THE MEXICAN AND CENTRAL-AMERICAN WRITING, INSCRIPTIONS, AND BOOKS
While there are found in the mounds of the central Mississippi
region, and also among the living natives of the North-west coast,
resemblances to the art work of the Aztecs, Mayas, and other tribes of
the Central-American region, there is no evidence that there was any
approach, in these localities or elsewhere, to any kind of record to be
compared with the proficiency of the South. What there may once have
been in the way of writings on bark or wood we can only conjecture. The
Davenport tablet has been pronounced, on good authority, to be within
the powers of the Dakota tribes. Other tablets and inscriptions of the
Eastern region are surrounded with doubt.
The Mexican, that is, the Aztec, writing was more pictorial than
that of the Mayas. It was cruder in every way, and comparing the
two in the pages of Kingsborough and later reproductions, it is
easy to distinguish a superior culture indicated by the writing of
the Maya. We are more fortunate in the number of Aztec manuscripts
preserved. The Spanish priests did what they could to obliterate the
books existing when they came into the country, and Bishop Zumarraga
made a fine bonfire out of a lot of them. But some escaped. Some
priests sent copies or originals back home as curiosities, thinking,
doubtless, that this took them out of the sight of the natives quite
as effectually as the burning, and the natives themselves succeeded
in preserving in secret some of the ancient documents. None of the
oldest, however, have been found, but in time the number known to us
may be considerably increased. One by one they turn up unexpectedly.
That called the Codex Borgia was in use as a plaything of children
of the Gustiniani family, till rescued by Cardinal Borgia, and only
recently another one has been found dating from the year 1545,[60]
wherein there are pictorial combinations never before seen. Thus
gradually our data are increasing, and with the awakening interest in
Amerindian archæology that seems to have come in these latter days of
the nineteenth century, a century that has let slip much valuable data
never to be recovered, further finds may be expected from time to time.
The style of the Aztec documents is different from that of the Maya and
Brinton believes them to be independent developments. It is possible,
however, that both were derived from the same source and developed
independently.[61] The Aztec writing is of a “rebus” character, and
Brinton has applied to it the term _ikonomatic_, which he explains
as follows in his _Essays of an Americanist_[62]: “All methods of
recording ideas have been divided into two classes—Thought Writing and
Sound Writing. The first, simplest and oldest, is Thought Writing.
This in turn is subdivided into two forms—Ikonographic and Symbolic
Writing. The former is also known as Imitative, Representative, or
Picture Writing. The object to be held in memory is represented by its
picture drawn with such skill, or lack of skill, as the writer may
possess. In Symbolic Writing, a single characteristic part or trait
serves to represent the whole object; thus the track of an animal
will stand for the animal itself.... It will be observed that Thought
Writing has no reference to spoken language; neither the picture of
a wolf nor the representation of his footprint conveys the slightest
notion of the sound of the word _wolf_. How was the enormous leap made
from the thought to the sound—in other words, from an ideographic to
a phonetic method of writing? This question has received considerable
attention from scholars with reference to the development of the two
most important alphabets in the world, the Egyptian and the Chinese.
Both these began as simple picture writing, and both progressed to
almost complete phoneticism. In both cases, however, the earliest steps
are lost, and can be retraced only by indications remaining after a
high degree of phonetic power had been reached. On the other hand, in
the Mexican and probably in the Maya hieroglyphics, we find a method
of writing which is intermediate between the two great classes I have
mentioned, and which illustrates in a striking manner the phases
through which both the Egyptian and the Semitic alphabets passed
somewhat before the dawn of history. To this method, which stands
midway between the ikonographic and the alphabetic methods of writing,
I have given the name _ikonomatic_, derived from the Greek εικων-ονος,
an image, a figure; ονομα-ατος, a name.... It is this plan on which
those familiar puzzles are constructed which are called rebuses and
none other than this which served to bridge over the wide gap between
Thought and Sound Writing. It is, however, not correct to say that it
is a writing by _things_, rebus; but it is by the _names_ of things,
and hence I have coined the work ikonomatic to express this clearly.”
The position of the signs often had important significance, just as it
has in some of our puzzles, like the following:
WOOD
JOHN
MASS
which is said to have been the address on a letter that found its
destination in John Underwood, Andover, Massachusetts. It might be
supposed that, having acquired a knowledge of the method of the Aztec
writing, the general principles of which, according to Brinton, were
known many years ago, we would now be able to translate the Mexican
documents with little difficulty. The trouble lies, however, in the
lack of exact knowledge of the Nahuatl language itself, and till
that is acquired small progress will be made. It will be necessary
to understand this language before its modern additions and changes
came in, in order to connect it with the picture-writing, or rather
the ikonomatic writing, of the fifteenth and previous centuries. It
has been doubted whether there is any phonetic element in either the
Aztec or the Maya hieroglyphics, but the evidence seems to indicate
that there is a phonetic element, notwithstanding that there has been a
following in many cases of rather slender threads of evidence.
[Illustration: PAGE FROM AN AZTEC BOOK (from a copy in the possession
of M. H. Saville)
Plate 67 of the Nahuan precolumbian Vatican Codex, No. 3773, Loubat
edition. This is the 19th page of the Tonalamatl, the sacred
astrological calendar of the Aztecs. The seated figure is the
goddess Xochiquetzal, and on the left is the god Tezcatlipoca. The
book is in size about 5 × 6 inches.
]
[Illustration: MEXICAN WRITING OF NAME OF MONTEZUMA
From Brinton
]
Brinton gives the accompanying illustration of the character of the
Aztec writing, this being the name of Montezuma, but really reading
Moquahzoma. As most writers spell this name to suit themselves, judging
from the great variety of spellings, we may as well accept Moquahzoma
too. Indeed, as this seems to be supported by the evidence of the
writing, it is more likely to be correct than the others. The picture
at the right is of a mouse-trap, _montli_ in Nahuatl, “with a phonetic
value of _mo_ or _mon_; the head of the eagle has the value _quauh_,
from _quauhtli_; it is transfixed with a lancet _zo_ and surmounted
with a hand _maitl_, whose phonetic value is _ma_, and these values
combined give _Moquahzoma_.”
[Illustration: PART OF PLATE 65, DRESDEN CODEX
Maya
]
When Mendoza was viceroy of New Spain, he caused a specimen of Aztec
writing and book-making to be prepared and sent to Charles V., with
an explanation in Spanish. Copies of this exist to-day; one in the
Bodleian Library, Oxford, and another, which Prescott thought was the
original, though Bancroft believed it to be a copy, in the Escurial
Library. This Codex Mendoza was in three parts: 1st, historical; 2d,
tribute rolls; 3d, descriptive of the domestic life and manners of the
people. Besides this and the Borgia, there are the Codex Vaticanus,
in the Vatican Library, another in the same place written on skin;
the Codex Telleriano-Remensis, in the Bibliothèque National, Paris;
the Codex Bologna, in the library of the Scientific Institute, and
a number of others in divers places.[63] The remnants of the native
Tezcucan archives were inherited by Ixtlilxochitl, lineal descendant of
the last “king” of Tezcuco, who used them in preparing his historical
writings. The collection afterwards disappeared.
Many of the manuscripts were merely chronological, but there were also
tribute rolls, law codes, court records, historical records, and all
the varied writings that belong to an active and intelligent people.
The priests executed and held in their possession the important books,
and seem to have been the leaders of whatever learning existed. “These
writings,” says Bancroft, “were a sealed book to the masses, and even
to the educated classes who looked with superstitious reverence on the
priestly writers and their magic scrolls.”
The paper used was usually made from the leaves of the maguey. It is
probable that the Aztecs learned to make it from the Mayas or from
some intervening tribe who had learned from the Mayas. Sometimes the
books were long strips of cotton cloth, or even a kind of parchment.
They were either rolled up or folded like a screen, and frequently had
covers of wood. A great deal of ingenuity and skill were bestowed on
the preparation of these books and the writing they contained.
The appropriate name of “calculiform”[64] has been given to the Maya
hieroglyphics because of their resemblance to pebble forms. Besides
the inscriptions carved on stone from the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to
the northern border of Honduras, there are some on wood and in stucco,
but there exist, so far as known, but very few of the numerous records
and books of perishable material which the pious zeal of the Spanish
priests hastened to gather together and purify of heresy and wickedness
in the fires of bigotry. Bishop Landa says: “As they contained nothing
that did not savour of superstition and lies of the devil, we burnt
them all, at which the natives grieved most keenly and were greatly
pained.” The practice of the Mayas, it is said, was to bury the books
with the priest who had written them, in which case large numbers of
the writings must have been disposed of before the Spaniards took a
hand. Doubtless, however, only certain books were thus buried with the
authors, and perhaps copies of these may have been preserved. At any
rate, unless some of the books have been protected in an absolutely
dry place, tomb or what not, or there were also writings on tablets of
clay or stone, we are not likely to have our present scanty knowledge
of the ancient Mayas much increased through this channel. There are
possibilities of discovery in many ways, even amongst the papers in
forgotten archives.
[Illustration: VASE FROM LABNA, YUCATAN, WITH PECULIAR MARKINGS
Diameter at top, 5 inches; diameter at bottom, 4 inches; height, 4½
inches
]
In the Peabody Museum at Cambridge I saw a small vase from Labna
that fixed my attention at once, and I understand there are others
in existence of a similar character. It bears certain marks in the
clay that suggested to my mind an alphabetic system. The marks are in
groups, each group contained in a space that apparently corresponds
to the calculiform inscriptions of the monuments. It seems possible,
therefore, that this may be a development out of the calculiform.
Afterwards I found a reference apparently to this same vase in
Brinton’s _Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics_. He says: “There is some
reason to suppose, however, that in this part of the Mayan territory
there had been a development of this writing until it had become
conventionalized into a series of lines and small circles enclosed in
the usual square or oval of the katun. I have seen several examples of
this remarkable script, and give one, Fig. 79, part of an inscription
on a vase from Labna, Yucatan, now in the Peabody Museum.” If these
marks should turn out to be alphabetic, then we may expect to find
slabs and tablets similarly inscribed.
[Illustration: CONVEX DISCOIDAL STONE, NORTH CAROLINA]
We are but at the beginning of our investigation of the Amerind field.
Only recently Saville discovered an entirely new form of hieroglyphic
in Oaxaca in a tomb believed to be Zapotecan. Organised and exhaustive
exploration will yield fine results. “Such organised and exhaustive
exploration is the more to be desired,” says Goodman, “for the reason
that all the inscriptions so far brought to light are of a purely
chronological character, destitute of any real historical importance.
They are merely public calendars, as it were, showing that at specified
dates certain periods of their scheme would begin or end, or that a
correspondence would occur between two or more of their different
plans for computing time. Aside from the circumstance that the initial
date in most instances undoubtedly marks the time at which the temple,
stela, or altar to which it belongs was erected, I do not believe there
is the record of a single historical event in all the inscriptions at
present in our possession. That a people as cultured as they should
have had no historical records at all, would be a presumption too
absurd for credence, even without the testimony of the early Spanish
authorities to the contrary. The actual question is whether any of
them will ever be discovered. If they were inscribed upon paper or
parchment and buried with their priestly owners, as we are told, there
is very little hope that any vestige of them remains, unless there may
have been some instance of almost miraculous preservation. Still that
remote chance is worth a vast amount of research. But a better hope
... is that in crypts or tombs or other unexplored receptacles may be
collected historical tablets of durable material—stone, stucco, baked
clay, or even metal—which patient excavation will yet unearth.” Chance
has played the chief part in the preservation of the few documents that
have come down to us. In the Bibliothèque National at Paris the Maya
one now known as the Codex Peresianus had been neglected amongst a lot
of old papers where De Rosny happened to discover it. It has generally
been assumed that because there was found one form of writing on the
monuments and a similar form in the few documents preserved there was
but the one method. This, however, does not necessarily follow. The
monumental records and the chronological books may have been written
by the priests in the archaic style while the ordinary and common
style was something quite different.[65] Pio Perez has been followed
with great faith, but Goodman thrusts him aside in the following
paragraph: “The man who led everybody astray ... was Don Pio Perez....
In the absence of any regularly ordained authority, he was at once
accepted on his own bare assumption as a leader and lawgiver, and then
began that journey through the wilderness which has lasted more than
forty years.... I ran in the ruck for seven seasons.... Then I turned
and went back to Landa—to whom all desirous of reliable information
concerning Maya chronology must go at last.”[66] The trouble with
following Landa has been the inaccuracy of the translation by the Abbé
Brasseur as well as a certain confusion existing within the original
manuscript.[67]
Brinton says: “The Mayas were naturally a literary people. Had they
been offered the slightest chance for the cultivation of their
intellects, they would have become a nation of readers and writers.”
Instead of having this chance they were crushed by the Spaniards and
never rose again. But the decline of the Mayas cannot be altogether
laid at the door of Spain. The remnant of the stock encountered by
the Spaniards was already on the down road and had been for a long
period.[68] That the Mayas had long passed the zenith of their progress
is generally admitted, and we are not entirely sure that the people we
know as Mayas were the original stock or only a mixture of the original
and an inferior, wilder stock which mingled with them in the days of
their decline. When a stock declined or became extinct, other stocks
from contiguous territory or from farther off were likely to come in
and possess themselves of whatever they found that was valuable and
also become permanent residents of the country, just as the Navajos
took up their home in a land that was formerly the residence of a
different, house-building stock of whom the Navajos preserve, so far
as I am aware, barely a reminiscence. Berendt thus describes the
neighbourhood of Cintla: “Not a single tradition, not a single native
name survives to cast any light upon these ruins. The whole of this
coast was depopulated in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries owing
to the slave-hunting incursions of the filibusters and man-hunters.
The Indians who are now found in the neighbourhood have removed there
from the interior since the beginning of the present century, and are
absolutely ignorant of the origin or builders of this city.”
Not until we are in possession of historical data from the Mayas
themselves, if that happy time ever arrives, can we be absolutely
certain as to the present descendants.
“In Yucatan,” says Brinton, “the books of the Mayas consisted of a
kind of paper made by macerating and beating together leaves of maguey
and afterwards sizing the surface with a durable white varnish. The
sheet was folded like a screen, forming pages about nine by five
inches. Both sides were covered with figures and characters painted
in various brilliant colours. On the outer pages boards were fastened
for protection, so the completed volume had the appearance of a bound
book of large octavo size. Parchment was sometimes used instead of
paper. It was made of deerskin cured and smoked. Twenty-seven rolls
of such parchments covered with hieroglyphics were among the articles
burned by Bishop Landa at Mani in 1562.” “None of them, however,”
remarks Goodman of the Maya books that have been found, “can be of
much assistance in solving Maya historical problems, as they are all
merely text-books explaining the meaning of signs, the elementary
principles of their respective calendars and certain phases of lunar,
solar, and in a few places, bissextile and chronological reckoning. I
believe the figures usually supposed to represent deities to be only
personifications of different periods or phases of time, and that most
of the glyphs are merely numerals or symbols used for the occasion in
their numerative sense only.”
It is plain, therefore, that much of the supposed interpretation of
the Maya inscriptions has had little solid foundation, has in fact
been little better than guesswork. There was one sanguine translator
who was discovered to have begun at the _wrong end_ of the book!
The readings of the Maya inscriptions sometimes suggest that other
mysterious operation of certain brilliant scholars of our time, the
discovery and reading of the Shakespeare-Baconian cipher. The lack
of real understanding of the Maya subject is pretty well indicated
by the various estimates of the value of Landa’s legacy. One author,
Holden, states that it was a positive misfortune, while Goodman, after
following other lines for a time, returns to Landa as the only real
foundation for accurate study. There is even yet difference of opinion
as to the proper directions, left to right or up and down, etc., in
which the works are to be read when they are read. Apparently the first
sensible thing to be done is to gather together all that Landa wrote
and reduce it to a shape that will place it before the greatest number
of students, in connection with specimens of every kind of a mark or
picture that by any possibility might have alphabetic significance. A
striking peculiarity of the Maya remains is that there are not found
any preliminary or originating forms of the glyphs. “We are compelled
therefore to admit,” says Thomas, “that the origin of this writing is a
mystery we are unable to fully penetrate.”[69] It may be that the forms
from which it was derived were recorded on skins, on wood, or on bark,
and in that case they probably disappeared before the beginning of the
Maya decline. “A difference, it is true,” says Thomas,[70] “in the
forms and ornamentation, and, to a certain degree, an advance toward
a more perfect type, can be traced, but no examples, so far as the
writer is aware, of the first rude beginnings or the original forms
have been found. Some comparatively rude are found painted on pottery,
scratched on shells or other soft material, but these belong to what
may be termed demotic writing and are not primitive forms. Comparing
the characters of the various inscriptions which have been discovered
and those found in the few remaining pre-Columbian manuscripts, the
result is as follows: _First_, it is apparent that the characters in
the manuscripts have been adapted from those of the inscriptions. In
other words, inscriptions preceded the manuscripts; hence we must look
to the former for the older forms. What appear to the writer to be the
oldest forms of the glyphs yet discovered are seen in those of Palenque
and some of the inscriptions found by Charnay at Menche (Lorillard
City), though others discovered by him at this same place belong to
the later and more ornamental type, discovered in the Peten region,
that is those carved in wood discovered by Bernouilli at Tikal, a type
also found at Copan and Chichen Itza, but in none of the inscriptions
at Palenque.” For my part, I cannot see that Thomas has exactly proved
that the manuscripts were later than the stone-carved inscriptions, but
his knowledge of the subject is so great and his methods so cautious
that I am glad to give his statement in this connection.
[Illustration: FEMALE HEAD IN TRACHYTE
From slope north of Temple 22—Copan.
]
The Maya glyphs probably developed out of something like the Mexican or
Aztec writing; and the step was not a very long one from writing of the
character of the Lenapé _Walam Olum_ to that of the Aztec, and again
it was not a long step from the ordinary picture-writing to the _Walam
Olum_, so that it would seem that in these various writings we have
an interesting series of steps from the crudest attempts at records,
nearly, if not quite, to the highest, for it must be borne in mind that
the step from the Maya glyphs to a true phonetic alphabet would be even
shorter than any of the others. It is not impossible that something
of the kind may yet be discovered. While the Mayas had made little
progress in mechanical inventions, their progress in architecture,
art, writing, and in astronomy is a proof that they were a thinking
people, and, had conditions continued favourable to their progress, the
Spaniards would have found them not easy to vanquish. The prominent
and striking quality of the calculiform style has had a tendency to
obscure the point that there may have been another system in vogue,
more simple, more modern, in short purely phonetic. Perfected phonetic
characters are simple characters and are likely not to attract notice,
especially when attention has been fixed on other forms.
So far as now understood, there is no relationship between any kind
of Amerindian writing and that of other races. Like everything else
pertaining to the Amerind people, the development appears to have been
purely indigenous. Le Plongeon, however, asserts that “abundant proofs
of the intimate communications of the ancient Mayas with the civilised
nations of Asia, Africa, and Europe are to be found among the remains
of their ruined cities.”[71] The grounds accepted for this statement
do not seem to be sufficient to satisfy other investigators. Certainly
if there was any inter-communication, it was before the acquirement of
iron-working in other countries, as so far no prehistoric iron has been
found in the ruins of Yucatan.
[Illustration: USUAL TYPE OF SCULPTURED “YOKES,” CENTRAL AMERICA
15½ inches long; 14½ inches wide; thickness, 3½ × 4½ inches
Substance: Dark, greenish grey, very compact, chlorite; surface well
polished. Carving of a frog or toad
W. H. Holmes
]
After the coming of the Spaniards, some of the Mayas soon learned their
alphabet and the missionaries added, says Brinton, “a sufficient number
of signs to it to express with tolerable accuracy the phonetics of the
Maya tongue. Relying on their memories, and, no doubt, aided by some
manuscripts secretly preserved, many natives set to work to write out
in this new alphabet the contents of their ancient records. Much was
added which had been brought in by the Europeans, and much omitted
which had become unintelligible or obsolete since the Conquest, while
of course the different writers varying in skill and knowledge produced
works of very various merit. Nevertheless each of these books bore the
same name. In whatever village it was written, or by whatever hand, it
always was, and to-day still is, called ‘_The Book of Chilan Balam_.’
To distinguish them apart, the name of the village where a copy was
found or written is added. Probably in the last century almost every
village had one, which was treasured with superstitious veneration.”
Sixteen of these curious books are known to exist, but there has never
been a complete translation of any of them. The following specimen is
from _The Book of Chilan Balam_ of the town of Mani, and is taken from
Brinton’s _Chronicles of the Maya_.[72]
“_Lai u tzolan katun lukci ti cab ti yotoch Nonoual cante anilo
Tutulxiu ti chikin Zuiua u luumil u talelob Tulapan chiconahthan._”
Translation: “This is the arrangement of the katuns since the departure
was made from the land, from the house Nonoual, where were the four
Tutulxiu, from Zuiva at the West: they came from the land Tulapan,
having formed a league.”
The strange title of these books is derived from that of the priests
or shamans, who were believed to have divine powers. They date from
1595. The Maya books at present known are three, one in two parts, with
these titles: 1. _Codex Tro_ or _Troano_, 70 pages, found by the Abbé
Brasseur at Madrid; 2. _Codex Cortesianus_,[73] so named because of a
belief that it was brought to Europe by Cortes, also at Madrid, and
believed to be a part of the Troano; 3. _Dresden Codex_, 74 pages, in
the Royal Library, Dresden; 4. _Codex Peresianus_, 22 pages, the one
discovered in the Paris Bibliothèque National by De Rosny, and given
its title from the name “Perez,” written on the outer wrapper. Besides
these it has been supposed that there are several in private hands. The
Quiches, of Mayan stock, had a sacred book called the _Popol Vuh_,[74]
and the allied Cakchiquels had their _Records of Tecpan Atitlan_.
Other tribes or stocks of the Mexican region undoubtedly had books and
records also, but in the present state of knowledge nothing definite
can be said about them. But there was a general high development of
all, or at least, the majority, of the stocks occupying Mexico and
Central America in the fifteenth century and before, so that it is
entirely reasonable to expect a considerable corresponding development
in the line of picture-writing, hieroglyphs or alphabets. These, in
some cases, will come to our knowledge, just as the new hieroglyph
attributed to the Zapotecs recently rewarded the investigations of
Saville.
The numeral systems of these people were well developed, and they were
able to make exact calculations in astronomical, and in all other
matters. The Aztecs used dots from one to ten, or twenty, and then
symbols. The Mayas used dots only to four, and then dots and lines
to nineteen, beyond which little is known of their method. Like all
the rest of the Maya subject, there is in this line of investigation
considerable confusion and great uncertainty. The table herewith given
is a suggestion of a possible line of study. It seems to me to be the
_method_ that was followed, though my arrangement or even the figures
are not correct. I introduce it here, before bestowing upon it further
study, because it may contain an idea that will start someone else
on a right track. It has been generally accepted that one dot • is
one, two dots •• two, and so on to four ••••, after which five was a
straight line, [symbol]. Here arises a question. Did the dots and lines
mean the same when horizontal as when vertical? They occur both ways
in the inscriptions and in the manuscripts, and Goodman takes them to
be the same. Vertical and horizontal occur together frequently, thus:
[symbol] from Pl. 51, Dresden Codex. A doubt fills my mind, however,
on this point. It is possible that when vertical the dots and lines
had a different meaning. On this assumption, the two, three, etc.,
horizontally placed would mean either one, two, three, etc., or some
higher figures, leaving the vertically placed ones to take their place
as one, two, three, etc. I assume that the vertical ones were the
beginning. The Maya system was a vigesimal one, that is, a counting by
twenties. Every new twenty, therefore, would be represented by a new
symbol. Referring to the table, it will be seen that the dots and lines
vertically placed and combined carry the table easily to nineteen,
that is, a dot beside the five line gives six, two five lines give
ten, three, fifteen, while the addition of the dots carries the count
quite naturally to the nineteen. It is now necessary to adopt a sign
for twenty, and there have been adopted by various authors as many
various signs, with several variants in each lot. Once settle on a
symbol for twenty, and the road is easy to twenty-nine by placing the
dots and lines horizontally. Thomas gives this figure [symbol] for
twenty,[75] but I do not believe it is twenty, and for convenience will
adopt this [symbol]. Then to get twenty-one it would be simple for the
Maya to put a little cross on each side of the dot, that is above and
below, [symbol]. This figure is frequent, and it is varied sometimes
by this [symbol], and by this [symbol], which Brinton assumes all to
be variants of twenty. I take it they are variants of twenty-one and
twenty-two, or of one and two. Running down to twenty-nine by means of
the dots and lines, we arrive at the necessity for a new symbol for
forty, and I take a common symbol in the inscriptions, [symbol]. To
follow precisely the method indicated by progress thus far, we would
put a dot inside of this for forty-one, but the Maya does not seem to
have done this, but made a slight change, perhaps to avoid confusion,
and he put the dot outside and to the left, [symbol]. Four of these
dots make forty-four, and then forty-five is represented by a straight
line vertically within. Dots now outside as before carry to forty-nine,
when a vertical line replacing the dots gives fifty. Adding dots again
as before leads to fifty-four, while doubling the lines with the dots
produces all figures up to fifty-nine, [symbol]. Then once more a new
character is needed to go on, and one is chosen that is very common
in the Dresden Codex, occurring in a number of different forms. It
is this [symbol] in its simple form. Thomas takes it in this form
[symbol] for naught, and Försteman for the same numeral in this form
[symbol]. The difference between these two is immediately apparent,
and it seems that both these able investigators have made a mistake in
this respect. It is as if some future investigator should give as our
naught the figure 6 and the figure 9. The simple form is possibly one
of the chief Maya numerals and the enclosed lines give it the necessary
differentiation. Some change occurs again here, in the system I have
attempted to outline. There are used lines instead of dots, though dots
also were used, and the horizontal line does not appear to have been
doubled; at least I have been unable to find an example of it, though,
as the number of manuscripts is limited, I could hardly expect to find
examples of all the figures in them. The carved inscriptions being, as
is believed, older than the manuscripts, there would be a difference
between the numerals in them and in the books. But we will take the
simple character [symbol] for, say, sixty. It may be mentioned again
that these selections and their order are merely tentative. Only by
long study might the matter be determined. Adding lines transversely
as found in the Dresden Codex, we arrive easily at sixty-four.
Following the previous system, a horizontal line with an upward curve
then gives [symbol] sixty-five, and transverse lines again take us
to sixty-nine. A horizontal line with a down curve produces seventy
[symbol]. Seventy-four would then be [symbol], and as the horizontal
line seems not to have been doubled we are forced to choose another
character for seventy-five [symbol]. A down curved horizontal line
then gives seventy-six [symbol], while for seventy-seven an entirely
new form is used. The reversal of seventy-five and seventy-six carries
to seventy-nine. The cross lines in some cases appear to have been
used up to sixty-seven. There are so many different figures of this
kind that it is possible they were used interchangeably in some cases.
For eighty a new figure is required, and I have selected one that
occurs frequently in the Dresden book, in shape something like a bow,
[symbol]. A series of dots readily carries to eighty-four, and then the
substitution of a line like a bow-string gives eighty-five [symbol].
The next step at ninety would be to double this bow-string, but this
seems not to have been done, as I can find no example of it. But I do
find a differentiation in another way, probably because in this figure
doubling the string would be clumsy. The difference is made by a rider
on the string, and there are two kinds of rider, one a point or
triangle, and the other a double square. Taking one of these riders for
ninety, and then the dots beside it, we find ourselves at ninety-four
[symbol]. Then with the other rider on the string for ninety-five we
arrive by means of the dots at ninety-nine [symbol]. Then comes a
demand for a character for one hundred, and this appears to have been
merely a circle. A dot beside it would give 101, and so on by adding,
out or in, the various symbols 199 is reached. To get to 299 it is only
necessary to add another circle. For 500 some other symbol must be
adopted, and the apparent one is a sort of circle with a kind of scarf
knot at the top, or perhaps it can be described as a knotted scarf,
[symbol]. Taking this as 500 we can easily arrive [symbol] at 599.
An extra circle within will then carry to [symbol] 699, and so on by
adding circles up to 1000. Thomas in one of his admirable discussions
of Maya writing[76] is puzzled by what he terms ornamental loops around
some of the numerals, but if the line I have indicated here has any
sense in it these ornamental loops would be 602, 604, etc., or some
other numbers depending on the proper place for this symbol in the
general scheme. The series of “loops” mentioned by Thomas is this:
[Illustration]
Something might be determined by a comparison of these symbols with the
known names of numbers. The Mayas counted into the millions, so they
must have had a perfected system.
[Illustration: A SUGGESTION OF THE POSSIBLE SCHEME OF MAYA NUMERALS.
WHOLLY TENTATIVE
Founded on figures in the codices and on tablets
From drawing by the author
]
[Illustration OMAHA CALUMET]
[Illustration: OMAHA WAR CLUB]