·     This has been nicknamed the “Star War” glyph.

·     MHD maps ZQE to T325 and Bonn also lists its 0325* examples as variants of T325.

o Neither MHD nor Bonn currently give a reading for this glyph, not even a tentative one with question mark.

o The MHD and Bonn examples all have an EK’ on top, which T325 doesn’t have.

o It’s difficult to work out what’s going on with the absence of EK’ in T325 because I haven’t been able to find any context for T325. Often, one can look up a T-number in TCMH (1962). And from there, one can actually look up the (sometimes multiple) inscriptions and context from which Thompson selected his example. However, in this case T325 is not listed in TCMH:

§ TCMH.p66-67 = pdfp43: the last glyph shown is T287.

§ TCMH.p68-69 = pdfp44: the first glyph shown is T352.

This is not unique to T325. There are many known T-numbers which are not shown as examples in TCMH (1962).

·     Markianos-JOM (2021) is a paper which proposes JOM. [Sim: this doesn’t seem to have found much support among epigraphers.]

·     Carl Callaway [Washington reading group, 2023-10-21, paraphrased]: This glyph has had a number of different proposed readings, and things have now gone around “full circle” and one of the old proposals (JUB?) is gradually gaining acceptance again. [Sim: is there a paper “re-supporting” JUB?.

 

·     This was for a long time a full syllabogram-only spelling with no corresponding logogram. But Carl Calloway made the observation that JUB? Is gaining favour again as a reading for the “Star War” glyph. If so, then this full syllabogram-only spelling would seem to be the equivalent of said logogram. Seeing as JUB is still not completely accepted as the correct reading for the logogram, viewing this ju-bu as the syllabogram-only equivalent of the “STAR-WAR” logogram is tentative.

·     JM.p122#1 which could easily be mistaken for a ko with touching dots all around the perimeter, but context tells us that it really is ju. Although it’s quite an aberrant form, there are many aspects of the canonical ju which can be found (in a quite distorted form) in this glyph. Moreover, the variant of ko based on the turtle-shell is usually found “horizontal” rather than “vertical”, further reducing the chances that this is ko. [There are some indications that this variant of ju is derived from a turtle shell anyway.]