·     Do not confuse YOMOOTZ with the visually similar (abstract/symmetric variant of) MUT, the EG of TIK and DPL. Both have “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 YOMOOTZ with the visually (slightly) similar “KS” (“Knot-Site”) glyph:

o YOMOOTZ is a band (possibly not of cloth) binding a bundle of “upside-down U straws” together (with no knot, and no drooping ends).

o “KS” is an actual bow (perhaps tied from a strip of cloth), with both ends drooping 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.

·     Boot-ANNAT:

o This paper discusses the decipherment of the toponym YOOTZ (also its EG), a city/polity which was conquered by the Naranjo ruler K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Chaak.

o The conquest is recorded on NAR Stela 21.

o The location of Yootz is still unknown.

o It’s unclear which tz-related syllabogram is written at NAR Stela 21 A5. It’s probably tzi (which would also result in the long-o in Yootz).

·     Boot-ANNAT.p39.c2. para1.l-5 points out that the EG very broadly resembles MUT, the EG of TIK (Sim: perhaps a straw bundle bound together in both cases; in one variant of MUT perhaps the head of an alligator, with the mouth bound shut). The salient difference is that YOOTZ does not have the “knot” or “bow” in the centre of the element which binds the straw, present in MUT.

·     The transliteration of NAR Stela 21 E2 is given in Boot-ANNAT.p39.c2.para1.l-8. The outline of the much-eroded block (as per the drawing by Graham) is not incompatible with such a reading. Apparently Boot “re-stippled” E2 from a photograph. Here cited for the sake of completeness, with my attempt to see how such a reading might have been arrived at.

·     From K4669, the syllabogram which is the end phonetic complement of the main-sign logogram could be the reduced (“three leaves”) variant of tzi (a reading which is not possible from NAR Stela 21 A5 or E2, not even tentatively (because they are too eroded). However, the possible “three leaves” tzi in K4669 is somewhat “confirmed” by the pure syllabogram spelling yo:tzi of K7786, which has the full “boulder” variant of tzi (and where it is hence much more obviously tzi) – see the syllabogram spelling of YOOTZ. Both K4669 and K7786 together suggest that the logogram is read YOOTZ.

·     Although Boot, TOK, and BMM9 have gone for YOOTZ, there is an alternative proposal – Martin-AMP.p415.fn22: This “Yopmootz” name is no more than a provisional reading. This referent appears in several different spellings, most centred on a rare and undeciphered “inverted basket” logogram (Boot 1999b). The reading is problematic because their sign sequences are not consistent, apparently disordered for aesthetic reasons. We have versions featuring the logogram of yo-?-tzi on K4669 and yo-? on a plate not in the Kerr archive, but also ?-mo-yo on K8728 and a version without the logogram of mo-yo-tzi on K7786. The issue is complicated further because the yo sign can also be YOP, and its regular position ahead of the mystery logogram might suggest that it is an independent word rather than a phonetic complement. Since logograms usually represent CVC units then the “inverted basket” sign is potentially MOOTZ. Whatever this site was called and wherever it was situated, it was evidently a player of some note, perhaps somewhere on the scale of El Pilar, the largest site in the area to remain unidentified.

·     The Martin reading of Yomootz/Yopmootz is a result of reading the “chain of dots” on the left of NAR Stela 21 E2 not as logogram K’UH but rather as mo.

o The argument for reading mo is that NAR Stela 21 E2 is “too round”, and “the chain of dots has three sides instead of two” (normally, the dots of K’UH only form two sides – like an L). This makes it more likely to be a partially obscured mo; i.e. just the right-most 7/8 obscured by the elements on the right side of the glyph-block.

o The argument for reading K’UH is that the element at the top right of glyph-block I in K7786 is also “very round and with three sides”, and there it can be confidently read as part of ya.<K’UH:HUUN:na> è yaj-k’uhuun = “the priest of”. This then matches the more probable reading of K’UH in the top left of K4669 (which is more L-shaped).

·     Sim:

o There is a definite mo in K8728 K and a probable one in K7786 K. For me, this is sufficient to tip the balance to also reading mo in NAR Stela 21 E2.

o This leads the reading of YOMOOTZ for the logogram. It also means that NAR Stela 21 E2 has the logogram with initial, final, and even internal phonetic complement. It also means that most of the examples read only Yomootz Ajaw – the only example to read K’uhul Yomootz Ajaw is K4669 B7.

·     It isn’t clear to me if the Omootz of Cleveland Panel J2-J3 is related to / the same as Yomootz (in terms of the meaning of the word, not in terms of the referent).

 

·     In Boot-ANNAT.p41.fig3 (1999), the vessel is referred to as a “small ceramic container” and not given a K-number. It is only in Boot-THToK7786&K4669 (2003) that it is designated with its K-number of K7786. This is surprising, as Boot-THToK7786&K4669.p1 seems to imply that Kerr had already assigned the number K7786 in September 1997.

·     Boot-ANNAT explains how K7786 helps the reading of the logogram YOOTZ itself. Here we have only the pure syllabogram spelling: yo-tzi è yootz. And this substitutes for (elsewhere) yo-<“BOUND-STRAW-LOGOGRAM”>-tzi (see YOMOOTZ).

·     Warning: The reading in Boot-ANNAT is dependent on the element on the left of K7786 K being K’UH. Martin sees it as mo, resulting in a reading of Yomootz (if the element on the top right is seen as yo) or Yopmootz (if the element on the top right is seen as YOP). See logogram YOMOOTZ for more information.

·     Sim’s summary: Some epigraphers (e.g. Boot-THToK7786&K4669.p8) are of the opinion that the element on the left is K’UH{ul}. If so, then there is no -mo- being written in the remaining glyphs of PSS-K (yo and tzi). This in turn means that there is no -mo- in the placename. That is indeed Boot’s conclusion, as he reads Yootz for the placename. However, I prefer Yomootz, due to the occurrence of undisputed mo in other equivalent contexts. For this reason, I prefer to see all of glyph-block K as a pure syllabogram spelling, with the left side being mo. This means the glyphs are “slightly out of sequence”, being mo.<yo:tzi> è Yomootz. Without a K’uhul, this is then just “Lord of Yomootz”.