·    No glyphs given in K&H, K&L, 25EMC, BMM9 – i.e., TOK is the only pedagogical source which lists this glyph.

·    Features:

o Top – a “face” – a circular element with:

§ Top: Two non-touching dots in a horizontal line (“eyes”).

§ Bottom: A horizontal bar (“mouth”).

o Bottom – two bundles of sticks forming an X-shape:

§ Long, parallel, touching bands (“sticks”), with

§ Two or three short bands (at right angles to them) to bind them together – one band near each end of the bundle, and one band in the middle, if there are three.

·      A subvariant has the two binding bands right at the end of the bundle (rather than just near the end of the bundle).

·      These then give each bundle “rounded” ends, so that the individual sticks of the bundle are not sticking out at the end of each bundle (0600st, T600a).

·      It’s these “rounded” ends which make each bundle more resemble JEL (see below).

·    Do not confuse this with the visually similar JEL:

o WIIN has a face in between the two arms of the top half of the X whereas JEL has nothing.

o WIIN is an X formed from two bound bundles of sticks whereas JEL consists of only two crossed bands (with optional reinforcement or spine). The resemblance is greater when the two bundles of sticks of WIIN are bound together at the very end of the bundle, rather than just a bit before and the two crossed bands of JEL have rounded ends. These are known subvariants of WIIN and JEL, respectively.

·    Bíró-ASNoWTN is a short paper which gives a nice overview of the history of the decipherment of the glyph. It was initially given the nickname “the ‘cross-batons’ title” (as it appears in the context of the extended name/title of various rulers) or the “cross-bundles” glyph.

o Bíró-ASNoWTN.p14.pdfp1.para2.l+1: In 1986, Linda Schele and David Stuart identified an expression which they dubbed the “cross-batons” title and which they believed referred to the founders of dynasties (Schele 1986; Schele and Stuart 1986).

o Bíró-ASNoWTN.p14.pdfp1.para4.l+3: Thus, thirty years after Linda’s pioneering discussions of the “cross-bundles” glyph, T600 can finally be read as WIN (or WIIN if one accepts the disharmonic principle).

·    Reading:

o It was the discovery of instances of this glyph with an end phonetic complement of na (after many known occurrences of the initial phonetic complement wi) which led to the current reading of WIIN/WIN – the choice between the two being dependent on how much faith an epigrapher has in the Lacadena-Wichmann spelling rules for disharmonic spellings.

o EstradaBelli&Tokovinine-AKA.p160.pdfp12.col1.l-1: It is spelled wi-TE’-NAAH in Early Classic texts (Figure 7a) and (wi)-T600 TE’-NAAH (Figures 7b, 7c) in later references. It has been argued that the gloss was wi’ te’ or wih te’ as in “root [of the] tree” and by extension “foundation” or “origin” (Stuart 2004:236–238). The new T600-na spelling on the Building A frieze (Figure 7d) refutes this interpretation by recording an otherwise under-spelled consonant at the end of the word. The actual gloss in wi TE’ and T600-TE’ is probably wiin te’ with a long vowel clued by the disharmony principle (Houston et al. 1998).

·    Meaning:

o EstradaBelli&Tokovinine-AKA.p161.pdfp13.col1.para2.l+2: The translation of wiin te’ is uncertain. The Tzotzil verb win “to appear, be seen” (Laughlin 1975:370) or “to appear in the distance, be clearly exposed, be manifest/public” (Laughlin and Haviland 1988:328) is probably the same gloss as win in Yukatek winba for “image/statue” (Barrera et al. 1995:923).

·    Both MHD and Bonn have this glyph, with differing vowel length, and with Bonn still indicating some doubt as to the pronunciation, but both agreeing on the meaning of “image”.

o Bíró-ASNoWTN.p14.pdfp1.para4.l+4: Nevertheless, the authors [Sim: in EstradaBelli&Tokovinine-AKA] mention that the translation is very uncertain. They have linked it to entries such as Tzotzil win “to appear, to be seen” (Laughlin 1975:370) or Yucatec winba “image, statue” (Barrera Vásquez 1980:923).

o MHD and Bonn’s translation are perhaps influenced by the Yucatec winba “image, statue” above.

·    MHD statistics:

o A search in MHD (2026-02-27) on “blcodes contains ZQB” produces 37 hits.

§ CPN is the site with the greatest number of occurrences, far outnumbering the others with 16 occurrences (i.e., nearly half of the total).

§ The other sites DZB (Dzibanche), HLM, MQL, OXK (Oxkintok), PNG, QRG, RAM (Rio Amarillo), TIK, UAX, YAX have 1, 2, or at most 3 hits. [Note that DZB is the code for Dzibanche in MHD, whereas Bonn has TZB/Tzibanche, with DZB being for Nadzbeiltun.]

§ There are examples from both monumental inscriptions and from ceramics.

§ Bíró-ASNoWTN.p14.pdfp1.para2.l-3 gives also RAZ (Rio Azul) and TRS (Tres Islas) as sites where the WIN/WIIN glyph occurs, but these were not in MHD at the time I looked.

o All except two of the 37 hits write the placename Wiin Te’ Naah / Win Te’ Naah. See under Wiin Te’ Naah / Win Te’ Naah for further information.