K&H.p87.#5 TOK.p15.r2.c3 TOK.p33.r4.c2 BMM9.p12.r7.c4 25EMC.pdfp50.#8.1 = JM.p266.#1 25EMC.pdfp50.#8.4
WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY
K&L.p24.#5.1&3 K&L.p24.#5.2 = K&H.p87.#5, K&L.p24.#5.4 = 25EMC.pdfp50.#8.1
Hamann-PiCM.p6.sect2.3.l+8
K2777
mayavase.com
WAY.si
K&L.p34.#4 = 25EMC.pdfp50.#8.2 TOK.p33.r4.c3 TOK.p33.r4.c4 = BMM9.p21.r4.c3
WAY? / WAYIS? WAY WAY WAY WAYIS
TOK.p31.r4.c4 = BMM9.p18.r2.c4 StuartEtAl-PNLC.p3 GrubeEtAl-URSK.p25.fig7c MartinEtAl-SaS.p2.fig2
CRN Element 56 pF2 -pF3 CRN misc 1 E2 CLK Stela 51 H2
WAY WAYIS SAK.<WAY:si> SAK.<WAY:si> SAK.<WAY:si>
TOK.p17.r5.c4 25EMC.pdfp50.#8.3
WAY
· The iconographic origin of one of the variants of the logogram is a combination of “jaguar” and “lord” (lost reference).
· Tokovinine says that “spirit companion”, “alter ego” are old interpretations, and that the current thinking is that it means “evil spirit conjured up by rulers to attack their enemies” (lost reference).
· Variants (4):
o A. Divided (right-side-up) “AJAW”-face – this glyph got the nickname “split ajaw” in the early days of decipherment:
§ Top: divided into left and right halves by a squiggly line, ending at the bottom with an optional “inverted v” ( = the pointed element in the AJAW-face):
· Left: single dot in the middle – the “eye” of the left of the (right-side-up) “AJAW”-face.
· Right: jaguar spots.
§ Bottom: dot in the middle (= mouth of (right-side-up) “AJAW”-face).
§ Optional knot on top.
o B. %-based:
§ Symmetric or asymmetric cave.
§ % in the centre:
· Dorota Bojkowska: more connected to “underworld” and “supernatural” than stylized form of the divided “AJAW”-face).
· Dorota Bojkowska: % is not necessarily connected with “death”, because it is found in connection with insects, and also with the god Akan.
· Connected with sleep (see also S&Z.p231.index.percentage-sign).
§ Optional knot on top.
o C. Jaguar (HIX):
§ The HIX typically has a “reduced HIX” in the eye, but this can be replaced by a (right-side-up) “AJAW”-face.
§ Optional knot on top.
o D. Abstract knot:
§ Two interlinked rectangular bands, with non-touching dot spine in each.
· The first three variants seem to allow an optional “knot” on top – either a knot resembling a hi, or one resembling a SAK, but with an “AT”-element (crossed bands) infixed into the main circle of the SAK. Note that TOK and BMM9 take very different approaches to the “SAK-like” knot above the basic boulder outline.
o TOK treats it as optional component with no effect on the pronunciation or meaning – the whole combination is still just WAY.
o BMM9 in contrast treats it as creating a separate logogram WAYIS. So the additional “SAK-like” knot above is not treated as a si, whose addition changes the reading from just plain WAY to WAY-si è wayis. Instead, it seems to view it as a new (albeit related) logogram, read WAYIS. More investigation will be needed to ascertain which view fits the known facts and contexts best.
When present, this element is definitely not the SAK of Sak Wayis, as demonstrated by the fact that it is present in CRN Panel 1 W6, which has a further SAK to the left of it. This proves that the SAK-like element with infixed crossed bands is not to be read as SAK.
· Searching on MHD “blcode = ATK” is very helpful. It reveals that:
o Just the SAK-like glyph alone – as long as it has infixed crossed bands – is sufficient to trigger the reading WAY(IS).
o However, this is often accompanied by the “boulder with infixed percentage sign”.
o The percentage sign can replace the crossed bands.
o It is still unclear whether all of these combinations really read the whole word WAYIS in themselves (sometimes with an end phonetic complement of si), or whether they read WAY(IS), i.e. with an underspelled -is, being supplied by context. Either way doesn’t really matter – the ability to read wayis will often be clear from context (e.g. if preceded by SAK).
· Do not confuse this with the homonym way2 = “cenote” (a.k.a. “mouth of Xibalba”).