·     This is the EG of Tikal (and Dos Pilas, etc) but the meaning is unknown.

·     Pronunciation:

o The most common reading is MUT{ul}.

o Some epigraphers read KUK{uul}:

§ AT-E1168-lecture17.t0:02:15-02:28 (2015): … and then the place name – Kukuul, ‘a place where squirrels abound’ – one of the less glorious names associated with the ancient Maya site of Tikal – so, ‘The Place of Many Squirrels’.

§ AT-YT2021-lecture15.t0:04:45-05:08:

·       … it happened at – uhti – and then [...] ²ku-la CHAN-KAB CH'EEN – kuk-la means kukuul = "Place of Many Squirrels". Apparently, the core of the ancient city of Tikal – that's how it was actually called: "Place of Many Squirrels", "Place Where Squirrels Abound". The slide shown at this point is a part of TIK Stela 31, with, indeed, the glyphs <UH.ti>:ya <²ku:la>.<CHAN:KAB> CH’EEN:na.

·       Erika Raven (MMM 2023-01-24): This is NOT Tikal. Instead, it is the place associated with the grandfather of Sihyaj Chan K’awiil.

§ AT-YT2021-lecture22.t0:46:18-48:56, in explaining a monument from TIK.

§ AT-YT2021-lecture22.t0:47:24-47:36: … the maternal grandson of Divine Kukuul Lord. We know that Yax Nun Ahiin was the son of [the] Teotihuacan ruler; his connection to Tikal – to Kukuul, “The Place of the Many Squirrels” – was through his mother.

§ Tokovinine is quite consistent in this, reading this glyph as Kukuul at a number of occasions in the 2015 and 2021 series (though he occasionally gives Mutul as an alternative?). Note that despite this, he doesn’t give KUK as an alternative reading in TOK.p16.r1.c2, but instead only has a question mark against MUT?.

§ The connection of kuk = “squirrel” is probably based on cognates in the modern Mayan languages and those of the Colonial Spanish period, as in Kaufman-APMED.p579.pdfp579, which gives about 50 cognates. However, the reason for associating this logogram with the reading kuk is unclear to me.

§ Beliaev has not completely rejected KUK. BeliaevEtAl-PAEdPF3 (2015) and BeliaevEtAl-PAEdPF6 (2020) transliterates consistently give KUK/MUT for this glyph. Erika Raven: Beliaev has now (2022-2023) retracted this and now only supports MUT.

§ Seibal Stela 6 A5 has: AJ:mu:<Seibal-EG>:la which is an argument for MUT instead of KUK.

§ Stuart-FOotML (2023) gives arguments in favour of MUT not KUK.

·     Variants (4):

o A. Abstract (symmetric):

§ A bundle (of roughly vertical straws), bound together with a horizontal band, which has a knot in the middle.

§ The overall impression is of vertical straws, but in fact, they are joined at the top, forming a set of nested "inverted U's".

o B. Semi-representational (asymmetric):

§ A bundle (of roughly horizontal straws?), bound together with two (approximately) vertical bands, without knots – thought to be a representation of the head of a crocodile made of straw, with its mouth bound shut – (perhaps) a representation of an animal with religious significance.

§ The asymmetric aspect lies in the fact that there is a sort of “narrowing” on the left, perhaps to represent a “snout”.

o C. Representational (asymmetric):

§ Similar to “B”, but with a more obvious crocodile head.

o D. Representational (full body):

§ The full body of an animal (not so obviously a crocodile – it could even be a mammal), also bound with two vertical bands.

·     MHD distinguishes “A” and “B” slightly more than Bonn, in that MHD assigns two different 3-character codes (HB1 and ALB respectively) while Bonn sees them more as variants of one another, giving both the basic numerical code of 0569 and distinguishing them by means of the 2-character suffix.

·     MHD is more cautious than Bonn in that it doesn’t assign a reading to either variant, whereas Bonn gives MUT? (for the entire 0569-family) and even just plain MUT (with no question mark) for individual members (could be a typo). In any case, Bonn is willing to recognize the reading MUT to a greater extent than MHD.

·     Do not confuse the abstract/symmetric variant of MUT with the visually similar YOMOOTZ. Both have a bundle of “upside down U straws” bound together by horizontal bands, but:

o The abstract/symmetric variant of MUT has only one horizontal band halfway up/down (probably a strip of cloth), tied with a knot in the middle.

o YOMOOTZ has one or two horizontal bands, with no bow in the middle (i.e. is not so obviously made of cloth).

In both cases, the bands seem to go all the way around the back of the bundle.

·     Do not confuse the abstract/symmetric variant of MUT with the visually similar “KS” (“Knot-Site”) glyph:

o The abstract/symmetric variant of MUT has one horizontal band halfway up/down (probably a strip of cloth), tied with a knot in the middle. This is generally only the knot, but very occasionally, there are in a few instances with an additional two droopy ends (a sort of “floppy bow”) – such instances make MUT resemble “KS” more, but MUT always has the cloth band horizontal going around the back, which “KS” never has.:

§ DPL Stela 8 G9 and TIK Stela 5 B6 are two examples of the additional “two droopy ends”.

§ An MHD search on “blcodes contains  HB1” gives 225 hits, of which only 10 have the additional “two droopy ends”. This shows that while they are not at all common, they are not an aberration, and are just an optional element of MUT.

o “KS” is an actual bow (perhaps tied from a strip of cloth), but both ends droop downwards. It doesn’t apparently “bind anything together” – i.e. it is “just a bow/knot”: there is nothing for it to “go round the back” of.