  THE WRITING. It must be admitted that none of the attempts made at deciphering the writing in these manuscripts has proved entirely satisfactory; in fact there is still some doubt as to whether any of the characters are truly phonetic; nevertheless it is believed that what is here shown will tend to lessen this doubt. It must be conceded, however, notwithstanding these drawbacks and difficulties, that some material progress has been made towards a better understanding of its type and of the nature of the characters. The direction in which it is to be read must of course be determined before any progress can be made in deciphering it. This was, until recently, a matter of speculation, but now may be considered settled. As this has been explained A certain parallelism in the sentences or groups of characters has also been discovered. Attention was first called to this by me in the work referred to, but is more fully explained by Dr. P. Schellhas in his paper entitled “Die Mayahandschrift der kÖniglichen Bibliothek zu Dresden.” It will readily be understood from a single illustration. Take for example the lower division of Plate XV of the Manuscript Troano (see Study Ms. Troano). Omitting from consideration the numerals and the day column at the left, there are here two short columns on the left and two on the right over the animal figures, and three longer columns between. As explained in the work referred to, the short columns are to be read as lines from left to right and the longer columns separately, from the top downward. There are, in all, five groups or sentences, each containing four compound characters. Representing these by letters, repeating those which indicate similar characters, and arranging as in the plate, the result is as follows:
In this case the characters represented by a and r are repeated in each group and in the same relation to the other characters. It is Although it appears to be well settled that, as a rule, the writing, when in lines, is to be read from left to right—the lines following each other downward and the columns to be read from the top downward, but the groups, as before explained, to be read separately—it does not follow that the groups succeed one another from left to right. This has generally been taken for granted, but there are some reasons to doubt the correctness of this conclusion as regards a number of plates and possibly one entire codex. The facts that the lines of numerals attached to the day columns extend to the right and that the written characters, when in lines, follow one another in the same direction lead us to infer that the groups and pictures follow one another in the same order, but the apparent movement of the latter towards the left would seem to indicate that they follow one another in this direction. This inference appears to be confirmed by the following evidence: As is well known, the plates of the Manuscript Troano are to be taken in reverse order to the paging. Turning to Plate II, we observe in the middle department of the middle division a bound captive or victim, on whose neck a machete is descending to sever the head from the trunk. Turning to Plate III, which properly stands to the left of Plate II, we see a headless trunk covered with blood and the fatal machete near the neck. It is fair to presume that this is the same individual that is figured in the preceding plate, and, if so, that the pictures follow one another toward the left. Placing Plates XV* and XVI* of the same manuscript in the proper relation to each other and carefully examining the figures in the second division, we notice that the idol heads which the artisans are carving approach completion as we move toward the left, those in Plate XV* and the right hand one in XVI* being simply blocked out, while the middle one in the latter plate is completely rounded and is receiving the second ornamental line and the one at the left hand is receiving the third and final line. The female figures in the second division of Plate XIX* indicate the same order, as shown by the increasing girth as we proceed toward the left. As the writing over each figure, consisting usually of four compound characters, appears to refer to that over which it is placed, it follows that these character groups must be taken in the same order as the pictures. The suggestions on this point are presented here more as proper subjects of investigation by students of American paleography than as fixed conclusions of the writer. If found to be justified by the facts, they will furnish some additional aid in the work of deciphering these manuscripts. As Landa’s alphabet has so far proved useless as an aid in deciphering these manuscripts, our only hope of accomplishing this end is by long and careful study of these records and laborious comparisons of characters and the relations in which they stand to one another and to the figures. Some discoveries made while preparing this paper for the press, which are mentioned further on, may possibly give us the key to the method used by Landa in forming his alphabet, and, if so, will probably furnish some slight additional aid in our investigations. The direction in which the writing is to be read having been ascertained, our next step is to determine by comparison the probable signification of as many characters as possible before discussing the question of phoneticism. The relation of the characters to the pictorial representations forms our chief reliance in this branch of the investigation. As a commencement in this work and as a basis for further attempts in the same direction, attention is now called to some characters, other than the day and month symbols, whose signification seems to be satisfactorily determined. As there is still some difference of opinion as to the assignment of the symbols of the cardinal points they are also omitted from the list. M. LÉon de Rosny has given, as a supplement to his edition of the Cortesian Codex, a list of characters with their supposed signification. It is not my intention to discuss here the merits of this vocabulary, although I shall avail myself of so much found therein as appears to warrant acceptance. The question of phoneticism will not be considered in connection with the list, as the subject will be briefly discussed at the close, the only object in view in giving the list being to indicate the significa
There can be no doubt that Landa’s A, an exact copy of which is given in the margin, in both varieties, c and d, is nothing more nor less than this symbol; for, in addition to the very close general resemblance, we see in it the eye and the dot indicating the nostril. This fact is important, as it gives us some clew to the method adopted by Landa in forming his alphabet.
The symbol appears to be used also in the ordinary sense, or at least to signify other vessels than the sacred four, if we may judge by its frequent repetition in Plate XIV, Manuscript Troano. But it is worthy of notice that here also, in both the middle and lower divisions, four of the symbols are connected with the cardinal point symbols; there is also in the former the figure of a vessel. Hieroglyph If this identification be correct it is important, as it has a strong bearing on the question of phoneticism. It will be observed that, although the right hand member resembles closely the symbol of the day Ymix, there are some differences, as may be seen by comparison. In the former the little figure at the top is divided as in Kan, and on each side of it there is a large dot, usually, and apparently by intention, circular or hollow. These differences are permanent in the different codices. In the upper division of Plates X and XI, Manuscript Troano, where this symbol appears in connection with each of the four cardinal symbols, that relating to the east presents this remarkable variation: Hieroglyph
The Kan symbol in this connection cannot be intended, as Dr. Schellhas supposes, to indicate the field or milpa in which the corn is growing, but the grain from which the plant is springing. (On this subject see Study of the Manuscript Troano, by Cyrus Thomas, pp. 105 and 107.)
The animal head and teeth show the erroneous idea the natives had of the gnawing apparatus of insects. The worm is shown on the next page in Fig. 375.
If we examine carefully Plates 16-20 of the Dresden Codex, where this symbol is most frequently repeated, and compare it with the heads of the females there figured, it soon becomes apparent that the scrolls with the heavy black dot are intended to denote the locks of hair and that the symbol as a whole is, as usual, a modified or conventional form of the head (see Fig. 376).
The relation of these symbols to the conventional figures of houses or huts inserted at the points where they are found, together with the form, which shows an attempt to represent the thatched or leaf covered roof, leaves no doubt that they are used for the purpose indicated.
A copy of part of Plate XIX of the Manuscript Troano is introduced here (see Fig. 377) to show the relation of the figures to the characters. If this interpretation be correct, we see here an evident attempt on the part of the aboriginal artist to indicate by the symbol the action nec
A remarkable series of figures and written characters runs through the lower division of Plates 65 to 69 of the Dresden Codex, apparently devoted entirely to the representation of incidents in the life of the culture hero Kukulcan, or deity mentioned on a subsequent page as the “long nosed god” or “god with the snake-like tongue,” or to ceremonies to be performed in honor of this deity. Over the figure are three lines of written characters, as shown in Fig. 378, which is a copy of the lower division of Plate 65. These, as is readily seen, are in groups, one group of six compound characters over each figure of the god. There are thirteen figures of the god and thirteen of these groups of characters in the series. The characters of a group, as may be seen by reference to the figure, are arranged in the following manner:
Comparing the second character (b) of each group with that upon which the god is seated or standing, we find sufficient evidence to satisfy us that this symbol is the one which is used throughout to indicate this object. For example, the second symbol in the group on Plate 69 is an exact copy of the object on which the deity is seated. The same thing is substantially true of that in the left hand group of Plate 66, the middle group of 67, and the right hand group of 68. Assuming, on account of the remarkable regularity of this series and the fact that the deity is in each case seated or standing on something, that this rule holds good throughout, we have a clew to those corresponding symbols which are not simple copies of the things they are used to indicate. Turning to Fig. 378, we observe in the right hand department the marks of footsteps under the deity and the character shown in the margin (No. 20) as the second of the group above the deity. It is worthy of notice that in the two we find precisely Landa’s two characters for the letter B. Is it possible that the two principal parts of this compound character denote the Maya words oc be, “foot journey” or “enters upon the journey”? Attention will be called to this further on, but it is proper to state here that as the prefix is found in three other corresponding characters it cannot be a necessary part of that which represents the footsteps in this case.
There can be little, if any, doubt, judging by the figures in connection with which it is found, that this symbol is used in the Dresden and the Cortesian Codices to denote the cacao. Whether it refers to the tree or to the fruit is uncertain; possibly the different forms in which it is found are intended to denote these distinctions. In some of the figures the capsule appears to be indicated; in others the seed. The prefix to figure c apparently indicates the heaping or piling up of the fruit on the dish held in the hands of the individuals figured in the same connection, as, for example, on Plates 12 and 13 of the Dresden Codex. If this supposition be correct it gives us a key to the signification of this prefix. Reference to its use in the upper division of Plate XVIII*, Manuscript Troano, will be made further on. In this symbol we find another of Landa’s letters, and, if phonetic, agreeing precisely with his interpretation.
The black markings on the symbols render it probable that Rosny’s interpretation is correct. The numeral before the first form may possibly be explained by the fact that this symbol is used once (Manuscript Troano, Plate XII) to indicate the day Ix.
Fig. 379. The moo or ara from Plate 16. Dresden Codex.
Similar characters in the different groups are represented by the same letter; for example, the symbol for woman, heretofore shown (No. 17), is represented by c, and an unknown character by d. Different letters represent different symbols. It is apparent that we have here the parallelism heretofore spoken of and are justified in basing conclusions on this fact. At 1, 2, and 3 are female figures with a bird in each case perched on the back. At a is the head of a bird, evidently the symbol of the bird on the female below; at i, in the fourth group, is precisely the same symbol as the one found in the same relative position in the middle division of Plate 17 over another bird, and at m, in the fifth group, is another bird’s head. From these facts we conclude that the first symbol in each of these groups denotes a bird, and, as no two are alike, that they refer to different species, the one at g corresponding with symbol No. 24, the bird beneath being the great parrot or ara. Other facts, derived from a careful study of the various groups of this portion of the codex, which would require much space and numerous illustrations to explain, lead to the same belief. According to this conclusion, the following symbols also denote birds, probably of the species here indicated.
The bird in the figure under the group, although horned, bears but slight resemblance to an owl; yet, comparing the marks on the tail with those of two of the birds on Plate XVIII* of the Manuscript Troano, I think the interpretation is justified.
If this interpretation be correct, we find in this symbol another of Landa’s letters
If this determination be correct, the first of these symbols (a) is probably phonetic and agrees with the interpretation of No. 26.
If phonetic, the word indicated should, according to Landa’s alphabet, be aspirated, which is found to be true of one of the forms given by Perez. In certain series of the Dresden Codex, which appear to relate to the four year series or to the four seasons, especially those on Plates 29-31, a certain class of food animals seems to be assigned to each. The four following symbols are those used to express this idea:
As the Kan figure is admitted to be a maize or bread symbol, it is readily seen that the object in view in connecting it with the animal figures is to indicate that they are used for food, and hence are proper offerings to the gods, which is equivalent to saying, to the priests.
The signification of the name of this deity is “The Black Calabash.” The form and the shading of the symbol render it more than probable that it is a conventional representation of a divided or halved black calabash or gourd, cut for the purpose of forming it into a cup or dipper, which, in this form, is considered a symbol of this deity. The evidence upon which this determination is based is that the symbol constantly accompanies the red mouthed, black deity. It is found, with a single exception, only in the Manuscript Troano, and chiefly in Plates II to V, relating to the traveling merchants. The single exception alluded to is on Plate 15 of the Cortesian Codex; here the god bears upon his back the traveling pack, indicating the vocation of which he is the special guardian. It occurs unconnected with the figure of the deity only on Plates IX*, XIV*, XV*, and XXV* of the Manuscript Troano. In the last the figure of the god is in the same division, but in the adjoining compartment. In Plate XV* it apparently refers to the idol the priest is carving, which is probably a black one intended to represent this god. Landa, They took also that which they used for scarifying their ears and drawing blood from them, and also the instruments which they needed for sculpturing their black divinities. Its appearance in Plate XIV* is apparently in connection with the
The snake-like appendages hanging from the side of the mouth may possibly be intended to represent a curved fang rather than part of a divided tongue. A remarkable figure on Plate 72 of the Borgian Codex deserves special notice here. This is the representation of a deity supposed by Kingsborough and others to be Quetzalcoatl, in which the head is as represented in Fig. 382. Here we see both tongue and fang, and also an eye precisely of the form found in the Maya symbol. Whether Kukulcan is the god indicated is uncertain, unless he is identical with the long nosed god, or Maya Tlaloc, so frequently figured in the Manuscript Troano and the Cortesian Manuscript. It is only necessary to compare the figures on Plates 2 to 5 of the latter codex with the long nosed, green figures of Plates XXVI, XXVII, XXIX, XXX, and XXXI of the former to be convinced that they represent the same deity, and that this is the Maya Tlaloc or rain god, whatever may be the name by which he was known. As the symbol which accompanies these is the same as that found in The following reasons given by Dr. Schellhas for supposing that the deity indicated is Kukulcan apparently justify his conclusion, though it is possible some other name may have been applied to him: He is represented in all the manuscripts, and far more frequently than any other deity. His characteristic marks are always unmistakable. An entire section of the Dresden Codex, pp. 29-43, and pp. 1 and 2, belonging thereto, treat almost exclusively of this god, and wherever he is pictured there we also find his name hieroglyph. He is always characterized by the double, snake-like tongue hanging from his mouth and by the peculiar eye, two marks that are never absent, how numerous and varied soever may be his representations, his symbols, and attributes. We also find him with torches in his hands as symbols of fire; he sits on water; he stands or sits in water or in falling rain; he rides in a boat; he appears in company with a fish as symbol of water or in company of a bird’s head as symbol of the atmosphere, upon the day sign Cab as symbol of the earth, sitting, with the ax
These are given chiefly on the authority of Drs. FÖrstemann and Schellhas, as I have some doubt in reference to this conclusion, for reasons which will here be given.
As Dr. Schellhas remarks, this is “the most characteristic and most easily recognized deity of the Maya Codices”; but this statement will not apply to the symbols, as the variations are such as to render it exceedingly doubtful whether precisely the same idea is embodied in each. Even the two forms here given, both of which are found in all the codices and often together, present variations too marked for us to believe, except upon strong evidence, that they represent the same thing. Nor do the figures of this deity or supposed deity appear to embody throughout the same idea. In fact, they In the first part of the Dresden Codex, which is devoted, in part at least, if not chiefly, to the maladies of the country, the skeleton figures undoubtedly have reference to death, much like the skull and cross bones in our day. In other places, as Plates XXVII and XXII* of the Manuscript Troano and Plate 7 of the Cortesian Codex, the parched earth appears to be intended, but it must be conceded that here also the idea of death is included. Substantially the same idea, or at least the relation of this god to the earth, appears to be indicated in Plate 8 of the Cortesian Codex, where he is represented as beneath and holding up that upon which another deity, bearing the bread symbol, is seated. As before stated the two symbols frequently appear in connection, sometimes where the god is figured and often where he is not. It is, therefore, unsafe to conclude as yet that either variety indicates a particular deity known as the god of death.
This deity evidently pertains to the underworld and is closely allied to the so-called god of death. The symbol and the figure are found together in but few instances, yet the peculiar markings are such as to leave no doubt on the mind, that the symbol is intended to denote what is represented by the figure, being simply the head of the deity as invariably figured. They appear together in Plates IIIc, Va, and Vb, XXVIII*c, and XXIXc of the Manuscript Troano, in the first two as having some relation to the traveling merchants, but in the last two in a very different rÔle. The dotted lines with which the bodies of these figures are marked and the peculiar anklets appear to Figures of this god are also found in some of the Mexican codices, as on Plate 73 of the Borgian manuscript, where the relation to death and to the underworld is too apparent to be mistaken. On Plate 10, same codex, the head of death is marked with the distinguishing black band. Unfortunately for investigations in this line, the early Spanish notices of the Maya mythology are so brief and confused that we can derive but little aid from them in our efforts to identify the deities figured in these manuscripts. Possibly the one with the banded face may represent Cumahau or Hunhau, the prince of the lower regions; but the rÔle he appears to play where figured, with the exception of Plate II, Manuscript Troano, and Plate 73 of the Borgian Codex, would scarcely justify the name.
The deity denoted by this symbol and by the figure which it accompanies is possibly Zamna or Ytzamna, a deified Maya hero, but the various rÔles in which he is found make it difficult to decide on this point. He appears comparatively few times in the Dresden Codex, and only in the first few pages. In none of these is there anything to indicate his functions. In Plates 12c and 15c he holds a sun symbol in his hand, which might be supposed to refer to his attributes as “Kinich-Kakmo” but for the fact that the same thing is true of one or two other deities figured in the same codex. In the Manuscript Troano, where he is oftenest represented, his figure and his symbol appear most frequently in connection with the bee or honey industry; for example, on Plate Vc, the only place in the first part of the manuscript where honey appears to be referred to, and
This is introduced here on the authority of Dr. Schellhas, although I have considerable doubt as to the correctness of his conclusion. He remarks in regard to it as follows: Another characteristic and easily recognized deity, which, it is true, is comparatively rare in the Dresden manuscript, but occurs with extraordinary frequency in other codices, and whose sign it is not hard to find, is the god whose face is crossed [surrounded] by peculiar parallel lines, representations of whom are given in the Cortesian Codex (p. 11, below) and Dresden Codex (p. 13, middle). The deity is always male and is found in the Dresden Codex five times, Cortesian Codex eighteen times, Manuscript Troano twenty times, and Codex Peresianus five times. The sign of this god, as was the case with the others and as seems to be the general rule, consists merely of a representation of the god’s head, combined with a sign which probably represents an affix. The sign is found wherever the deity is represented and is an exact rendering of the god’s head, so that there can be no doubt as to its being the name hieroglyph. True variations are not found, the hieroglyph being perfectly alike in all the manuscripts. The nature of this deity is not easily determined, though it occurs in the Codices Troano and Cortesianus with extraordinary frequency, so that it would be seen that these two manuscripts, which evidently belong together, treat principally of this deity. No analogous deity is found in Aztec picture writing. *** To all appearances we have here a momentous figure of Maya mythology, of which, unfortunately, we know nothing. It is true that this symbol is found in almost every instance where the figure of the god appears—in fact, with fewer exceptions than The first is that the figure of the supposed deity seems to have more indications of being the conventional representation of an idol than of a deity. The lines of the head are precisely the same as those on the heads of the carved idols. We also find it in connection with the wood symbol (marginal No. 6) at the only points where the latter is found in the Cortesian Codex, and, what is significant, in wholly inappropriate places unless connected with an idol figure. These are found in the lower division of Plates 10 and 11, two on the top of thatched roofs and another on the head of the deity called the “god with the old man’s face,” the head in the latter case being apparently carved from a block of wood. The second is to the same effect, the symbol being found over each of the figures of the lower division of Plates 26, 27, and 28 of the Cortesian Codex and the middle division of Plates XXXI* and XXXII* of the Manuscript Troano, where there appear to be processions of the different deities. It is also significant that in the latter case each deity is bearing in his hands what seems to be a block of wood from which in all probability an idol is to be carved. Third, we find rows or lines composed entirely of this symbol, as in the so-called title page of the Manuscript Troano. It must be admitted, as heretofore intimated, that this question has not as yet been satisfactorily answered. Whether what is here presented will suffice to settle this point in the minds of students of American paleography is doubtful; nevertheless, it is believed that it will bring us one step nearer the goal for which we are so earnestly striving. Something is said on this subject in my former work, As it is evident from the preceding list of characters that conventional signs and symbols, often nothing more than abbreviated pictographs, were used in many cases to designate objects and persons, the inference to be drawn, unless other evidence is adduced, is, that this method prevailed throughout. Nevertheless there is some evidence that at the date when these manuscripts were written Maya culture was in a transition state; that is to say, conventional symbols The lack of any satisfactory key to assist us in deciphering them makes it exceedingly difficult to decide how far this change had progressed. We are therefore left wholly to deductions to be drawn from the facts obtained by laborious comparisons of the various relations in which the characters are found and the uses which appear to be made of them in the manuscript. It will be admitted without question that a large number of these characters are ideographs or conventional symbols, as distinguished from pictures, as, for example, most of those denoting the days, months, and cardinal points. I say most of these, as it is yet possible to learn from some of them the objects they were intended to represent, the characteristic features not being entirely lost, as the symbol for the day Cimi, the “death’s head” or skull; that of the day Ymix, “the grain of maize;” that of the month Moan, “the head of the moo or ara,” a species of parrot, &c. It is also possible to show from the manuscripts themselves evidences of the changes from conventional pictographs to true or mnemonic symbols. Take, for instance, the bird symbols on Plates 16, 17, and 18 of the Dresden Codex, presented in the preceding marginal figures numbered 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 33. If the determination be correct as given, it is apparent that, while one of the birds is indicated by the head as a symbol, the others are denoted by ideographs, or by phonetic characters bearing no resemblance to their forms or peculiar features. That numerous examples of this kind are to be found in these manuscripts will be admitted by all who have carefully studied them. Another fact bearing upon this point is the difference between the Dresden Codex and the Manuscript Troano in regard to marking with symbols the things represented in the pictures. We fail to find in the former (unless that on Plate 30 be a possible exception) the earth or soil represented by any symbol, though frequently occurring in the latter and also occasionally in the Cortesian Codex. The symbol for wood or that appearing so often on wooden articles in the latter, and occasionally in the Cortesian Codex, is wanting in the Dresden Codex, though wooden articles are several times represented. From this we infer that the Manuscript Troano is a more recent production than the Dresden Codex, notwithstanding the evidences of greater skill in drawing and higher mathematical attainments shown in the latter. The failure to reach any satisfactory results with this alphabet proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this author was mistaken as to the character of the Maya writing; yet the frequent occurrence in the manuscripts of most, if not all, of the elements he presents renders it certain that there is a basis of truth on which it rests. It is probable, therefore, if we can find the key to his method, we may, after all, obtain some satisfactory results by means of his alphabet. I have already stated as my belief that— He has undertaken to pick out of their compound or syllabic characters the letter elements; hence it is that, while we find it impossible to decipher the manuscripts by using them, yet we find such frequent resemblances as to compel us to admit a fundamental relationship. This opinion I still believe to be correct, but was, until very recently, unable to get any positive evidence as to his method of obtaining these elements. While examining the Cortesian Codes I came across (on Plate 17) the symbol for a turtle (the different varieties of which are shown in marginal figure No. 4), which is nothing more or less than an attempt to represent the head of the animal. In the more abbreviated form (b) I at once recognized Landa’s A (compare with c and d, No. 4). As the Maya name of the turtle is Ac or Aac it is apparent that in this instance the old Spanish priest selected a symbol representing an object the name of which contains a single syllable having, as its chief letter element, A. As this symbol is simply a representation of the animal’s head there is no reason to infer that it is phonetic; on the contrary, it is more reasonable to assume that it was used only as a conventional sign. It is possible that after long usage it may have been adopted as a phonetic character, though its exceedingly rare occurrence in the manuscripts (being found only in the Cortesian Codex and with the turtle figure) and the fact that it is seldom, if ever, used as part of a compound character would seem to forbid this idea. Precisely the same method was adopted in obtaining his B, which is given in two forms, first as a foot print and second as a circle inclosing four circular dots. The first, as all are aware, is only a conventional sign and presumably not phonetic. The second may be phonetic, though apparently but an abbreviation of the first. In Plate 65c (see marginal No. 20) and Plate 41c the two forms are brought into such relation to each other as to show that the latter is used as a symbol to represent the idea conveyed by the first. The The symbol for the cacao given above in marginal No. 22 contains his eleventh letter Ca twice and is probably that from which it was taken; likewise that of the Kukuitz or Quetzal (marginal No. 26) and of the Kuch or vulture (marginal No. 27a), each of which contains his Ku, being double in the former and single in the latter. I am as yet unable to trace these two symbols to their origin; we might suppose, from Landa’s figure of the latter, that it was intended to represent a bird’s nest containing eggs, but an examination of the symbol as found in the manuscript renders this conclusion doubtful. The evidences of phonography are few and, as must be admitted, not entirely satisfactory; yet they are apparently sufficient to justify the somewhat general belief that the writing of the Mayas had reached that stage where characters are sometimes used to indicate sounds. That comparatively little advance had been made in this direction at the time of the conquest is possible; moreover there is nothing to justify the belief that they made use of true letters as Landa supposed. If they had a phonographic system of any kind it was very imperfect and was only in that primary stage in which syllables are represented by single characters and words of more than one syllable by compound characters. Judging by the changes observed in the relation of the parts of compound characters to one another, we conclude that the order of arranging these parts was not uniform or essential. It is also doubtful, if any of these characters are phonetic, whether the parts of the longer words were always written out in full. I am led to believe, from a few slight indications, that, in forming words of more than one syllable, they often used only the leading phonetic elements of the single words of which they are composed; in other words, that they followed the rebus method of the Mexicans. Descending to particulars and examples, the following are, perhaps, the strongest proofs which can be presented on this point: As there can no longer be any doubt that the symbols for the cardinal points have been ascertained and that those relating to the polar points are distinguishable from those relating to the equatorial points, we are justified in referring to them in this discussion. As each of the two assigned to the equatorial points contains the symbol for “sun” or “day” and as the two Maya words for these points—Likin or Lakin and Chikin—contain the Maya term for sun or day (“kin”), there is some reason for believing that the characters are phonetic. There is to be added to this evidence the fact that the It is now generally admitted by students of American paleography, on what appears to be satisfactory evidence, that symbol No. 7 of the preceding list, Cab, is used to signify “earth” or “land” and “honey,” both of which are designated by the same Maya term, Cab. As there is no similarity in the things denoted the character is probably phonetic. The “bee” appears also to be frequently indicated by the same character with an affix, as may be seen by reference to the lower divisions of Plates III*—X* of the Manuscript Troano. The symbol No. 9 (U) of the preceding list is found repeatedly on vases and also as a prefix to both simple and compound characters. As U in Maya signifies “moon,” “vase,” and certain pronouns and is also used as a euphonic particle before vowels, we are perhaps justified in concluding that the symbol is phonetic and denotes the word U. I am aware that neither Perez nor Dr. Brinton gives “vase” as one of the meanings of this word, yet its constant appearance on vessels seems to leave no doubt that Brasseur is correct. Even admitting that he is mistaken and that we are in error as to the signification of the symbol, its various uses justify the belief that it is phonetic. The symbol No. 34 of the preceding list, which is supposed to be that of the god Ekchuah, is probably phonetic. The name of this deity is composed of two Maya words, ek, “black,” and chu, “calabash,” and hence signifies “the black calabash,” and the form and coloring of the symbol are apparently intended to denote this signification. If this interpretation be correct it is phonetic, as there is nothing in or pertaining to the figure of the deity which corresponds with it, except the color. If the interpretation given of the preceding symbols Nos. 22, 24, 26, 27a, and 33 be correct, there can be scarcely a doubt that they are phonetic. In the first—cacau, cacauak, or cacauche, the “cacao”—we see Landa’s letter Ca, which is doubled in each of the three forms taken from the different codices. In the twenty-sixth—Kukuitz, the Quetzal—Landa’s Ku is duplicated, as it should be if phonetic, while in 27a, Kuch, it appears but once. There is here also an additional evidence of phoneticism in the fact that, while one of the symbols used to denote this bird shows simply its head, and is surely not phonetic, the other is entirely different and bears no resemblance whatever to any feature or characteristic of the bird. Moreover, both parts of it are used in other combinations referring to entirely different things. I have expressed the opinion The interpretation given above of symbol No. 24 (the moo or ara) will probably be accepted by all students of these manuscripts, and if so its phonetic character must be conceded. That it is used in the place above alluded to (Dresden Codex, Plate 16c) to denote this bird is proved by the parallelism of the groups and the figure of the parrot under it. If we turn now to Plate 48 of this codex we observe that the second character of the first line below the day columns and the first character in the upper line of the lower group or square is, in each case, a bird’s head. It is easily proved by means of the numeral series with which these are connected that they denote, in both cases, the month Moan (from the moo), proving that Brasseur’s surmise was correct. I have shown above that the right portion of No. 20 of the list is Landa’s letter B, and also that in the lower division of Plate 65, The symbol for 20 (Kal), No. 1 of the preceding list, is apparently phonetic. This view appears to be confirmed by its use otherwise than as a numeral symbol at several points in the text of the Manuscript Troano. For example, in the third division of Plate XVII* it appears in this form, Hieroglyph while immediately below is the representation of an idol head in a vessel covered with a screen or basket, as shown in Fig. 388. The Maya verb Kal signifies to “imprison” or “inclose,” which is certainly appropriate to what we see in the figure. As the symbol is over each of the three similar figures in the division, it is probable that it is intended to denote something relating to or observable in them. In the second division of Plates XV* and XVI*, same codex, is this symbol, Hieroglyph several times repeated, and below each the figure of a priest or deity at work, each carving, with a machete or hatchet, the head of an idol. The probable signification is “Give twice twenty strokes with a machete,” and hence is but partially phonetic. Other examples bearing on this question may be found, but these are believed to be sufficient to warrant the belief that at the time these codices were written Maya culture had reached that stage where the idea of phoneticism was being introduced into the writing. Yet it is certain, and even susceptible of demonstration, that a large portion, perhaps the majority, of the characters are symbols. The more I study these characters the stronger becomes the conviction that they have grown out of a pictographic system similar to that common among the Indians of North America. The first step in advance appears to have been to indicate, by characters, the gesture signs. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
