another.

 

In the examples below, a glyph which is basically MHD.3MB.1 (i.e., a 3-element glyph with bat-head on the left) has a large main sign under it. This supports (but doesn’t prove) Bonn’s approach of seeing the 3-element glyph as just the top part of a larger glyph, which can be “covered up” by a different main sign, leaving just the 3-element glyph to stick out at the top.

 

Safronov PNG Panel 3 G2a	Pitts-BHPN.p122.pdfp122 PNG Altar 2 Supports D3a	Stuart-TXIX PAL Temple 19 South Side L3	Stuart-TXIX PAL Temple 19 South Side M2

 

o Middle part – boulder outline element, very little unity between the contained elements:

§ Indentation in the middle of the top.

§ Bold scroll hanging from the middle of the ceiling (resembling an upside-down question mark).

§ 2 slightly curved bands from the question mark to the floor (bulging slightly outwards) – in contrast to he, there is no lipped-u.

o Bottom part – horizontal, 3-component element (practically identical to the bottom element of “Baby K’awiil”):

§ Left: bent upper & lower leg and foot (right leg).

§ Middle: washer.

§ Right: bent upper & lower leg and foot (left leg).

 

How the “3-element glyph at the top of Glyph-G₆” fits in with the “boulder element and two squatting legs with a ‘washer’ in between” remains unclear to me. I.e. it remains unclear if the “3-element glyph at the top of Glyph-G₆” is an integral part of Glyph-G₆, or if it is an additional glyph, which needs to be read separately, either before or after the “boulder element and two squatting legs with a ‘washer’ in between”.

 

·     Be careful how Glyph-G₆ differs from SIM/Glyph-Y/“Baby K’awiil”/“beetle glyph”: the 3-element component on the top of Glyph-G₆ is “bat-head”, washer (with optionally cross-hatched centre), ka-comb) whereas Glyph-Y/SIM is “two arms – one on each side of K’awiil” (where the K’awiil can be reduced to just a “LEM”). This is a significant difference – about the only things they have in common are that they are both tripartite (top to bottom), and both can occur on top of a boulder with a scroll hanging from the top and legs and washer under the boulder!