·     No glyphs given in K&H, K&L, 25EMC.

·     Features:

o A rectangular outline – typically horizontal.

o Two symmetrically placed scrolls along the bottom, starting on the left and right and curling into the middle, but not meeting one another, instead leaving about a third of the width of the glyph in the middle.

o Darked areas:

§ Each spiral encloses a darked (i.e. cross-hatched) area.

§ There is (optionally) an additional darkened semicircle on the top of the left spiral.

o Three (occasionally only one or two) symmetrically placed non-touching dots (optionally darkened), centred between the two scrolls. When there are three dots present, they form a downward-pointing triangle.

·     For a long time it was thought to be a jaguar paw, with the scrolls being retracted claws and the darkened areas paw pads.

o But perhaps it’s not a jaguar paw at all.

o Due to this resemblance, some sources give a reading of ICH’AAK, treating it as a fourth variant of the three known variants of ICH’AAK.

·     Stuart-TPS is the paper which distinguishes ICH’AAK and MUK’(IJ) as different glyphs:

o It gives the nickname of the “paw stone” to the entire glyph-block in which this glyph is usually found (=“jaguar paw” plus the KAWAK and ni end phonetic complement). This perhaps in recognition of the historical association (correct or otherwise) of the glyph with a jaguar paw.

o The entire point of the paper is to show that ICH’AAK and MUK’(IJ) are different words. The argument is based not only on the different appearance of the glyph but also on the syntax of how the glyph is found in inscriptions:

§ ICH’AAK is found principally in rulers’ names.

§ MUK’(IJ) appears to be a toponym.

o The paper goes even further and proposes that it is not the entire PNG site, but rather, very specifically, PNG Altar 4 itself. This, in that sense, indicates a “location”, namely the immediate vicinity of where the altar stood.

·     Other epigraphers seem to use it just to mean the more general toponym referring to the PNG site. For example, AT-E1168-lecture25.t0:17:23: And here’s our city of Piedras Negras. Piedras Negras is the contemporary name – in ancient times it was known as Muk’ij Tuun – probably “Piled up Rocks”. That’s a very neat and ample description of the landscape around Piedras Negras. The site is actually in a narrow gorge that is open only on one side, and then the other side is the rapids of the Usumacinta River.

·     MHD also distinguishes ICH’AAK (MHD.AT9) from this glyph (MHD.ATA), which it assigns the reading MUK’(IJ)?.

o ICH’AAK and MUK’(IJ) are both, apparently (iconographically speaking), based on a jaguar paw. Two important characteristics which distinguish them are:

§ MUK’(IJ) has distinct larger circular “uniformly darkened” elements, i.e. cross-hatched “paw pads” – the “clawed variant” of ICH’AAK either doesn’t have any darkened elements, or, if it has, they are a lot smaller, of different sizes, and irregularly distributed (“jaguar spots”).

§ MUK’(IJ) lacks a scroll hanging from the centre of the top, which ICH’AAK can have (perhaps an infixed yi for yich’aak).

§ MUK’(IJ) (often) has three non-touching dots in a triangular formation, in the area between the two “paw pads”, something which the “paw pad” variant of ICH’AAK never has.

o Both BMM9 and CMC4 seem to make the same distinction:

§ BMM9.p18.r6.c2 = CMC4.p20.#7.1 (with a scroll hanging from the centre of the top) è ICH’AAK (although the given examples do have cross-hatched “paw pads” and the non-touching dot triangle). Perhaps these should be read as MUK’(IJ) – otherwise the sole distinguishing criterion is the scroll?

§ BMM9.p18.r7.c4 = CMC4.p25.#3 (without a scroll hanging from the centre of the top) è MUK’(IJ).

o These similarities are the reason for the historical confusion between ICH’AAK and MUK’(IJ). This is made all the more difficult because ICH’AAK does have a variant with “paw pads”:

§ When there are visible, sharp, “unretracted” claws, there are no distinct paw pads.

§ When there are no visible claws, then there are paw pads.

§ The variant with no visible claws and with paw pads (read as ICH’AAK) resembles MUK’(IJ).

·     Of the remaining examples:

o TOK gives “?”.

o JM gives ICH’AK, but this would be a very old, outdated reading.

·     MHD distinguishes – in addition to ICH’AAK/AT9 and MUK’(IJ)/ATA – yet a third logogram based on a jaguar paw: ATG with no assigned reading.

o What distinguishes ATA from ATG is that in ATA, the “paws” are at the bottom, whereas in ATG, the “paws” are at the top – i.e. ATG is a sort of “upside down” ATA.

o MHD statistics:

§ AT9 (MHD reading = ICH’AAK) – by far the most common “jaguar paw” glyph – 72 hits. The sites, in order of the number of hits:

·       TIK: 17 hits.

·       TNA: 15 hits.

·       CRN: 12 hits.

·       DPL: 4 hits.

·       SBL: 3 hits.

·       CLK: 2 hits.

·       PRU: 2 hits.

·       NAR: 1 hit.

·       PUS: 1 hit.

·       UXL: 1 hit.

·       YAX: 1 hit.

·       Ceramics: 10 hits.

·       Other: 3 hits.

I.e., widely spread in the Maya world, with particularly high number of occurrences in TIK, TNA, CRN.

§ ATA (MHD reading = MUK’(IJ)) – 6 hits:

·       PNG: 5 hits.

·       CAY: 1 hit.

I.e., restricted to the Usumacinta region, almost exclusively to PNG (even the single occurrence in CAY is actually to Muk’ij Tuun/PNG). In fact all but 1 occurrence are references to Muk’ij Tuun/PNG.

§ ATG (no MHD reading) – 14 hits:

·       YAX: 10 hits.

·       PMT (and PMT region): 2 hits.

·       DCB (Dos Caobas): 1 hit.

·       ZTZ (El Zotz region): 1 hit.

I.e., restricted to the Usumacinta region, almost exclusively to YAX, where it occurs in a deity name ? Chan ? Mut.

Curiously, many instances of ATG resemble ATA and AT9 more than they resemble the example ATG in the MHD Catalog; i.e. they may have extended claws, or distinctly darkened paw pads. Perhaps the distinction is made more on the basis of syntax and semantics (knowing that it couldn’t be ICH’AAK or MUK’IJ at that particular spot) than on the visual appearance.

·     Summary: do not confuse MUK’(ij) with the visually similar “paw pad” variant of ICH’AAK. When in doubt, perhaps the easiest way to deal with this is to read ICH’AAK or MUK’(IJ) based on the context:

o In a name: read ICH’AAK.

o In connection with TUUN-ni: read MUK’(IJ).