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

·    Pronunciation:

o Proposed pronunciation SIM? is recorded in BMM9, but actual article unknown, perhaps doesn’t exist – just an informal proposal. Beliaev-EGYdlSSM.slide20-22 is part of a presentation where the reading SIM is proposed, based on the Randel Stela, where this word is spelled in a full syllabogram-spelling: <si:mi> or <mi:si> (see syllabogram entry for sim, below).

o KuppratApp has adopted SIM without question mark.

o FKSLE.pdfp26 does have a question mark: SIM?.

·    Nicknames:

o “Baby K’awiil” (lost reference) – because it iconographically represents a baby emerging from the top, and that baby is often reduced to just a LEM or a LEM with flames – these being key elements of K’awiil.

o The “beetle glyph”, because it was felt to resemble a beetle in the very early days of decipherment:

§ Andrews-GZaYotMSS.p30.para2.l-1 (1938): Due to its peculiar appearance, Glyph Y has often been called the “beetle glyph”.

§ Yesugi&Saito-GYotMSS.p2.pdfp4.para2.l+2 (1991):Glyph Y has been called the "beetle glyph" due to its somewhat peculiar appearance.

So Glyph-Y = “Baby K’awiil” = “beetle glyph” = SIM.

·    SIM/Glyph-Y and the so-called “Glyph-Z” (the latter being actually just an optional numeral classifier for the coefficient of SIM/Glyph-Y) are connected with a 7-day cycle, as part of the complex Maya calendar. They are occasionally found as part of the SS, but are very rarely present, mostly only in the Yaxchilan area:

o Andrews-GZaYotMSS.p30.para1.l+1: The Supplementary Series at Yaxchilan is characterized by the presence of two glyphs usually absent at other sites.

o Yesugi&Saito-GYotMSS explains that LC’s associated with Glyph-Z and Glyph-Y differ from one another by either an exact multiple of 7, or by some multiple of 7 plus a number between 1 and 6. This number can then be correlated to the coefficient of Glyph-Z and Glyph-Y. This coefficient hence gives the offset of the LC from a 7-day cycle. For example, YAX Lintels 21, 29 and 56 all have a Glyph-Z and Glyph-Y coefficient of “5”, and their LC’s differ by exactly a multiple of 7. Other monuments with a different coefficient of Glyph-Z and Glyph-Y than “5” differ from these three by a multiple of 7 plus a different offset.

o Sim: while SIM/Glyph-Y occurs as part of the 7-day cycle expression in an SS, it also has an independent existence [more information needed].

·    Features – it consists of 3 stacked parts – top, middle, bottom:

o Top – horizontal, 3-component element – head between two “shrugging” arms:

§ Left: right arm and hand.

§ Middle: “LEM” or stylized, reduced variant of “K’AWIIL”.

§ Right: left arm and hand.

Note that the top element of YAX Lintel 21 A5 is slightly aberrant – it resembles a T’AB rather than the usual K’AWIIL or LEM (could be an artefact of the drawing rather than on the original monument).

o Middle – boulder outline:

§ No indentation in the middle of the top.

§ Bold ceiling.

§ A scroll which can either hang from the middle of the ceiling or emerge from the middle of the floor (representing an umbilical cord?).

o Bottom – horizontal, 3-component element (resembles the bottom element of Glyph-G₆) – two squatting legs with a circular element in between:

§ Left: bent upper & lower leg and foot (right leg).

§ Middle: washer.

§ Right: bent upper & lower leg and foot (left leg).

o Far right (top to bottom) – optional wavy band (representing an umbilical cord?).

·    Do not confuse this glyph (SIM) with the visually similar Glyph-G₆. The latter also consists of 3 stacked parts – top, middle, bottom (in roughly the same proportions); but it is different and unrelated. This is because in Glyph-G₆:

o Top:

·      The left of the top part resembles a leaf-nosed bat whereas it’s an arm plus hand in SIM.

·      The middle of the top part is (canonically) a washer whereas it’s a LEM or reduced K’AWIIL in SIM.

·      The right of the top part is (canonically) a top-right bracket whereas it’s an arm plus hand in SIM.

o Middle: the “feeler”/scroll (canonically) hangs upside down from the top whereas it can either hang from the top or emerge from the floor in SIM.

o Bottom: here it seems to be identical to SIM – two bent legs with a washer in between ç this is the source of the confusion.

Note that Yesugi&Saito-GYotMSS.p7 (1991) has a whole section “Glyph Y as Glyph G6”, in which the two are seen as the same glyph.

·    Do not confuse some variants of this glyph (SIM) with the (somewhat) visually similar “ADWH” / “AGED-DEITY-WITH-HANDS”. The only characteristic they share is the head in between two shrugging arms (or hands, in the case of “ADWH”). However:

o SIM is a tripartite glyph with a (horizontal) rectangular top (K’AWIIL), a boulder-outline middle, and a (horizontal) rectangular bottom (a washer between two squatting legs), these three being stacked on top of one another.

o “ADWH” is only a (horizontal) rectangle with a head between two hands or shrugging arms, not a stacked tripartite glyph.

·    Do not confuse this glyph (SIM) with TIL = “burn”. The only characteristic they share is the two arms on each side (and even then, the arms are slightly different):

o SIM is a tripartite glyph with a (horizontal) rectangular top (K’AWIIL), a boulder-outline middle, and a (horizontal) rectangular bottom (a washer between two squatting legs), these three being stacked on top of one another.

o In SIM, the element between the two arms is a “LEM” or a head while it’s a KAWAK in TIL.

o TIL is only a (horizontal) rectangle with a KAWAK between two shrugging arms, not a stacked tripartite glyph.

·    Do not confuse this glyph (SIM) with Unen K’awiil (God-GII of the Palenque Triad): there is no relationship between the two – Unen K’awiil happens to translate (approximately) to the nickname for SIM (“Baby K’awiil”), but that is pure coincidence.

·    The top of SIM in the Mathews drawing of YAX Lintel 21 A5b has a “stairway”-like (“TAB”) element instead of a “LEM”. Sergei Vepretskii confirms that this is “LEM” (representing K’AWIIL).

·    There are significant differences between YAX Lintel 29 B5 in the Graham drawing and that given in Andrews-GZaYotMSS.p30.fig1.d:

o Top element: Graham has a distinct LEM/K’AWIIL element whereas Andrews is much more indistinct.

o Right element: Graham has a thicker umbilical cord.

·    There is only one minor difference between YAX Lintel 46 C1 in the Graham drawing and that given in Andrews-GZaYotMSS.p30.fig1.c: the absence or presence of cross-hatching in between the two slightly curved vertical bands near the bottom (just above the legs).

·    Without more context, it is impossible to know if the example of SIM in the Berlin Museum Lintel inscription (Andrews-GZaYotMSS.p30.fig1.e) is Glyph-Y. However, as it appears in Andrews-GZaYotMSS, which is a paper dealing specifically with Glyph-Z and Glyph-Y, it is reasonable to think that it is Glyph-Y.

·    Without more context, it is impossible to know if the BMM9 and KuppratApp examples are Glyph-Y. They are included here just to show the variation in writing SIM.

·    Usage. Both Yesugi&Saito-GYotMSS.p2.para3 and Beliaev-EGYdlSSM.slide7 identify four areas of usage for the SIM-glyph:

o A. As Glyph-Y, in the SS:

§ When it occurs in this “role”, it is connected to a 7-day cycle.

§ It can occur with or without Glyph-Z. The fullest form in the SS is: <number=coefficient> + Glyph-Z (= bixiiy) + Glyph-Y (=sim), but the Glyph-Z may be missing, because it is only a noun classifier for (the number of) days, and noun classifiers are optional in Classic Maya. When Glyph-Z is absent, the coefficient can appear directly to the left of Glyph-Y.

§ Because bixiiy is just a noun classifier for the number of days, aside from being part of Glyph-Z, it can also be part of Glyph-D (e.g. YAX Lintel 21 B5), which is why this one is not given in Andrews-GZaYotMSS, which concerns Glyph-Z and Glyph-Y).

§ The coefficient of Glyph-Y gives the offset from some 7-day cycle station (Yesugi&Saito-GYotMSS.p7.para5):

·      Coefficients of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 have been found, but not 0, 1, or 7.

·      For this reason, we don’t know if the coefficients are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

·      However, the 6 lunations indicated by Glyph-C has coefficients 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, with the absence of a coefficient being “1”. For this reason it’s believed that the coefficient of Glyph-Y runs in a similar style: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

o B. As Glyph-G₆, (always) with a coefficient of “9”. Sim: I notice a difference in the top 1/3 of the glyph when used in the Glyph-Y context vs. when used in the Glyph-G₆ context:

§ In Glyph-Y, the top 1/3 is two arms and a head (or LEM).

§ In Glyph-G₆, the top 1/3 the head of a leaf-nosed bat, a washer, and a top-right bracket.

o C. In statements of the 819-day cycle, as an optional part of the WA’-K’awiil statement, where it comes after the “direction” + “deity” part of the 819-day cycle expression (e.g. PAL PT D2, YAX Lintel 30 F4, YAX Stela 11 A7). It is explained that we currently don’t really know what it means in this context, aside from the fact that it’s the name of a “terrestrial deity”.

o D. In various other contexts: Yesugi&Saito-GYotMSS.p10.para1 lists 6 instances.

Note: Beliaev-EGYdlSSM.slide26 gives CPN Stela A A6 (North Side) as an example of Glyph-Y occurring in a “non-calendrical context” (use “D”). However, here it is in exactly the right position, as Glyph-Y (use “A” – the 7-day cycle). The only odd thing is that 1) there is no coefficient, and 2) there is a K’awiil after it. Aside from that, it occurs in an SS, directly after Glyph-G and Glyph-F, before Glyph-DE, exactly the way it does in marking the 7-day cycle. EGYdlSSM.slide30 does say that “In the Early Classic, the 7-day cycle seems to be associated with birth (and mucus) whereas in the Late Classic, it seems to be associated with the God K’awiil”. Perhaps this is the reason for the glyph for K’awiil after it.

·    Phoenix “Po” Panel A6 is quite an unusual variant – there seems to be a -jiiy clitic ending for the coefficient of “3”, and the only distinguishing characteristic of Glyph-Y left is the scroll in the centre of the main sign; the “squatting legs with washer” at the bottom and the tripartite element at the top (= “K’awiil-with-arms”) have disappeared. The cross-hatched element at the bottom could be a variant of the “washer” which is found as the middle of three elements across the bottom, in the more conventional variants of SIM.

 

·    This example is actually not Glyph-Y but SIM in another context – that of the optional deity-name preceding K’awiil in 819-day cycle expression. We know it is syllabogram mi in A8 because we have similar forms at I9 and I11 = CHAM:mi. The only question is that the SIP is not very typical, but can be assumed to be as such from context, for example because MHD query “blengl contains K’an Si’p Sihm” gives 4 hits, showing that this is a known phrase.

·    From this one example si-mi with its synharmonic spelling, one would expect SIM, but MHD gives SIHM? (perhaps from linguistic reconstruction from the modern Mayan languages?).