·    No glyphs given in K&H, BMM9, TOK, 25EMC; K&L is the only source listing this, and glosses it as pavo silvestre (= “wild turkey”).

·    MHD assigns it the code BM4c, read with a long-u kuutz:

o BM4a and BM4b are also the head of a turkey, but read AK’.

o MHD glosses it as (specially) male turkey (perhaps because of the extra prominence of the snood).

 

·    Known from the Madrid Codex.

·    K&H.p11.pdfp13.para2-3 explains that the example given above was one of the important clues which contributed to Knorosov initially establishing that (at least some of) the glyphs conveyed sound, i.e., that they were related to the phonetics of the language. This was at a time when the accepted wisdom was Thompson’s idea that the glyphs represented an esoteric system relating to time, and that they had no connection to spoken language.

o He saw a page of the Madrid Codex showing a picture of a turkey.

o Next to the picture were two glyphs: the KAWAK glyph and the “vine” glyph.

o He knew that Yucatec for “turkey” was cutz.

o He saw from the “Landa alphabet” that the KAWAK sign was said to be cu.

o He hence reasoned that the “vine” glyph was tzu. (with cu + tzu giving cutz).

o He saw a page of the Dresden Codex showing a picture of a dog.

o Next to the picture were two glyphs: the “vine” glyph and another.

o He knew that Yucatec for “dog” was tzul.

o This hence strengthened the hypothesis that the “vine” glyph was tzu (with the other glyph probably lu).

See tzul = “dog” for further information. [K&H explains that this account uses the old (Colonial and pre-reform) Yucatec spelling for the sake of historical accuracy. By the conventions of modern Maya epigraphy, it would be ku-tzu è kutz’.]