·     No glyphs given in K&H, K&L.

·     Variants (2) – a boulder outline (can also be a cave):

o A. Simple: with a cross-hatched dot in the centre, optionally with a “tail” hanging off it.

o B. Complex: instead of a circle, the element in the middle is a lot more complex. It appears to be the side-view of a 3-dimensional object made up of four parts:

§ The end of a cylinder.

§ An annulus (ring) of slightly larger diameter.

§ The rest of the cylinder (perhaps of slightly large diameter than the end).

§ A wavy “tassel” coming out of the end.

It seems that the orientation of this complex object can be horizontal or vertical.

·     Bonn has recognized both glyphs, giving them a code of 1570st and 1706st respectively. MHD seems only to have recognized one of them – the “simple” one. But whereas Bonn doesn’t give a pronunciation of either form, MHD gives the “simple” form a tentative reading of KAAJ? – marking the tentativeness with a question mark.

·     An additional (and also quite commonly occurring) EG for Yaxchilan.

·     There remains some doubt about the reading of kaaj for these glyphs:

o TOK has a question mark against the reading for both variants. But when it appears in the EG in connection with YAX, it’s very commonly transliterated as KAAJ.

o Sim: Can we even be sure that TOK.p11.r2.c3 and TOK.p11.r4.c4 are variant ways of writing the same word? Probably yes, because if both occur as a secondary EG of a ruler of Yaxchilan, then the chances are minimal that there are two different EG’s which look so similar.

·     Beliaev&Safronov-SAaX.slide#28 (2009) shows a map on which the eastern-most 1/3 of the Pa’chan polity is marked off as being Kaaj.

·     Bíró-EGiCMI.p145.pdfp23.para1 (2016): Yaxchilan is another site that had two emblem glyphs, one of which has been deciphered by Boot (2004) and Martin (2004) as K’UH-PA’CHAN-AJAW, while the other is the still undeciphered K’UH-T511-ji-AJAW (Figure 5). Many have dealt with the chronological and spatial distributions of the Yaxchilan emblem glyphs (Helmke 2012; Mathews 1997: 68; Schüren 1992). Mathews has concluded that the distribution of the emblem glyph main signs showed only two patterns and that Pa’chan was the only one mentioned in foreign sites, while T511-ji was connected to women. Schüren (1992) went further in her investigation and proposed the existence of two separate sites, Pa’chan and T511-ji, suggesting that at least two women, Ix Pakal and Ix Chak Jolom from T511-ji had married into the royal family of Pa’chan. ­is resulted in the joining of the two polities during the reign of Itzamnaj B’ahlam III (AD 681-742), who in his inscriptions projected this political situation back into the past. Finally, she noted that T511-ji might have been the name of the unlocated Laxtunich (Schüren 1992: 37). Regarding the discussion above, it is highly unlikely that the emblem glyph of the queen was joined into the double emblem glyphs because it is most probable that it was the male ancestor who was key to developing this pattern. [Sim: T511 = PET, but the main sign of the secondary EG of YAX has a "cave" (bold ceiling and right wall) which PET never has. But this discrepancy in no way detracts from the validity of the associated observations.]

·     AT-E1168-lecture15.t0:16:46-17:19 (2016): Kaaj is their “aspirational” title. Two generations before this king [Yaxuun Bahlam IV], they had some kind of marriage which allowed them to claim a very ancient pedigree which was not necessarily embraced by nearby dynasties, who continued calling them just Pa’-Chan lords. But Kaaj had the advantage of an extra twenty generations of kings. And given the political aspirations of the late Classic Yaxchilan rulers, it was very important for some reason to have this kind of pedigree – it gave them an extra clout, vis-à-vis their neighbours.