Produced by PM for Bureau of American Ethnology, Julia
Miller, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by the Bibliothèque nationale
de France (BnF/Gallica) at http://gallica.bnf.fr)
Transcriber's Note:
This book was originally published as a part of:
Powell, J. W.
1881 _First Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1879-'80._ pp.
205-245. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
The table of contents and index included in this version of the book was
extracted from the complete volume.
A number of typographical errors found in the original text have been
maintained in this version. They are marked in the text with a [TN-#].
A description of each error is found in the complete list at the end of
the text. Original spelling has been maintained. A list of inconsistently
spelled words is found at the end of the text.
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION--BUREAU OF ETHNOLOGY.
J. W. POWELL, DIRECTOR.
STUDIES
IN
CENTRAL AMERICAN PICTURE-WRITING.
BY
EDWARD S. HOLDEN,
PROFESSOR OF MATHEMATICS, U. S. NAVAL OBSERVATORY.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of illustrations 206
Introductory 207
Materials for the present investigation 210
System of nomenclature 211
In what order are the hieroglyphs read? 221
The card catalogue of hieroglyphs 223
Comparison of plates I and IV (Copan) 224
Are the hieroglyphs of Copan and Palenque identical? 227
Huitzilopochtli, Mexican god of war, etc. 229
Tlaloc, or his Maya representative 237
Cukulean or Quetzalcoatl 239
Comparison of the signs of the Maya months 243
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 48.--The Palenquean Group of the Cross 221
49.--Statue at Copan 224
50.--Statue at Copan 225
51.--Synonymous Hieroglyphs from Copan and Palenque 227
52.--Yucatec Stone 229
53.--Huitzilopochtli (front) 232
54.--Huitzilopochtli (side) 232
55.--Huitzilopochtli (back) 232
56.--Miclantecutli 232
57.--Adoratorio 233
58.--The Maya War-God 234
59.--The Maya Rain-God 234
60.--Tablet at Palenque 234
STUDIES IN CENTRAL AMERICAN PICTURE-WRITING.
BY EDWARD S. HOLDEN.
I.
Since 1876 I have been familiar with the works of Mr. JOHN L. STEPHENS
on the antiquities of Yucatan, and from time to time I have read works
on kindred subjects with ever increasing interest and curiosity in
regard to the meaning of the hieroglyphic inscriptions on the stones and
tablets of Copan, Palenque, and other ruins of Central America. In
August, 1880, I determined to see how far the principles which are
successful when applied to ordinary cipher-writing would carry one in
the inscriptions of Yucatan. The difference between an ordinary
cipher-message and these inscriptions is not so marked as might at first
sight appear. The underlying principles of deciphering are quite the
same in the two cases.
The chief difficulty in the Yucatec inscriptions is our lack of any
definite knowledge of the nature of the records of the aborigines. The
patient researches of our archæologists have recovered but very little
of their manners and habits, and one has constantly to avoid the
tempting suggestions of an imagination which has been formed by modern
influences, and to endeavor to keep free from every suggestion not
inherent in the stones themselves. I say the stones, for I have only
used the Maya manuscripts incidentally. They do not possess, to me, the
same interest, and I think it may certainly be said that all of them are
younger than the Palenque tablets, and far younger than the inscriptions
at Copan.
I therefore determined to apply the ordinary principles of deciphering,
without any bias, to the Yucatec inscriptions, and to go as far as I
could _certainly_. Arrived at the point where demonstration ceased, it
would be my duty to stop. For, while even the conjectures of a mind
perfectly trained in archæologic research are valuable and may
subsequently prove to be quite right, my lack of familiarity with
historical works forced me to keep within narrow and safe limits.
My programme at beginning was, _first_, to see if the inscriptions at
Copan and Palenque were written in the same tongue. When I say "to see,"
I mean to definitely prove the fact, and so in other cases; _second_, to
see how the tablets were to be read. That is, in horizontal lines, are
they to be read from right to left, or the reverse? In vertical columns,
are they to be read up or down? _Third_, to see whether they were
phonetic characters, or merely ideographic, or a mixture of the
two--rebus-like, in fact.
If the characters turned out to be purely phonetic, I had determined to
stop at this point, since I had not the time to learn the Maya language,
and again because I utterly and totally distrusted the methods which, up
to this time, have been applied by BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG and others who
start, and must start, from the misleading and unlucky alphabet handed
down by LANDA. I believe that legacy to have been a positive misfortune,
and I believe any process of the kind attempted by BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG
(for example, in his essay on the _MS. Troano_) to be extremely
dangerous and difficult in application, and to require a degree of
scientific caution almost unique.
Dr. HARRISON ALLEN, in his paper, "The Life Form in Art," in the
_Transactions of the American Philosophical Society_, is the only
investigator who has applied this method to Central American remains
with success, so it seems to me; and even here errors have occurred.
The process I allude to is something like the following: A set of
characters, say the alphabet of LANDA, is taken as a starting point. The
_variants_ of these are formed. Then the basis of the investigation is
ready. From this, the interpretation follows by identifications of each
new character with one of the standard set or with one of its
_variants_. Theoretically, there is no objection to this procedure.
Practically, also, there is no objection if the work is done strictly in
the order named. In fact, however, the list of _variants_ is filled out
not before the work is begun, but during its progress, and in such a way
as to satisfy the necessities of the interpreter in carrying out some
preconceived idea. With a sufficient latitude in the choice of
_variants_ any MS. can receive any interpretation. For example, the _MS.
Troano_, which a casual examination leads me to think is a _ritual_, and
an account of the adventures of several Maya gods, is interpreted by
BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG as a record of mighty geologic changes. It is next
to impossible to avoid errors of this nature at least, and in fact they
have not been avoided, so far as I know, except by Dr. ALLEN in the
paper cited.
I, personally, have chosen the stones and not the manuscripts for study
largely because _variants_ do not exist in the same liberal degree in
the stone inscriptions as they have been supposed to exist in the
manuscripts.
At any one ruin the characters for the same idea are alike, and alike to
a marvelous degree. At another ruin the type is just a little different,
but the fidelity to this type is equally great. Synonyms exist; that is,
the same idea may be given by two or more utterly different signs. But a
given sign is made in a fixed and definite way. Finally the MSS. are, I
think, later than the stones. Hence the root of the matter is the
interpretation of the stones, or not so much their full interpretation
as the discovery of a _method of interpretation_, which shall be sure.
Suppose, for example, that we know the meaning of a dozen characters
only, and the way a half dozen of these are joined together in a
sentence. The _method_ by which these were obtained will serve to add
others to the list, and progress depends in such a case only on our
knowledge of the people who wrote, and of the subjects upon which they
were writing. Such knowledge and erudition belongs to the archæologists
by profession. A step that might take me a year to accomplish might be
made in an instant by one to whom the Maya and Aztec mythology was
familiar, if he were proceeding according to a sound method. At the
present time we know nothing of the meaning of any of the Maya
hieroglyphs.
It will, therefore, be my object to go as far in the subject as I can
proceed with certainty, every step being demonstrated so that not only
the archæologist but any intelligent person can follow. As soon as the
border-land is reached in which proof disappears and opinion is the only
guide, the search must be abandoned except by those whose cultivated and
scientific opinions are based on knowledge far more profound and various
than I can pretend or hope to have.
If I do not here push my own conclusions to their farthest limit, it
must not be assumed that I do not see, at least in some cases, the
direction in which they lead. Rather, let this reticence be ascribed to
a desire to lay the foundations of a new structure firmly, to prescribe
the method of building which my experience has shown to be adequate and
necessary, and to leave to those abler than myself the erection of the
superstructure. If my methods and conclusions are correct (and I have no
doubts on this point, since each one has been reached in various ways
and tested by a multiplicity of criteria) there is a great future to
these researches. It is not to be forgotten that here we have no Rosetta
stone to act at once as key and criterion, and that instead of the
accurate descriptions of the Egyptian hieroglyphics which were handed
down by the Greek cotemporaries[TN-1] of the sculptors of these
inscriptions, we have only the crude and brutal chronicles of an
ignorant Spanish soldiery, or the bigoted accounts of an unenlightened
priesthood. To CORTEZ and his companions a memorandum that it took one
hundred men all day to throw the idols into the sea was all-sufficient.
To the Spanish priests the burning of all manuscripts was praiseworthy,
since those differing from Holy Writ were noxious and those agreeing
with it superfluous. It is only to the patient labor of the Maya
sculptor who daily carved the symbols of his belief and creed upon
enduring stone, and to the luxuriant growths of semi-tropical forests
which concealed even these from the passing Spanish adventurer, that we
owe the preservation of the memorials of past beliefs and vanished
histories.
Not the least of the pleasures of such researches as these comes from
the recollection that they vindicate the patience and skill of forgotten
men, and make their efforts not quite useless. It was no rude savage
that carved the Palenque cross; and if we can discover what his efforts
meant, his labor and his learning have not been all in vain. It will be
one more proof that human effort, even misdirected, is not lost, but
that it comes, later or earlier, "to forward the general deed of man."
II.
MATERIALS FOR THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION.
My examination of the works of Mr. J. L. STEPHENS has convinced me that
in every respect his is the most trustworthy work on the _hieroglyphs_
of Central America. The intrinsic evidence to this effect is very
strong, but when I first became familiar with the works of WALDECK I
found so many points of difference that my faith was for a time shaken,
and I came to the conclusion that while the existing representations
might suffice for the study of the general forms of statues, tablets,
and buildings, yet they were not sufficiently accurate in detail to
serve as a basis for the deciphering I had in mind. I am happy to bear
witness, however, that STEPHENS'S work is undoubtedly amply adequate to
the purpose, and this fact I have laboriously verified by a comparison
of it with various representations, as those of DESAIX and others, and
also with a few photographs. The drawings of WALDECK are very beautiful
and artistic, but either the artist himself or his lithographers have
taken singular liberties in the published designs. STEPHENS'S work is
not only accurate, but it contains sufficient material for my purpose
(over 1,500 separate hieroglyphs), and, therefore, I have based my study
exclusively upon his earliest work, "_Incidents of Travel in Central
America, Chiapas, and Yucatan_," 2 vols., 8vo. New York, 1842 (twelfth
edition). I have incidentally consulted the works on the subject
contained in the Library of Congress, particularly those of BRASSEUR DE
BOURBOURG, KINGSBOROUGH, WALDECK, and others, but, as I have said, the
two volumes above named contain all the the[TN-2] material I have been
able to utilize, and much more which is still under examination.
* * * * *
One fact which makes the examination of the Central American antiquities
easier than it otherwise would be, has not, I think, been sufficiently
dwelt upon by former writers. This is the remarkable faithfulness of the
artists and sculptors of these statues and inscriptions to a standard.
Thus, at Copan, wherever the same kind of hieroglyph is to be
represented, it will be found that the human face or other object
employed is almost identically the same in expression and character,
wherever it is found. The same characters at different parts of a tablet
do not differ more than the same letters of the alphabet in two fonts of
type.
At Palenque the _type_ (font) changes, but the adherence to this is
equally or almost equally rigid. It is to be presumed that in this
latter case, where work was done both in stone and stucco, the nature
of the material affected the portraiture more or less.
The stone statues at Copan, for example, could not all have been done by
the same artist, nor at the same time. I have elsewhere shown that two
of these statues are absolutely identical. How was this accomplished?
Was one stone taken to the foot of the other and cut by it as a pattern?
This is unlikely, especially as in the case mentioned the _scale_ of the
two statues is quite different. I think it far more likely that each was
cut from a drawing, or series of drawings, which must have been
preserved by priestly authority. The work at any one place must have
required many years, and could not have been done by a single man; nor
is it probable that it was all done in one generation. Separate
hieroglyphs must have been preserved in the same way. It is this rigid
adherence to a type, and the banishment of artistic fancy, which will
allow of progress in the deciphering of the inscriptions or the
comparison of the statues. Line after line, ornament after ornament, is
repeated with utter fidelity. The reason of this is not far to seek.
This, however, is not the place to explain it, but rather to take
advantage of the fact itself. We may fairly say that were it not so, and
with our present data, all advances would be tenfold more difficult.
III.
SYSTEM OF NOMENCLATURE.
It is impossible without a special and expensive font of type to refer
pictorially to each character, and therefore some system of nomenclature
must be adopted. The one I employ I could now slightly improve, but it
has been used and results have been obtained by it. It is sufficient for
the purpose, and I will, therefore, retain it rather than to run the
risk of errors by changing it to a more perfect system. I have numbered
the plates in STEPHENS'S _Central America_ according to the following
scheme:
ENGRAVINGS OF VOLUME I.
Page.
Stone Statue, front view, I have called Plate I _Frontispiece._
Wall of Copan, Plate II 96
Plan of Copan, Plate III 133
Death's Head, Plate III^a 135
Portrait, Plate III^b 136
Stone Idol, Plate IV 138
Portrait, Plate IV^a 139
Stone Idol, Plate V 140
Tablet of Hieroglyphics, Plate V^a 141
No. 1, Sides of Altar, Plate VI 142
No. 2, Sides of Altar, Plate VII 142
Gigantic Head, Plate VIII 143
No. 1, Stone Idol, front view, Plate IX 149
No. 2, Stone Idol, back view, Plate X 150
Idol half buried, Plate XI 151
No. 1, Idol, Plate XII 152
No. 2, Idol, Plate XIII 152
No. 1, Idol, Plate XIV 153
No. 2, Idol, Plate XV 153
Idol and Altar, Plate XVI 154
Fallen Idol, Plate XVII 155
No. 1, Idol, front view, Plate XVIII 156
No. 2, Idol, back view, Plate XIX 156
No. 3, Idol, side view, Plate XX 156
Fallen Idol, Plate XX^a 157
Circular Altar, Plate XX^b 157
No. 1, Stone Idol, front view, Plate XXI 158
No. 2, Stone Idol, back view, Plate XXII 158
No. 3, Stone Idol, side view, Plate XXIII 158
Great Square of Antigua Guatimala, Plate XXIII^a 266
Profile of Nicaragua Canal, Plate XXIII^b 412
ENGRAVINGS OF VOLUME II.
Page.
Stone Tablet, Plate XXIV _Frontispiece._
Idol at Quirigua, Plate XXV 121
Idol at Quirigua, Plate XXVI 122
Santa Cruz del Quiché, Plate XXVII 171
Place of Sacrifice, Plate XXVIII 184
Figures found at Santa Cruz del Quiché, Plate XXIX 185
Plaza of Quezaltenango, Plate XXX 204
Vases found at Gueguetenango, Plate XXXI 231
Ocosingo, Plate XXXII 259
Palace at Palenque, Plate XXXIII 309
Plan of Palace, Plate XXXIV 310
Stucco Figure on Pier, Plate XXXV 311
Front Corridor of Palace, Plate XXXVI 313
No. 1, Court-yard of Palace, Plate XXXVIII 314
No. 2, Colossal Bas-reliefs in Stone, Plate XXXIX 314
East side of Court-yard, Plate XXXVII 314
No. 1, Bas-relief in Stucco, Plate XL 316
No. 2, Bas-relief in Stucco, Plate XLI 316
No. 3, Bas-relief in Stucco, Plate XLII 316
Oval Bas-relief in Stone, Plate XLIII 318
Bas-relief in Stucco, Plate XLIV 319
General Plan of Palenque, Plate XLV 337
Casa No. 1 in Ruins, Plate XLVI 338
Casa No. 1 restored, Plate XLVII 339
No. 1, Bas-relief in Stucco, Plate XLVIII 340
No. 2, Bas-relief in Stucco, Plate XLIX 340
No. 3, Bas-relief in Stucco, Plate L 340
No. 4, Bas-relief in Stucco, Plate LI 340
No. 1, Tablet of Hieroglyphics, Plate LII 342
No. 2, Tablet of Hieroglyphics, Plate LIII 342
Tablet on inner Wall, Plate LIV 343
Casa di Piedras, No. 2, Plate LV 344
Tablet on back Wall of Altar, Casa No. 2, Plate LVI 345
Stone Statue, Plate LVII 349
Casa No. 3, Plate LVIII 350
Front Corridor, Plate LIX 351
No. 1, Bas-reliefs in Front of Altar, Plate LX 353
No. 2, Bas-reliefs in Front of Altar, Plate LXI 353
Adoratorio or Altar, Plate LXII 354
Casa No. 4, Plate LXIII 355
House of the Dwarf, Plate LXIV 420
Casa del Gobernador, Plate LXV 428
Sculptured Front of Casa del Gobernador, Plate LXVI 443
Egyptian Hieroglyphics, Plate LXVIII 441
Top of Altar at Copan, Plate LXVIII=V^a 454
Mexican Hieroglyphical Writing, Plate LXIX 454
In each plate I have numbered the hieroglyphs, giving each one its own
number. Thus the hieroglyphs of the Copan altar (vol. i, p. 141) which I
have called plate V^a, are numbered from 1 to 36 according to this
scheme--
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36
And the right hand side of the Palenque Cross tablet, as given by RAU in
his memoir published by the Smithsonian Institution (1880), has the
numbers--
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045
2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
3080 3081 3082 3083 3084 3085
These are consecutive with the numbers which I have attached to the
left-hand side, as given by STEPHENS. Whenever I have stated any results
here, I have also given the means by which any one can number a copy of
STEPHENS'S work in the way which I have adopted, and thus the means of
testing my conclusions is in the hands of every one who desires to do
so.
In cases where only a _part_ of a hieroglyphic is referred to, I have
placed its number in a parenthesis, as 1826 _see_ (122), by which I mean
that the character 1826 is to be compared with a part of the character
122. The advantages of this system are many: for example; a memorandum
can easily be taken that two hieroglyphs are alike, thus 2072=2020 and
2073=2021. Hence the _pair_ 2020--2021, read horizontally, occurs again
at the point 2072--2073, etc. _Horizontal pairs_ will be known by their
numbers being consecutive, as 2020--2021; _vertical pairs_ will usually
be known by their numbers differing by 10. Thus, 2075--2085 are one
above the other.
This method of naming the _chiffres_, then, is a quick and safe one, and
we shall see that it lends itself to the uses required of it.
I add here the scheme according to which the principal plates at
Palenque have been numbered.
PLATE XXIV (left-hand side).
v----------v
{ 37 37 38 39 94 96 98 100 102 104 106
{_See_ _See_ _See_
{ 1800 1800 1806
{
{ 40 40 41 42 95 97 99=127 101 103 105 107
43=1810 43^a=46^a 44 45 108
_See_
91
46=1810 46^a=43^a 47 48
49 50 51
In the middle of the
52 52^a=1820? 53 54 plate at the top.
v----------v
55 56=1840? 57 58 109 115
_See_
1802
59 60 61 62=58? 110 116
_See_
2020
63 64 65[+] 66 111 117
_See_
2025
67 68 69 70 112 118
_See_
1911
71 72=281 73 74 113 119
_See_
2020
75 76=67 77 78 114 120
79 80 81 82
83 84 85 86=56?
86[*] 86[*] 87 88
89 90 91 92
93
[*] Accidental error in numbering here.
[+] Possibly Muluc--a Maya day; the meaning is "reunion."
PLATE XXIV (right-hand side).
v-------------------v
121 122=86?[+] 123=87 124=88
_See_ 74, _See_ 61, 1822
86[*]
125 126[++] 127=99 128
_See_ 1940 _See_ 1940 _See_ (44), 64
129 130 131=147 132
_See_ 50, 58, 62
133 134 135 136=47?
137 138 139 140
_See_ 39, _See_ 1811
91
141 142[§] 143 144
_See_ 54 _See_ 50, 58,
62, 132
145 146 147=131 148
_See_ 71
149 150 151 152
_See_ 56,
1882
153 154 155 156
_See_ 53 _See_ 50,
58, 132
157[*] 158 159 160
_See_ 68 _See_ 38 _See_ 46^a,
49^a, 52^a
v------------------------------------------v
161=50 162 [+]163=1936 164
_See_ 58, _See_ 56, _See_ 57 _See_ 58, 62
62, 132 73, 1882
165 166 167 168
_See_ 81?
169 170 171 172
_See_ 68?
173 174 175 176
_See_ 67, 76, _See_ 57 _See_ 126
90, 1910
177 178 179 180
_See_ 43^a _See_ 50, 58, 62
181 182 183 184
_See_ 57,
163, 1936
185
[*] Possibly Ymix--a Maya day.
[+] Possibly Chuen--a Maya day; meaning "a board," "a tree."
[++] Possibly Ahau--a Maya day; meaning "king."
[§] Possibly Ezanab--a Maya day.
PLATE LII.
200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 }
}
210 211 212 214 215 216 217 218 219 } Line 1.
_See_ }
2020 }
220 221 222 223 224=2060 225 226 227 228 229 }
_See_ _See_ _See_ }
2030 2060 1811-2 }
} Line 2.
230 231 232 234 235 236 237 238 239 }
_See_ }
1822 }
240 241 242=2020 243=1951 244 245 246 247 248 249 }
}
250 251 252 254 255 256 257 258 259=1943} Line 3.
_See_ }
214 }
v-----------------v
260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 }
_See_ _See_ _See_ }
2020 2021 2022 }
} Line 4.
270 271 274=244 275 276 277 278 279 }
_See_ }
204 }
280 281=72 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 }
_See_ _See_ }
1820 385 } Line 5.
}
290 294 295 296 297 298 299 }
300 301 302 303=360 304 305 306 307 }
_See_ }
203 } Line 6.
}
310 311 314 315 316 317 318 319 }
v-----------v
320 321 322 323 324=1824 325 326 327 328 329 }
_See_ _See_ _See_ _See_ }
203 204 285 305 }
} Line 7.
330 331 332 334 335 336 337 338 339 }
_See_ }
209 }
340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 }
_See_ _See_ }
209 322 }
} Line 8.
350 351 352 354 355 356=1822 357 358 359 }
_See_ _See_ }
267, 230 }
298 }
360=303 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 }
_See_ _See_ }
351 303, } Line 9.
360 }
}
370 371 375 376 377 378 379 }
380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 }
_See_ }
286, } Line 10.
1822 }
}
390 391 392 394 395 396 397 398 399 }
400 401 402 403=360 404 405 406 407 408 409 }
_See_ 367 _See_ }
326 360 }
} Line 11.
410 411 412 414 415 416 417 418 419 }
_See_ _See_ }
326 324 }
420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 }
_See_ }
324 } Line 12.
}
430 432 434 435 436 437 438 439 }
PLATE LIII.
[The upper left-hand square is No. 500, the upper right is 519, the
lower left-hand is 720, the lower right is 739. All the squares from 500
to 508, 520 to 528, 530 to 538, etc., up to 720 to 728, are obliterated
(and their numbers omitted here) except a few.]
509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519
_See_ _See_ _See_
1967 509 510
529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539
_See_
3012
549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559
_See_
162
570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579
_See_
1823
589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599
604 605 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619
_See_
571
628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639
_See_
3054
649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659
_See_
150,
1882
669 670 671=324 672=322? 673=323? 674 675 676 677 678 679
_See_ _See_ _See_
2042 77 1802
688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699
708 709 710 711 712 713=1802 714 715 716 717 718 719
_See_
439
729 730=1845 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739
_See_
2020
PLATE LIV.
v-----------v
800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813
_See_ _See_ _See_ _See_
1882 26 1940 1941,
3011
900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907=1003 908 909 910 911 912 913
_See_ _See_
2020 1310
1000 1001 1002 1003=907 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013
_See_ _See_ _See_
2021 3054 1811-2
v------------v
1100 1101 1102=717 1103 1104 1105=2020 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110=1209 1113 1114 1115
_See_ _See_ _See_ _See_
1820 2021 1840 1841?
1200 1201 1202=1110 1203 1204=1008 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209=1110 1210 1211 1212 1213
_See_ 3054 _See_
1823
1300 1301 1302 1303=1910 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313
_See_
910
1400=1823 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413
1500 1501 1502=1010 1503 1504=717 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513
1102
v-----------------v
1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609=1304 1610=1305 1611=1010 1612 1613
1700 1701 1702=1911 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711=1702 1712=1708 1713
1911
PLATE LVI (left-hand side--Palenque Cross).
{ 1801 1802 1803 1804 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965
{ _See_
{ 163,
1800 { 175
{
{ 1805 1806 1807 1808 1966
{_See_ _See_
{ 155 138
v---------------------v
[*]1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1967
_See_ _See_ _See_ _See_ _See_
150 139, (1852) 131, 126,
179 146 127,
176
1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1968
_See_ _See_ _See_
161 124 122,
160
1830=1820 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1969
_See_ 161 _See_ _See_ _See_ _See_ _See_
123, 121 163 182 123
124
1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845=1822 1846 1970
_See_ _See_ _See_ 124 _See_
1835 124, 179
1836
1850 1851 1852 1853 1854=1806 1855
_See_
122
1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865=2021 1866
_See_ _See_ 144 _See_
126, 136?,
127 184?
1870=1820 1871 1872=1842? 1873=1803 1874 1875 1876
_See_ 160, _See_ 182
161
1880 1881 1882 1883 1884=1834 1885
_See_ _See_ _See_ 163, _See_
150, 124 182 132,
162 144
1890 1891 1892 1893 1894=1822 1895
_See_ _See_ _See_ _See_ 124 _See_
130, 131?, 132? 144
158 147?
1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905=1803 1971
_See_ _See_ _See_
146 157, 1802
182
1910 1911 1912 1913=1834 1914 1915 1972
_See_ _See_ _See_ 1884
174 174 141
v---------------v
1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1973
_See_ _See_
123 124
1930 1931 1932=1811-2? 1933 1934 1935=1884 1975 1974
_See_ 182
v-----------------v
1940=1862 1941 1942 1943 1944=1922 1945=1923
_See_ _See_ 123 _See_ 124
126,
127
1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955
_See_
164
[*] At and after this place, in vertical columns, 1810-1-2, 1820-1-2,
1830-1-2, 1840-1-2, and 1860-1-2 may be taken as 2 or 3 symbols. I have
assumed them to be 3.
PLATE LVI (right-hand side--Palenque Cross).
1980 1981 1982 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025=123
_See_ _See_ _See_
131, 144 163
147,
150
1983 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
_See_ _See_ _See_ _See_
132 134, 1811, 124
146, 1812
149
v---------v
1984 2040 2041 2042 2043=123 2044 2045
_See_ _See_ _See_
131, 131, 132,
147 147 150
2000 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055
2001 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065
_See_
182
2002=122 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075
2003=2021 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085
_See_ 130
2004 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095
2005 3000 3001 3002 3003 3004 3005
{ 1976 1978 2006 3010 3011 3012 3013 3014 3015
{ _See_
{ 1902,
[*] { 1903
{
{ 1977 1979 2007 3020 3021 3022 3023 3024 3025
{ _See_
{ 182?
2008 3030 3031 3032 3033 3034 3035
2009 3040 3041 3042 3043 3044 3045
2010 3050 3051 3052 3053 3054 3055
_See_
184
2011 3060 3061 3062 3063 3064 3065
_See_
131,
2020
2012 3070 3071 3072 3073 3074 3075
2013 3080 3081 3082 3083 3084 3085
2014
[*] These four each side of the main stem of the cross. 1976=_Ezanab_--a
Maya day[TN-3]
[Illustration: FIG. 48.--The Palenquean Group of the Cross.]
IV.
IN WHAT ORDER ARE THE HIEROGLYPHS READ?
Before any advance can be made in the deciphering of the hieroglyphic
inscriptions, it is necessary to know in what directions, along what
lines or columns, the verbal sense proceeds.
All the inscriptions that I know of are in rectangular figures. At Copan
they are usually in squares. At Palenque the longest inscriptions are in
rectangles. At Palenque again, there are some cases where there is a
single horizontal line of hieroglyphs over a pictorial tablet. Here
clearly the only question is, do the characters proceed from left to
right, or from right to left? In other cases as in the tablet of the
cross, there are vertical columns. The question here is, shall we read
up or down?
Now, the hieroglyphs must be phonetic or pictorial, or a mixture of the
two. If they are phonetic, it will take more than one symbol to make a
word, and we shall have groups of like characters when the same word is
written in two places. If the signs are pictorial, the same thing will
follow; that is, we shall have groups recurring when the same idea
recurs. Further, we know that the subjects treated of in these tablets
must be comparatively simple, and that _names_, as of gods, kings, etc.,
must necessarily recur.
The _names_, then, will be the first words deciphered. At present no
single name is known. These considerations, together with our system of
nomenclature, will enable us to take some steps.
Take, for example, the right-hand side of the Palenque cross tablet as
given by RAU. _See_ our figure 48, which is Plate LVI of STEPHENS (vol.
ii, p. 345), with the addition of the part now in the National Museum at
Washington.
Our system of numbering is here
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
3080 3081 3082 3083 3084 3085
Now pick out the duplicate hieroglyphs in this; that is, run through the
tablet, and wherever 2020 occurs erase the number which fills the place
and write in 2020. Do the same for 2021, 2022, etc., down to 3084. The
result will be as follows:
RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF PALENQUE CROSS TABLET (RAU).
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
^-----------^ ^-----------^
2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
^-----------^
2040 2041 2042 { 2025 2020 2021
{ ^-----------^
{
2050 2051 2034 { 2053 2054 2055
^-----------^
2053 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065
2070 2071 2020 2021 2022? 2024? }
^-----------^ } ?
}
2053 2020 2082 2083 2025 2053 }
2021 2091 2092 { 2025 2094 2095
{
3000 2023 2034 { 2053 2033 3005
^-----------^
^-----------^
3010 2083 3012 2024 3014 2091
2053 3021 2023 2020 3024 2024
{ 2024 2025 2021 3033 { 2025 2034*
? { ^-----------^ { ^----
{ {
{ 2053* 3021 3042 3043 { 2035 3045
----^
3050 2083 { 2025 2034 3054 3055
_See_ 2082 {
^-----------^ {
{
2024 2020 { 2035 3063 2024 2025
^-----------^
2021 2031 2020 2021 2035 3045
^-----------^
3080 3081 2091 2093 2020 2021
^-----------^
14 cases of horizontal pairs; 4 cases of vertical pairs; 102 characters
in all, of which 51 appear more than once, so that there are but 51
independent hieroglyphs.
Here the first two lines are unchanged. In the third line we find that
2043 is the same as 2025, 2044=2020, 2045=2021, and so on, and we write
the smallest number in each case.
After this is done, connect like pairs by braces whenever they are
consecutive, either vertical or horizontal. Take the pair 2020 and 2021
for example; 2020 occurs eight times in the tablet, viz, as 2020, 2044,
2072, 2081, 3023, 3061, 3072, 3084. In five out of the eight cases, it
is followed by 2021, viz, as 2021, 2045, 2073, 3073, 3085.
It is clear this is not the result of accident. The pair 2020 and 2021
means something, and when the two characters occur together they must be
read together. There is no point of punctuation between them. We also
learn that they are not inseparable. 2020 will make sense with 2082,
3024 and 3062. Here it looks as if the writing must be read in _lines_
horizontally. We do not know yet in which direction.
We must examine other cases. This is to be noticed: If the reading is in
horizontal lines from left to right, then the progress is from top to
bottom in columns, as the case of 3035 and 3040 shows. This occurs at
the end of a line, and the corresponding _chiffre_ required to make the
pair is at the other end of the next line. I have marked this case with
asterisks. If we must read in the lines from right to left we must
necessarily read in columns from bottom to top. Thus the _lines_ are
connected.
A similar process with all the other tablets in STEPHENS leads to the
conclusion that the reading is in lines horizontally and in columns
vertically. The cases 1835-'45, 1885-'95, 1914-'24, and 1936-'46 should,
however, be examined. We have now to decide at which end of the lines to
begin. The reasons given by Mr. BANCROFT (_Native Races_, vol. ii, p.
782) appeared to me sufficient to decide the question before I was
acquainted with his statement of them.
Therefore, the sum total of our present data, examined by a rational
method, leads to the conclusion, so far as we can know from these data,
that the verbal sense proceeded in _lines_ from left to right, in
_columns_ from top to bottom; just as the present page is written, in
fact.
For the present, the introduction of the method here indicated is the
important step. It has, as yet, been applied only to the plates of
STEPHENS' work. The definite conclusion should be made to rest on _all
possible_ data, some of which is not at my disposition at present.
Tablets exist in great numbers at other points besides Palenque, and for
the final conclusion these must also be consulted. If each one is
examined in the way I have indicated, it will yield a certain answer.
The direction of reading for that plate can be thus determined. At
Palenque the progress is in the order I have indicated.
V.
THE CARD-CATALOGUE OF HIEROGLYPHS.
It has already been explained how a system of nomenclature was gradually
formed. As I have said, this is not perfect, but it is sufficiently
simple and full for the purpose. By it, every plate in STEPHENS' work
receives a number and every hieroglyph in each plate is likewise
numbered.
This was first done in my private copy of the work. I then procured
another copy and duplicated these numbers both for plates and single
_chiffres_. The plates of this copy were then cut up into single
hieroglyphs and each single hieroglyph was mounted on a library card,
as follows:
____________________________________________
| | | |
| No. 2020. | Hieroglyph. | Plate LVI. |
| |_______________| |
|__________________________________________|
| Same as Numbers. | Similar to Numbers. |
| ---------------- | ------------------- |
| ---------------- | ------------------- |
| ---------------- | ------------------- |
| ---------------- | ------------------- |
| ---------------- | ------------------- |
|__________________________________________|
The cards were 6.5 by 4.5 inches. The _chiffre_ was pasted on, in the
center of the top space. Its number and the plate from which it came
were placed as in the cut. The numbers of hieroglyphs which resembled
the one in question could be written on the right half of the card, and
the numbers corresponding to different recurrences of this hieroglyph
occupied the left half.
All this part of the work was most faithfully and intelligently
performed for me by Miss MARY LOCKWOOD, to whom I desire to express the
full amount of my obligations. A mistake in any part would have been
fatal. But no mistakes occurred.
These cards could now be arranged in any way I saw fit. The simple
_chiffres_, for example, could be placed so as to bring like ones
together. A compound hieroglyph could be placed among simple ones
agreeing with any one of its components, and so on.
The expense of forming this card catalogue of about 1,500 single
hieroglyphs was borne by the Ethnological Bureau of the Smithsonian
Institution, and the catalogue is the property of that bureau, forming
only one of its many rich collections of American picture-writings.
VI.
COMPARISON OF PLATES I AND IV (COPAN).
In examining the various statues at Copan, as given by STEPHENS, one
naturally looks for points of striking resemblance or striking
difference. Where all is unknown, even the smallest sign is examined, in
the hope that it may prove a clue. The Plate I, Fig. 49, has a twisted
knot (the "square knot" of sailors) of cords over its head, and above
this is a _chiffre_ composed of ellipses, and above this again a sign
like a sea-shell. A natural suggestion was that these might be the signs
for the name of the personage depicted in Plate I. If this is so and we
should find the same sign elsewhere in connection with a figure, we
should expect to find this second figure like the first in every
particular. This would be a rigid test of the theory. After looking
through the Palenque series, and finding no similar figure and sign, I
examined the Copan series, and in Plate IV, our Fig. 50, I found the
same signs exactly; _i. e._, the knot and the two _chiffres_.
[Illustration: FIG. 49.--Statue at Copan.]
[Illustration: FIG. 50.--Statue at Copan.]
At first sight there is only the most general resemblance between the
personages represented in the two plates; as STEPHENS says in his
original account of them, they are "in many respects similar." If he had
known them to be the same, he would not have wasted his time in drawing
them. The scale of the two drawings and of the two statues is different;
but the two personages are the same identically. Figure for figure,
ornament for ornament, they correspond. It is unnecessary to give the
minute comparison here in words. It can be made by any one from the two
plates herewith. Take any part of Plate I, find the corresponding part
of Plate IV, and whether it is human feature or sculptured ornament the
two will be found to be the same.
Take the middle face depending from the belt in each plate. The earrings
are the same; the ornament below the chin, the knot above the head, the
complicated beadwork on each side of this face, all are the same. The
bracelets of the right arms of the main figures have each the forked
serpent tongue, and the left-arm bracelets are ornamented alike. The
crosses with beads almost inclosed in the right hands are alike; the
elliptic ornaments above each wrist, the knots and _chiffres_ over the
serpent masks which surmount the faces, all are the same. In the steel
plates given by STEPHENS there are even more coindences[TN-4] to be seen
than in the excellent wood-cuts here given, which have been copied from
them.
Here, then, is an important fact. The theory that the _chiffre_ over the
forehead is characteristic, though it is not definitively proved,
receives strong confirmation. The parts which have been lost by the
effects of time on one statue can be supplied from the other. Better
than all, we gain a test of the minuteness with which the sculptors
worked, and an idea of how close the adherence to a type was required to
be. Granting once that the two personages are the same (a fact about
which I conceive there can be no possible doubt, since the chances in
favor are literally thousands to one), we learn what license was
allowed, and what synonyms in stone might be employed. Thus, the
ornament suspended from the neck in Plate IV is clearly a tiger's skull.
That from the neck of Plate I has been shown to be the derived form of a
skull by Dr. HARRISON ALLEN,[225-*] and we now know that this common
form relates not to the human skull, as Dr. ALLEN has supposed, but to
that of the tiger. We shall find this figure often repeated, and the
identification is of importance. This is a case in regard to synonyms.
The kind of symbolism so ably treated by Dr. ALLEN is well exemplified
in the conventional sign for the _crotalus_ jaw at the mouth of the mask
over the head of each figure. This is again found on the body of the
snake in Plate LX, and in other places. Other important questions can
be settled by comparison of the two plates. For example, at Palenque we
often find a sign composed of a half ellipse, inside of which bars are
drawn. [Illustration] I shall elsewhere show that there is reason to
believe the ellipse is to represent the concave of the sky, its diameter
to be the level earth, and in some cases at least the bars to be the
descending and fertilizing rain. The bars are sometimes two, three, and
sometimes four in number. Are these variants of a single sign, or are
they synonyms? Before the discovery of the identity of the personages in
these two plates, this question could not be answered. Now we can say
that they are not synonyms, or at least that they must be considered
separately. To show this, examine the bands just above the wristlets of
the two figures. Over the left hands of the figures the bars are two in
number; over the right hands there are four. This exact similarity is
not accidental; there is a meaning in it, and we must search for its
explanation elsewhere, but we now have a valuable test of what needs to
be regarded, and of what, on the other hand, may be passed over as
accidental or unimportant.
One other case needs mentioning here, as it will be of future use. From
the waist of each figure depend nine oval solids, six being hatched over
like pine cones and the three central ones having two ovals, one within
the other, engraved on them. In Plate IV the inner ovals are all on the
right-hand side of the outer ovals. Would they mean the same if they
were on the left-hand side? Plate I enables us to say that they would,
since one of these inner ovals has been put by the artist on that side
by accident or by an allowed caprice. It is by furnishing us with tests
and criteria like these that the proof of the identity of these two
plates is immediately important. In other ways, too, the proof is
valuable and interesting, but we need not discuss them at this time.
These statues, then, are to us a dictionary of synonyms in stone--a test
of the degree of adherence to a prototype which was exacted, and a
criterion of the kind of minor differences which must be noticed in any
rigid study.
I have not insisted more on the resemblances, since the accompanying
figures present a demonstration. Let those who wish to verify these
resemblances compare minutely the ornaments above the knees of the two
figures, those about the waists, above the heads, and the square knots,
etc., etc.
VII.
ARE THE HIEROGLYPHS OF COPAN AND PALENQUE IDENTICAL?
One of the first questions to be settled is whether the same system of
writing was employed at Palenque and at Copan. Before any study of the
meanings of the separate _chiffres_ can be made, we must have our
material properly assorted, and must not include in the figures we are
examining for the detection of a clue, any which may belong to a system
possibly very different.
The opinion of STEPHENS and of later writers is confirmed by my
comparison of the Palenque and the Copan series; that is, it becomes
evident that the latter series is far the older.
In Nicaragua and Copan the statues of gods were placed at the foot of
the pyramid; farther north, as at Palenque, they were placed in temples
at the summit. Such differences show a marked change in customs, and
must have required much time for their accomplishment. In this time did
the picture-writing change, or, indeed, was it ever identical?
To settle the question whether they were written on the same system, I
give here the results of a rapid survey of the card-catalogue of
hieroglyphs. A more minute examination is not necessary, as the present
one is quite sufficient to show that the system employed at the two
places was the same in its general character and almost identical even
in details. The practical result of this conclusion is that similar
characters of the Copan and Palenque series may be used interchangeably.
A detailed study of the undoubted synonyms of the two places will afford
much light on the manner in which these characters were gradually
evolved. This is not the place for such a study, but it is interesting
to remark how, even in unmistakable synonyms, the Palenque character is
always the most conventional, the least pictorial; that is, the latest.
Examples of this are No. 7, Plate V^a, and No. 1969, Plate LVI. The
_mask_ in profile which forms the left-hand edge of No. 7 seems to have
been conventionalized into the two hooks and the ball, which have the
same place in No. 1969.
[Illustration: FIG. 51.--Synonomous[TN-5] hieroglyphs from Copan and
Palenque.]
The larger of these two was cut on stone, the smaller in stucco.
The mask has been changed into the ball and hooks; the angular nose
ornament into a single ball, easier to make and quite as significant to
the Maya priest. But to us the older (Copan) figure is infinitely more
significant. The curious rows of little balls which are often placed at
the left-hand edge of the various _chiffres_ are also conventions for
older forms. It is to be noted that these balls always occur on the left
hand of the hieroglyphs, except in one case, the _chiffre_ 1975 in the
Palenque cross tablet, on which the left-hand acolyte stands.
The conclusion that the two series are both written on the same system,
and that like _chiffres_ occurring at the two places are synonyms, will,
I think, be sufficiently evident to any one who will himself examine the
following cases. It is the _nature_ of the agreements which proves the
thesis, and not the number of cases here cited. The reader will remember
that the Copan series comprises Plates I to XXIII, inclusive; the
Palenque series, Plate XXIV and higher numbers.
The sign of the group of Mexican gods who relate to hell, _i. e._, a
circle with a central dot, and with four small segments cut out at four
equally distant points of its circumference, is found in No. 4291, Plate
XXII, and in many of the Palenque plates, as Plate LVI, Nos. 2090, 2073,
2045, 2021, etc. In both places this sign is worn by human figures just
below the ear.
The same sign occurs as an important part of No. 4271, Plate XXII, and
No. 4118, Plate XIII (Copan), and No. 2064, Plate LVI (Palenque), etc.
No. 7, Plate V^a, and No. 1969, Plate LVI, I regard as absolutely
identical. These are both human figures. No. 12, Plate V^a, and No.
637, Plate LIII, are probably the same. These probably represent or
relate to the long-nosed divinity, YACATEUCTLI, the Mexican god of
commerce, etc., or rather to his Maya representative.
The sign of TLALOC, or rather the family of TLALOCS, the gods of rain,
floods, and waters, is an eye (or sometimes a mouth), around which there
is a double line drawn. I take No. 26, Plate V^a, of the Copan series,
and Nos. 154 and 165, Plate XXIV, to be corresponding references to
members of this family. No. 4, Plate V^a, and No. 155 also correspond.
No. 4242, Plate XXII, is probably related to No. 53, Plate XXIV and its
congeners.
Nos. 14 and 34, Plate V^a, are clearly related to No. 900, Plate LIV,
Nos. 127 and 176, Plate XXIV, No. 3010, Plate LVI, and many others.
Plate III^a of Copan is evidently identically the same as the No. 75
of the Palenque Plate No. XXIV.
The right half of No. 27, Plate V^a, is the same as the right half of
Nos. 3020, 3040, and many others of Plate LVI.
No. 17, Plate V^a, is related to No. 2051, Plate LVI, and many others
like it.
The major part of No. 4105, Plate XIII, is the same as No. 124, Plate
XXIV, etc.
[Illustration: FIG. 52.--Yucatec Stone.]
It is not necessary to add a greater number of examples here. The
card-catalogue which I have mentioned enables me to at once pick out all
the cases of which the above are specimens, taken just as they fell
under my eye in rapidly turning over the cards. They therefore represent
the _average_ agreement, neither more nor less. Taken together they
show that the same signs were used at Copan and at Palenque. As the same
symbols used at both places occur in like positions in regard to the
human face, etc., I conclude that not only were the same signs used at
both places, but that these signs had the same meaning; _i. e._, were
truly synonyms. In future I shall regard this as demonstrated.
VIII.
HUITZILOPOCHTLI (MEXICAN GOD OF WAR), TEOYAOMIQUI (MEXICAN GODDESS OF
DEATH), MICLANTECUTLI (MEXICAN GOD OF HELL), AND TLALOC (MEXICAN
RAIN-GOD), CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO CENTRAL AMERICAN DIVINITIES.
In the _Congrès des Américanistes, session de Luxembourg_, vol. ii, p.
283, is a report of a memoir of Dr. LEEMANS, entitled "Description de
quelques antiquités américaines conservées dans le Musée royal
néerlandais d'antiquités à Leide." On page 299 we find--