K&L.p30.#5.1 = JM.p250.#1 = Stuart-NST.p1.fig2 = K&H.p44.Titles.r1.c5
K772
TZ’IB AJ.<TZ’IB:ba>
Stuart-NST.p2.fig5
CRN Panel 6 P2
IX.[TZ’IB:WINKIL]
K&L.p30.#5.2 TOK.p19.r5.c4
TZ’IB ?
· No glyphs given in BMM9, 25EMC.
· Could be considered one of the “irregular” (i.e. non-CVC) verbs. L&D.p46 explains that the common non-CVC transitive verbs are:
o IL / ILA “see”.
o A’L “say”.
o TZ’IHBA “write” / “paint”.
Their classification as such seems to be based on a combination of their actual phonetic form and the inflections they take (e.g. they are different from CVC-verbs in the passive).
· Do not confuse tz’ihb = “to write”, “to paint” (a verb) with phonetically slightly similar chehb / che’b / che’eb = “paintbrush” (a noun).
· Variants (2):
o A. Hand holding a “single-stemmed” writing-brush (K&H, K&L).
o B. Hand holding a “multi-stemmed” writing-brush, with dark dots (representing ink) below (K&L, TOK).
· Stuart-NST:
o Stuart-NST.p3.note1: Questions the reading of K&L.p30.#5.2 as TZ’IB, saying that it’s too different from K&L.p30.#5.1, with a TAJ-like element instead of a pen, and with SIBIK underneath.
o This is the paper which demonstrates that this logogram is equivalent to other instances of syllabogram-spelled tz’i-bi or tz’i-ba, because there are two instances referring to the same person, one written with a logogram TZ’IB, and the other spelled with syllabograms; none of the commonly available drawings of CRN Panel 6 P2 (including David Stuart’s new drawing in Stuart-NDLCP (2013)) show the logogram TZ’IB to nearly the level of clarity to make the association to the “hand holding a paintbrush” logogram, e.g.:
However, Stuart may have re-examined photo or original inscription, to produce the one in his blog, which is much clearer (such photos exist, but are not currently releasable for publication).
· TOK.p19.r5.c4 lists the glyph but doesn’t assign it the reading TZ’IB.
JM.p251.#2 JM.p251.#3 JM.p251.#4 JM.p251.#5 MC.p22.#7
tz’i:ba tz’i:ba tz’i.bi tz’i.bi tz’i:bi
Stuart-NST.p2.fig5 Coll-1 (Graham?)
CRN HS2 Block 9 C2 YAX Lintel 46 H2
<IX.<tz’i:bi>>:WINKIL <tz’i:ba>.<CHAAK:ki>
· Stuart-NST is the paper which demonstrates that the logogram TZ’IB is equivalent to other instances of syllabogram-spelled tz’i-bi or tz’i-ba, because there are two instances referring to the same person Ix Tz’ib Winkil – it cites one instance written with a logograph for TZ’IB, and another spelled with syllabograms. [Sim: Ix Tz’ib Winkil is given as Ix Tz’ibnal by some epigraphers – these must be from before the general acceptance of the WINKIL reading.]
· The source of Stuart-NST.p2.fig5 is CRN HS2 Block 9 C2 as documented in StuartEtAl-TNoLCS.p7.fig8.
· Also, StuartEtAl-TNoLCS.p8.AppA gives a very useful table showing old and new monument naming conventions for CRN (i.e. cross-reference).