·    Tokovinine-BaG (2014) is the paper which argues for the reading IB and the meaning “bean” for T709.

·    No glyphs given (head variant) in K&H, K&L, BMM9, 25EMC. This is (of course) not in EB1 (2009) as its publication date was 5 years before the proposed decipherment by Tokovinine. But it has also not been taken up in K&H (2020), K&L (2018), BMM9 (2019), 25EMC (2020). All five of these reference works list only the more established bu-lu è bul = “bean”.

·    The fact that both MHD and Bonn give IB suggests that this reading IB is quite well accepted (with MHD giving the meaning not only as “bean”, but even as a very specific type of bean: “lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus)”.

·    Variants (2):

o A. Abstract:

§ Top: (optional) a left and right scroll, each with its own protector.

§ Bottom – boulder outline always divided into 2 parts by a horizontal line (optionally but often bold):

·      Top: (often) 3 non-touching dots in a triangular formation, pointing up = “upside-down face”.

·      Bottom – an “ajaw strap”:

o    A single (very slightly curved) vertical band dividing the bottom into a left and a right half.

o    A curved L-shaped band from the ceiling to one side of the vertical band. The band can be accompanied by a parallel band of touching or non-touching dots, or it may be replaced by the latter, or the single band may be doubled (touching).

o    Two touching dots sticking out of the straight vertical band, on the side of the vertical band opposite to the curved L-shaped band. This can resemble the “wood property marker” or can be viewed as the final (short) part of the L-shaped band, emerging at the opposite side of the vertical band, after going “under” it, when the L-shaped band is doubled.

o    Very occasionally, there may be 3 non-touching dots in a triangular formation, pointing up = “upside-down face”, instead of the L-shaped band (see below, under MHD statistics).

o B. Head:

§ There is a head variant which has many of the distinctive characteristics from the abstract variant infixed into an anthropomorphic head.

§ The head variant doesn’t seem to ever have the optional two symmetrically placed scrolls of the abstract variant.

·    IB = “bean” and SIBIK = “ink/soot” have many characteristics in common (see also SIBIK):

o They both have an optional top part – “left and right protected scrolls” in the case of IB and “KUCH” in the case of SIBIK.

o The non-optional part of the two (the “boulder” element) share many characteristic infixed elements:

§ A triangle of 3 non-touching dots, pointing up, in the top half.

§ An “ajaw strap” in the bottom half.

·    MHD statistics (2025-02-06) – a search in MHD on “blcodes contains ZHH” yields 53 hits:

o Abstract vs. head variant:

§ Abstract: about 26 hits.

§ Head: about 23 hits.

§ Unclear: about 4 hits.

The number of hits given for each category above is only “about” rather than an exact figure, because these statistics were gathered by visual inspection, with some cases being judgement calls as to whether the abstract or head variant is present (for example, if the element is partially eroded). Exact figures are not needed, as these statistics are more just to get a rough feel for the variation in this glyph. The statistics show that the proportion of head vs. abstract variants is (surprisingly?) almost equal.

o The 3 non-touching dots in a triangular formation in the bottom half of the boulder:

§ Only 2 of the 53 IB’s have this element (K6552 D, K6552 I) and both are given as IB? anyway (the question mark indicating uncertainty in the reading).

This means that 3 non-touching dots in a triangular formation in the bottom half of the boulder can quite confidently be used as a distinguishing characteristic of SIBIK. 3 non-touching dots in a triangular formation in the top half of the boulder is however common to both SIBIK and IB.

·    Distinguishing between IB and SIBIK:

o IB shares its optional “protected scrolls” top element with many other glyphs, and SIBIK shares its optional “KUCH” top element with t’o and one variant of k’o.

o The most drastically reduced form – T709, the “boulder” element – could really be either IB or SIBIK, as it has only the distinguishing elements which are common to both (“common” in both senses of “shared”, “jointly present” and “often found” (in fact “almost always” found)).

o The presence of one of their respective optional top elements (with, of course, the “ajaw strap” bottom element) helps to determine which of the two glyphs is present in an inscription.

o The presence of three non-touching dots in a triangular formation (in the lower half of the glyph) is the distinctive characteristic which immediately identifies SIBIK, as they “never” seem to be present in IB (the two exceptions on ceramics have been noted above) – they can however be present in the upper half of the “boulder” element of both (and, indeed, often are).