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 wasextracted from the complete volume. A number of typographical errors found in the original text have beenmaintained 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 ofthe text. Original spelling has been maintained. A list of inconsistentlyspelled 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 206Introductory 207Materials for the present investigation 210System of nomenclature 211In what order are the hieroglyphs read? 221The card catalogue of hieroglyphs 223Comparison of plates I and IV (Copan) 224Are the hieroglyphs of Copan and Palenque identical? 227Huitzilopochtli, Mexican god of war, etc. 229Tlaloc, or his Maya representative 237Cukulean or Quetzalcoatl 239Comparison 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. STEPHENSon the antiquities of Yucatan, and from time to time I have read workson kindred subjects with ever increasing interest and curiosity inregard to the meaning of the hieroglyphic inscriptions on the stones andtablets of Copan, Palenque, and other ruins of Central America. InAugust, 1880, I determined to see how far the principles which aresuccessful when applied to ordinary cipher-writing would carry one inthe inscriptions of Yucatan. The difference between an ordinarycipher-message and these inscriptions is not so marked as might at firstsight appear. The underlying principles of deciphering are quite thesame in the two cases. The chief difficulty in the Yucatec inscriptions is our lack of anydefinite knowledge of the nature of the records of the aborigines. Thepatient researches of our archæologists have recovered but very littleof their manners and habits, and one has constantly to avoid thetempting suggestions of an imagination which has been formed by moderninfluences, and to endeavor to keep free from every suggestion notinherent in the stones themselves. I say the stones, for I have onlyused the Maya manuscripts incidentally. They do not possess, to me, thesame interest, and I think it may certainly be said that all of them areyounger than the Palenque tablets, and far younger than the inscriptionsat Copan. I therefore determined to apply the ordinary principles of deciphering, without any bias, to the Yucatec inscriptions, and to go as far as Icould _certainly_. Arrived at the point where demonstration ceased, itwould be my duty to stop. For, while even the conjectures of a mindperfectly trained in archæologic research are valuable and maysubsequently prove to be quite right, my lack of familiarity withhistorical works forced me to keep within narrow and safe limits. My programme at beginning was, _first_, to see if the inscriptions atCopan 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_, tosee how the tablets were to be read. That is, in horizontal lines, arethey 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 werephonetic characters, or merely ideographic, or a mixture of thetwo--rebus-like, in fact. If the characters turned out to be purely phonetic, I had determined tostop 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, upto this time, have been applied by BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG and others whostart, and must start, from the misleading and unlucky alphabet handeddown 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 extremelydangerous and difficult in application, and to require a degree ofscientific caution almost unique. Dr. HARRISON ALLEN, in his paper, "The Life Form in Art, " in the_Transactions of the American Philosophical Society_, is the onlyinvestigator who has applied this method to Central American remainswith success, so it seems to me; and even here errors have occurred. The process I allude to is something like the following: A set ofcharacters, say the alphabet of LANDA, is taken as a starting point. The_variants_ of these are formed. Then the basis of the investigation isready. From this, the interpretation follows by identifications of eachnew 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 inthe order named. In fact, however, the list of _variants_ is filled outnot before the work is begun, but during its progress, and in such a wayas to satisfy the necessities of the interpreter in carrying out somepreconceived 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_, andan account of the adventures of several Maya gods, is interpreted byBRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG as a record of mighty geologic changes. It is nextto impossible to avoid errors of this nature at least, and in fact theyhave not been avoided, so far as I know, except by Dr. ALLEN in thepaper cited. I, personally, have chosen the stones and not the manuscripts for studylargely because _variants_ do not exist in the same liberal degree inthe stone inscriptions as they have been supposed to exist in themanuscripts. At any one ruin the characters for the same idea are alike, and alike toa 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 agiven sign is made in a fixed and definite way. Finally the MSS. Are, Ithink, later than the stones. Hence the root of the matter is theinterpretation of the stones, or not so much their full interpretationas the discovery of a _method of interpretation_, which shall be sure. Suppose, for example, that we know the meaning of a dozen charactersonly, and the way a half dozen of these are joined together in asentence. The _method_ by which these were obtained will serve to addothers to the list, and progress depends in such a case only on ourknowledge of the people who wrote, and of the subjects upon which theywere writing. Such knowledge and erudition belongs to the archæologistsby profession. A step that might take me a year to accomplish might bemade in an instant by one to whom the Maya and Aztec mythology wasfamiliar, if he were proceeding according to a sound method. At thepresent time we know nothing of the meaning of any of the Mayahieroglyphs. It will, therefore, be my object to go as far in the subject as I canproceed with certainty, every step being demonstrated so that not onlythe archæologist but any intelligent person can follow. As soon as theborder-land is reached in which proof disappears and opinion is the onlyguide, the search must be abandoned except by those whose cultivated andscientific opinions are based on knowledge far more profound and variousthan I can pretend or hope to have. If I do not here push my own conclusions to their farthest limit, itmust not be assumed that I do not see, at least in some cases, thedirection in which they lead. Rather, let this reticence be ascribed toa desire to lay the foundations of a new structure firmly, to prescribethe method of building which my experience has shown to be adequate andnecessary, and to leave to those abler than myself the erection of thesuperstructure. If my methods and conclusions are correct (and I have nodoubts on this point, since each one has been reached in various waysand tested by a multiplicity of criteria) there is a great future tothese researches. It is not to be forgotten that here we have no Rosettastone to act at once as key and criterion, and that instead of theaccurate descriptions of the Egyptian hieroglyphics which were handeddown by the Greek cotemporaries[TN-1] of the sculptors of theseinscriptions, we have only the crude and brutal chronicles of anignorant Spanish soldiery, or the bigoted accounts of an unenlightenedpriesthood. To CORTEZ and his companions a memorandum that it took onehundred 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 agreeingwith it superfluous. It is only to the patient labor of the Mayasculptor who daily carved the symbols of his belief and creed uponenduring stone, and to the luxuriant growths of semi-tropical forestswhich concealed even these from the passing Spanish adventurer, that weowe the preservation of the memorials of past beliefs and vanishedhistories. Not the least of the pleasures of such researches as these comes fromthe recollection that they vindicate the patience and skill of forgottenmen, and make their efforts not quite useless. It was no rude savagethat carved the Palenque cross; and if we can discover what his effortsmeant, his labor and his learning have not been all in vain. It will beone more proof that human effort, even misdirected, is not lost, butthat 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 thatin every respect his is the most trustworthy work on the _hieroglyphs_of Central America. The intrinsic evidence to this effect is verystrong, but when I first became familiar with the works of WALDECK Ifound so many points of difference that my faith was for a time shaken, and I came to the conclusion that while the existing representationsmight suffice for the study of the general forms of statues, tablets, and buildings, yet they were not sufficiently accurate in detail toserve as a basis for the deciphering I had in mind. I am happy to bearwitness, however, that STEPHENS'S work is undoubtedly amply adequate tothe purpose, and this fact I have laboriously verified by a comparisonof it with various representations, as those of DESAIX and others, andalso with a few photographs. The drawings of WALDECK are very beautifuland artistic, but either the artist himself or his lithographers havetaken singular liberties in the published designs. STEPHENS'S work isnot only accurate, but it contains sufficient material for my purpose(over 1, 500 separate hieroglyphs), and, therefore, I have based my studyexclusively upon his earliest work, "_Incidents of Travel in CentralAmerica, Chiapas, and Yucatan_, " 2 vols. , 8vo. New York, 1842 (twelfthedition). I have incidentally consulted the works on the subjectcontained in the Library of Congress, particularly those of BRASSEUR DEBOURBOURG, KINGSBOROUGH, WALDECK, and others, but, as I have said, thetwo volumes above named contain all the the[TN-2] material I have beenable to utilize, and much more which is still under examination. * * * * * One fact which makes the examination of the Central American antiquitieseasier than it otherwise would be, has not, I think, been sufficientlydwelt upon by former writers. This is the remarkable faithfulness of theartists and sculptors of these statues and inscriptions to a standard. Thus, at Copan, wherever the same kind of hieroglyph is to berepresented, it will be found that the human face or other objectemployed is almost identically the same in expression and character, wherever it is found. The same characters at different parts of a tabletdo not differ more than the same letters of the alphabet in two fonts oftype. At Palenque the _type_ (font) changes, but the adherence to this isequally or almost equally rigid. It is to be presumed that in thislatter case, where work was done both in stone and stucco, the natureof the material affected the portraiture more or less. The stone statues at Copan, for example, could not all have been done bythe same artist, nor at the same time. I have elsewhere shown that twoof 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 thetwo statues is quite different. I think it far more likely that each wascut from a drawing, or series of drawings, which must have beenpreserved by priestly authority. The work at any one place must haverequired many years, and could not have been done by a single man; noris it probable that it was all done in one generation. Separatehieroglyphs must have been preserved in the same way. It is this rigidadherence to a type, and the banishment of artistic fancy, which willallow of progress in the deciphering of the inscriptions or thecomparison of the statues. Line after line, ornament after ornament, isrepeated with utter fidelity. The reason of this is not far to seek. This, however, is not the place to explain it, but rather to takeadvantage of the fact itself. We may fairly say that were it not so, andwith 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 referpictorially to each character, and therefore some system of nomenclaturemust be adopted. The one I employ I could now slightly improve, but ithas been used and results have been obtained by it. It is sufficient forthe purpose, and I will, therefore, retain it rather than to run therisk of errors by changing it to a more perfect system. I have numberedthe plates in STEPHENS'S _Central America_ according to the followingscheme: 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 ownnumber. Thus the hieroglyphs of the Copan altar (vol. I, p. 141) which Ihave called plate V^a, are numbered from 1 to 36 according to thisscheme-- 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 inhis memoir published by the Smithsonian Institution (1880), has thenumbers-- 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 theleft-hand side, as given by STEPHENS. Whenever I have stated any resultshere, I have also given the means by which any one can number a copy ofSTEPHENS'S work in the way which I have adopted, and thus the means oftesting my conclusions is in the hands of every one who desires to doso. In cases where only a _part_ of a hieroglyphic is referred to, I haveplaced its number in a parenthesis, as 1826 _see_ (122), by which I meanthat the character 1826 is to be compared with a part of the character122. The advantages of this system are many: for example; a memorandumcan easily be taken that two hieroglyphs are alike, thus 2072=2020 and2073=2021. Hence the _pair_ 2020--2021, read horizontally, occurs againat the point 2072--2073, etc. _Horizontal pairs_ will be known by theirnumbers being consecutive, as 2020--2021; _vertical pairs_ will usuallybe known by their numbers differing by 10. Thus, 2075--2085 are oneabove the other. This method of naming the _chiffres_, then, is a quick and safe one, andwe shall see that it lends itself to the uses required of it. I add here the scheme according to which the principal plates atPalenque 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, thelower left-hand is 720, the lower right is 739. All the squares from 500to 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 haveassumed 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_--aMaya 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 hieroglyphicinscriptions, it is necessary to know in what directions, along whatlines or columns, the verbal sense proceeds. All the inscriptions that I know of are in rectangular figures. At Copanthey are usually in squares. At Palenque the longest inscriptions are inrectangles. At Palenque again, there are some cases where there is asingle horizontal line of hieroglyphs over a pictorial tablet. Hereclearly the only question is, do the characters proceed from left toright, or from right to left? In other cases as in the tablet of thecross, there are vertical columns. The question here is, shall we readup or down? Now, the hieroglyphs must be phonetic or pictorial, or a mixture of thetwo. If they are phonetic, it will take more than one symbol to make aword, and we shall have groups of like characters when the same word iswritten in two places. If the signs are pictorial, the same thing willfollow; that is, we shall have groups recurring when the same idearecurs. Further, we know that the subjects treated of in these tabletsmust 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 nosingle name is known. These considerations, together with our system ofnomenclature, will enable us to take some steps. Take, for example, the right-hand side of the Palenque cross tablet asgiven 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 atWashington. 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 thetablet, and wherever 2020 occurs erase the number which fills the placeand write in 2020. Do the same for 2021, 2022, etc. , down to 3084. Theresult 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 that2043 is the same as 2025, 2044=2020, 2045=2021, and so on, and we writethe smallest number in each case. After this is done, connect like pairs by braces whenever they areconsecutive, either vertical or horizontal. Take the pair 2020 and 2021for 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, itis followed by 2021, viz, as 2021, 2045, 2073, 3073, 3085. It is clear this is not the result of accident. The pair 2020 and 2021means something, and when the two characters occur together they must beread together. There is no point of punctuation between them. We alsolearn 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 inhorizontal lines from left to right, then the progress is from top tobottom in columns, as the case of 3035 and 3040 shows. This occurs atthe end of a line, and the corresponding _chiffre_ required to make thepair is at the other end of the next line. I have marked this case withasterisks. If we must read in the lines from right to left we mustnecessarily read in columns from bottom to top. Thus the _lines_ areconnected. A similar process with all the other tablets in STEPHENS leads to theconclusion that the reading is in lines horizontally and in columnsvertically. 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 tobegin. The reasons given by Mr. BANCROFT (_Native Races_, vol. Ii, p. 782) appeared to me sufficient to decide the question before I wasacquainted with his statement of them. Therefore, the sum total of our present data, examined by a rationalmethod, 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, infact. For the present, the introduction of the method here indicated is theimportant step. It has, as yet, been applied only to the plates ofSTEPHENS' work. The definite conclusion should be made to rest on _allpossible_ data, some of which is not at my disposition at present. Tablets exist in great numbers at other points besides Palenque, and forthe final conclusion these must also be consulted. If each one isexamined in the way I have indicated, it will yield a certain answer. The direction of reading for that plate can be thus determined. AtPalenque 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 graduallyformed. As I have said, this is not perfect, but it is sufficientlysimple and full for the purpose. By it, every plate in STEPHENS' workreceives a number and every hieroglyph in each plate is likewisenumbered. This was first done in my private copy of the work. I then procuredanother copy and duplicated these numbers both for plates and single_chiffres_. The plates of this copy were then cut up into singlehieroglyphs 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 thecenter of the top space. Its number and the plate from which it camewere placed as in the cut. The numbers of hieroglyphs which resembledthe one in question could be written on the right half of the card, andthe numbers corresponding to different recurrences of this hieroglyphoccupied the left half. All this part of the work was most faithfully and intelligentlyperformed for me by Miss MARY LOCKWOOD, to whom I desire to express thefull amount of my obligations. A mistake in any part would have beenfatal. 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 onestogether. A compound hieroglyph could be placed among simple onesagreeing with any one of its components, and so on. The expense of forming this card catalogue of about 1, 500 singlehieroglyphs was borne by the Ethnological Bureau of the SmithsonianInstitution, and the catalogue is the property of that bureau, formingonly 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, onenaturally looks for points of striking resemblance or strikingdifference. Where all is unknown, even the smallest sign is examined, inthe hope that it may prove a clue. The Plate I, Fig. 49, has a twistedknot (the "square knot" of sailors) of cords over its head, and abovethis is a _chiffre_ composed of ellipses, and above this again a signlike a sea-shell. A natural suggestion was that these might be the signsfor the name of the personage depicted in Plate I. If this is so and weshould find the same sign elsewhere in connection with a figure, weshould expect to find this second figure like the first in everyparticular. This would be a rigid test of the theory. After lookingthrough the Palenque series, and finding no similar figure and sign, Iexamined the Copan series, and in Plate IV, our Fig. 50, I found thesame 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 thepersonages represented in the two plates; as STEPHENS says in hisoriginal account of them, they are "in many respects similar. " If he hadknown them to be the same, he would not have wasted his time in drawingthem. 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 theminute comparison here in words. It can be made by any one from the twoplates herewith. Take any part of Plate I, find the corresponding partof Plate IV, and whether it is human feature or sculptured ornament thetwo will be found to be the same. Take the middle face depending from the belt in each plate. The earringsare the same; the ornament below the chin, the knot above the head, thecomplicated beadwork on each side of this face, all are the same. Thebracelets of the right arms of the main figures have each the forkedserpent tongue, and the left-arm bracelets are ornamented alike. Thecrosses with beads almost inclosed in the right hands are alike; theelliptic ornaments above each wrist, the knots and _chiffres_ over theserpent masks which surmount the faces, all are the same. In the steelplates given by STEPHENS there are even more coindences[TN-4] to be seenthan in the excellent wood-cuts here given, which have been copied fromthem. Here, then, is an important fact. The theory that the _chiffre_ over theforehead is characteristic, though it is not definitively proved, receives strong confirmation. The parts which have been lost by theeffects of time on one statue can be supplied from the other. Betterthan all, we gain a test of the minuteness with which the sculptorsworked, and an idea of how close the adherence to a type was required tobe. Granting once that the two personages are the same (a fact aboutwhich I conceive there can be no possible doubt, since the chances infavor are literally thousands to one), we learn what license wasallowed, and what synonyms in stone might be employed. Thus, theornament 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 askull by Dr. HARRISON ALLEN, [225-*] and we now know that this commonform relates not to the human skull, as Dr. ALLEN has supposed, but tothat of the tiger. We shall find this figure often repeated, and theidentification is of importance. This is a case in regard to synonyms. The kind of symbolism so ably treated by Dr. ALLEN is well exemplifiedin the conventional sign for the _crotalus_ jaw at the mouth of the maskover the head of each figure. This is again found on the body of thesnake in Plate LX, and in other places. Other important questions canbe settled by comparison of the two plates. For example, at Palenque weoften find a sign composed of a half ellipse, inside of which bars aredrawn. [Illustration] I shall elsewhere show that there is reason tobelieve the ellipse is to represent the concave of the sky, its diameterto be the level earth, and in some cases at least the bars to be thedescending and fertilizing rain. The bars are sometimes two, three, andsometimes four in number. Are these variants of a single sign, or arethey synonyms? Before the discovery of the identity of the personages inthese two plates, this question could not be answered. Now we can saythat they are not synonyms, or at least that they must be consideredseparately. To show this, examine the bands just above the wristlets ofthe two figures. Over the left hands of the figures the bars are two innumber; over the right hands there are four. This exact similarity isnot accidental; there is a meaning in it, and we must search for itsexplanation elsewhere, but we now have a valuable test of what needs tobe regarded, and of what, on the other hand, may be passed over asaccidental or unimportant. One other case needs mentioning here, as it will be of future use. Fromthe waist of each figure depend nine oval solids, six being hatched overlike pine cones and the three central ones having two ovals, one withinthe other, engraved on them. In Plate IV the inner ovals are all on theright-hand side of the outer ovals. Would they mean the same if theywere 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 sideby accident or by an allowed caprice. It is by furnishing us with testsand criteria like these that the proof of the identity of these twoplates is immediately important. In other ways, too, the proof isvaluable and interesting, but we need not discuss them at this time. These statues, then, are to us a dictionary of synonyms in stone--a testof the degree of adherence to a prototype which was exacted, and acriterion of the kind of minor differences which must be noticed in anyrigid study. I have not insisted more on the resemblances, since the accompanyingfigures present a demonstration. Let those who wish to verify theseresemblances compare minutely the ornaments above the knees of the twofigures, 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 ofwriting was employed at Palenque and at Copan. Before any study of themeanings of the separate _chiffres_ can be made, we must have ourmaterial properly assorted, and must not include in the figures we areexamining for the detection of a clue, any which may belong to a systempossibly very different. The opinion of STEPHENS and of later writers is confirmed by mycomparison of the Palenque and the Copan series; that is, it becomesevident that the latter series is far the older. In Nicaragua and Copan the statues of gods were placed at the foot ofthe pyramid; farther north, as at Palenque, they were placed in templesat the summit. Such differences show a marked change in customs, andmust have required much time for their accomplishment. In this time didthe picture-writing change, or, indeed, was it ever identical? To settle the question whether they were written on the same system, Igive here the results of a rapid survey of the card-catalogue ofhieroglyphs. A more minute examination is not necessary, as the presentone is quite sufficient to show that the system employed at the twoplaces was the same in its general character and almost identical evenin details. The practical result of this conclusion is that similarcharacters of the Copan and Palenque series may be used interchangeably. A detailed study of the undoubted synonyms of the two places will affordmuch light on the manner in which these characters were graduallyevolved. This is not the place for such a study, but it is interestingto remark how, even in unmistakable synonyms, the Palenque character isalways 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 havebeen conventionalized into the two hooks and the ball, which have thesame place in No. 1969. [Illustration: FIG. 51. --Synonomous[TN-5] hieroglyphs from Copan andPalenque. ] 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 noseornament into a single ball, easier to make and quite as significant tothe Maya priest. But to us the older (Copan) figure is infinitely moresignificant. The curious rows of little balls which are often placed atthe left-hand edge of the various _chiffres_ are also conventions forolder forms. It is to be noted that these balls always occur on the lefthand of the hieroglyphs, except in one case, the _chiffre_ 1975 in thePalenque 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 thefollowing cases. It is the _nature_ of the agreements which proves thethesis, and not the number of cases here cited. The reader will rememberthat the Copan series comprises Plates I to XXIII, inclusive; thePalenque series, Plate XXIV and higher numbers. The sign of the group of Mexican gods who relate to hell, _i. E. _, acircle with a central dot, and with four small segments cut out at fourequally distant points of its circumference, is found in No. 4291, PlateXXII, 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 justbelow the ear. The same sign occurs as an important part of No. 4271, Plate XXII, andNo. 4118, Plate XIII (Copan), and No. 2064, Plate LVI (Palenque), etc. No. 7, Plate V^a, and No. 1969, Plate LVI, I regard as absolutelyidentical. These are both human figures. No. 12, Plate V^a, and No. 637, Plate LIII, are probably the same. These probably represent orrelate to the long-nosed divinity, YACATEUCTLI, the Mexican god ofcommerce, 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 thereis 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 tomembers 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 itscongeners. 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. 75of the Palenque Plate No. XXIV. The right half of No. 27, Plate V^a, is the same as the right half ofNos. 3020, 3040, and many others of Plate LVI. No. 17, Plate V^a, is related to No. 2051, Plate LVI, and many otherslike it. The major part of No. 4105, Plate XIII, is the same as No. 124, PlateXXIV, etc. [Illustration: FIG. 52. --Yucatec Stone. ] It is not necessary to add a greater number of examples here. Thecard-catalogue which I have mentioned enables me to at once pick out allthe cases of which the above are specimens, taken just as they fellunder my eye in rapidly turning over the cards. They therefore representthe _average_ agreement, neither more nor less. Taken together theyshow that the same signs were used at Copan and at Palenque. As the samesymbols used at both places occur in like positions in regard to thehuman face, etc. , I conclude that not only were the same signs used atboth places, but that these signs had the same meaning; _i. E. _, weretruly synonyms. In future I shall regard this as demonstrated. VIII. HUITZILOPOCHTLI (MEXICAN GOD OF WAR), TEOYAOMIQUI (MEXICAN GODDESS OFDEATH), MICLANTECUTLI (MEXICAN GOD OF HELL), AND TLALOC (MEXICANRAIN-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 dequelques antiquités américaines conservées dans le Musée royalnéerlandais d'antiquités à Leide. " On page 299 we find-- M. G. -H. -BAND, de Arnhiem, a eu la bonté de me confier quelques antiquités provenant des anciens habitants du Yucatan et de l'Amérique Centrale, avec autorisation d'en faire prendre des fac-similes pour le Musée, ce qui me permet de les faire connaître aux membres du Congrès. Elles ont été trouvées enfouies à une grande profondeur dans le sol, lors de la construction d'un canal, vers la rivière Gracioza, près de San Filippo, sur la frontière du Honduras britannique et de la république de Guatémala par M. S. -A. -van BRAAM, ingénieur néerlandais au service de la Guatémala-Company. From the maps given in STIELER'S Hand-Atlas and in BANCROFT'S NativeRaces of the Pacific States I find that these relics were found 308miles from Uxmal, 207 miles from Palenque, 92 miles from Copan, and 655miles from the city of Mexico, the distances being in a straight linefrom place to place. The one of these objects with which we are now concerned is figured inPlate (63) of the work quoted, and is reproduced here as Fig. 52. Dr. LEEMANS refers to a similarity between this figure and others inStephens' Travels in Central America, but gives no general comparison. I wish to direct attention to some of the points of this cut. The_chiffre_ or symbol of the principal figure is, perhaps, represented inhis belt, and is a St. Andrew's cross, with a circle at each end of it. Inside the large circle is a smaller one. It may be said, in passing, that the cross probably relates to the _air_ and the circle to the_sun_. The main figure has two hands folded against his breast. Two other armsare extended, one in front, the other behind, which carry two birds. Each arm has a bracelet. This second pair of hands is not described byDr. LEEMANS. The two birds are exact duplicates, except that the eye ofone is shut, of the other open. Just above the bill of each bird issomething which might be taken as a second bill (which probably is not, however), and on this and on the back of each bird are five spines orclaws. The corresponding claws are curved and shaped alike in the twosets. The birds are fastened to the neck of the person represented bytwo ornaments, which are alike, and which seem to be the usualhieroglyph of the _crotalus_ jaw. These jaws are placed similarly withrespect to each bird. In KINGSBOROUGH'S Mexican Antiquities, vol. I, Plate X, we find the parrot as the sign of TONATIHU, the sun, and inPlate XXV with NAOLIN, the sun. On a level with the nose of theprincipal figure are two symbols, one in front and one behind, eachinclosing a St. Andrew's cross, and surmounted by what seems to be aflaming fire. It is probably the _chiffre_ of the wind, as the cross isof the rain. Below the rear one of these is a head with protrudingtongue (the sign of QUETZALCOATL); below the other a hieroglyph (perhapsa bearded face). Each of these is upborne by a hand. It is to benoticed, also, that these last arms have bracelets different from thepair on the breast. In passing, it may be noted that the head in rear is under a cross, andhas on its cheek the symbol U. These are the symbols of the left-handfigure in the Palenque cross tablet. The head hanging from the rear of the belt has an _open_ eye (like thatof the principal figure), and above it is a crotalus mask, with openeye, and teeth, and forked fangs. The principal figure wears over hishead a mask, with open mouth, and with tusks, and above this mask is theeagle's head. This eagle is a sign of TLALOC, at least in Yucatan. InMexico the eagle was part of the insignia of TETZCATLIPOCA, "the devil, "who overthrew the good QUETZALCOATL and reintroduced human sacrifice. The characteristics of the principal figure, 63, are then briefly asfollows: I. His _chiffre_ is an air-cross with the sun-circle. II. He has four hands. III. He bears two birds as a symbol. IV. The claws or spikes on the backs of these are significant. V. The mask with tusks over the head. VI. The head worn at the belt. VII. The captive trodden under foot. VIII. The chain from the belt attached to a kind of ornament or symbol. IX. The twisted flames (?) or winds (?) on each side of the figure. X. His association with QUETZALCOATL or CUCULKAN, [TN-6] as shown by themouth with protruding tongue, and with TLALOC or TETZCATLIPOCA, as shownby the eagle's head. We may note here for reference the signification of one of thehieroglyphs in the right-hand half of Fig. 52, _i. E. _, in that halfwhich contains only writing. The topmost _chiffre_ is undoubtedly thename, or part of the name, of the principal figure represented in theother half. It is in pure picture-writing; that is, it expresses the sumof his attributes. It has the crotalus mask, with nose ornament, whichhe wears over his face; then the cross, with the "five feathers" ofMexico, and the sun symbol. These are in the middle of the _chiffre_. Below these the oval may be, and probably is, heaven, with the raindescending and producing from the surface of the earth (the long axis ofthe ellipse), the seed, of which three grains are depicted. We know by the occurrence of the hieroglyphs on the reverse side of thestone that this is not of Aztec sculpture. These symbols are of the samesort as those at Copan, Palenque, etc. , and I shall show later that someof them occur in the Palenque tablets. Hence, we know this engraving tobe Yucatec and not Aztec in its origin. If it had been sculptured on oneside only, and these hieroglyphs omitted, I am satisfied that the factswhich I shall point out in the next paragraphs would have led to theconclusion that this stone was Mexican in its origin. Fortunately thenative artist had the time to sculpture the Yucatec hieroglyphs, whichare the proof of its true origin. It was not dropped by a travelingAztec; it was made by a Yucatec. In passing, it may be said that the upper left-hand, hieroglyph of PlateXIII most probably repeats this name. I collect from the third volume of BANCROFT'S _Native Races_, chapterviii, such descriptions of HUITZILOPOCHTLI as he was represented amongthe Mexicans as will be of use to us in our comparisons. No display oflearning in giving the references to the original works is necessaryhere, since Mr. BANCROFT has placed all these in order and culled themfor a use like the present. It will suffice once for all to refer thecritical reader to this volume, and to express the highest sense ofobligation to Mr. BANCROFT'S compilation, which renders a survey of thecharacteristic features of the American divinities easy. In Mexico, then, this god had, among other symbols, "five balls offeathers arranged in the form of a cross. " This was in reference to themysterious conception of his mother through the _powers of the air_. Theupper hieroglyph in Fig. 52, and one of the lower ones, contain thissign: "In his right hand he had an azured staff cutte in fashion of awaving snake. " (See Plate LXI of STEPHENS. ) "Joining to the temple ofthis idol there was a piece of less work, where there was another idolthey called TLALOC. These two idolls were alwayes together, for thatthey held them as companions and of equal power. " To his temple "there were foure gates, " in allusion to the form of thecross. The temple was surrounded by rows of skulls (as at Copan) and thetemple itself was upon a high pyramid. SOLIS says the war god sat "on athrone supported by a blue globe. [TN-7] From this, supposed to representthe heavens, projected four staves with serpents' heads. (See PlateXXIV, STEPHENS. ) "The image bore on its head a bird of wrought plumes, ""its right hand rested upon a crooked serpent. " "Upon the left arm was abuckler bearing five white plums arranged in form of a cross. " SAHAGUNdescribes his device as a dragon's head, "frightful in the extreme, andcasting fire out of his mouth. " HERRARA describes HUITZILOPOCHTLI and TEZCATLIPOCA[TN-8] together, andsays they were "beset with pieces of gold wrought like birds, beasts, and _fishes_. " "For collars, they had ten hearts of men, " "and in theirnecks Death painted. " TORQUEMADA derives the _name_ of the war god in two ways. According tosome it is composed of two words, one signifying "a humming bird" andthe other "a sorcerer that spits fire. " Others say that the last wordmeans "the left hand, " so that the whole name would mean "the shiningfeathered left hand. " "This god it was that led out the Mexicans fromtheir own land and brought them into Anáhuac. " Besides his regularstatue, set up in Mexico, "there was another renewed every year, made ofdifferent kinds of grains and seeds, moistened with the blood ofchildren. " This was in allusion to the nature-side of the god, as fullyexplained by MÜLLER (_Americanische Urreligionen_). No description will give a better idea of the general features of thisgod than the following cuts from BANCROFT'S _Native Races_, which arecopied from LEON Y GAMA, _Las Dos Piedras_, etc. Figs. 53 and 54 are thewar god himself; Fig. 55 is the back of the former statue on a largerscale; Fig. 56 is the god of hell, and was engraved on the bottom of theblock. [Illustration: FIG. 53. --HUITZILOPOCHTLI (front). ] [Illustration: FIG. 54. --HUITZILOPOCHTLI (side). ] These three were a trinity well nigh inseparable. It has been doubtedwhether they were not different attributes of the same personage. In thenatural course of things the primitive idea would become differentiatedinto its parts, and in process of time the most important of the partswould each receive a separate pictorial representation. [Illustration: FIG. 55. --Huitzilopochtli (back). [TN-9]] [Illustration: FIG. 56. --MICLANTECUTLI. ] [Illustration: FIG. 57. --Adoratorio. ] By referring back a few pages the reader will find summarized theprincipal characteristics of the Central American figure represented inFig. 52. He will also have noticed the remarkable agreement between theattributes of this figure and those contained in the cuts or in thedescriptions of the Mexican gods. Thus-- I. The symbol of both was the cross. II. Fig. 52 and Fig. 55 each have four hands. [233-*] III. Both have birds as symbols. It is difficult to regard the bird of Fig. 52 as a humming bird, as itmore resembles the parrot, which, as is well known, was a symbol of someof the Central American gods. Its occurrence here in connection with thefour arms fixes it, however, as the bird symbol of HUITZILOPOCHTLI. Inthe _Ms. Troano_, plate xxxi (lower right-hand figure), we find thissame personage with his two parrots, along with TLALOC, the god of rain. IV. The claws of the Mexican statue may be symbolized by the spikes onthe back of the birds in Fig. 52, but these latter appear to me torelate rather to the fangs and teeth of the various crotalus heads ofthe statues. V. The mask, with tusks, of Fig. 52, is the same as that at the top ofFig. 55, where we see that they represent the teeth of a serpent, andnot the tusks of an animal. This is shown by the forked tongue beneath. The three groups of four dots each on HUITZILOPOCHTLI'S statue arereferences to his relationship with TLALOC. With these main and striking duplications, and with other minor andcorroborative resemblances, which the reader can see for himself, thereis no doubt but that the two figures, Mexican and Yucatec, relate to thesame personage. The Yucatec figure combines several of the attributes ofthe various members of the Mexican trinity named above, but we shouldnot be surprised at this, for, as has been said, some writers considerthat this trinity was one only of attributes and not of persons. What has been given above is sufficient to show that the personagerepresented in Fig. 52 is the Yucatec equivalent of HUITZILOPOCHTLI, andhas relations to his trinity named at the head of this section, and alsoto the family of TLALOC. I am not aware that the relationship of theYucatec and Aztec gods has been so directly shown, on evidence almostpurely pictorial, and therefore free from a certain kind of bias. If the conclusions above stated are true, there will be manycorroborations of them, and the most prominent of these I proceed togive, as it involves the explanation of one of the most importanttablets of Palenque, parts of which are shown in Plates XXIV, LX, LXI, and LXII, vol. Ii, of STEPHENS. Plate LXII, Fig. 57, represents the "Adoratorio or Alta Casa, No. 3" ofPalenque. This is nothing else than the temple of the godHUITZILOPOCHTLI and of his equal, TLALOC. The god of war is shown on alarger scale in Plate LXI, Fig. 58, while TLALOC is given in Plate LX, Fig. 59, and the tablet inside the temple in Plate XXIV, Fig. 60. Theresemblances of Plate XXIV and of the Palenque cross tablet and theirmeanings will be considered farther on. Returning to Plate LXII, the symbols of the roof and cornice refer tothese two divinities. The faces at the ends of the cornice, with thedouble lines for eye and mouth, are unmistakable TLALOC signs. Theassociation of the two gods in one temple, as at Mexico, is a strongcorroboration. Let us now take Plate LXI, Fig. 58, which represents HUITZILOPOCHTLI, orrather, the Yucatec equivalent of this Aztec god. I shall refer to himby the Aztec appelation, but I shall in future write it in italics; andin general the Yucatec equivalents of Aztec personages in italics, andthe Aztec names in small capitals. Compare Fig. 52 and the Plate LXI (Fig. 58). As the two plates arebefore the reader, I need only point out the main resemblances, and, what is more important, the differences. The sandals, the belt, its front pendant, the bracelets, the neckornament, the helmet, should be examined. The four hands of Fig. 52 arenot in LXI, nor the parrots; but if we refer to KINGSBOROUGH, Vol. II, Plates 6 and 7 of the LAUD manuscript, we shall find figures ofHUITZILOPOCHTLI with a parrot, and of TLALOC with the stork with a fishin its mouth, as in the head-dress here. The prostrate figure of Fig. 52is here led by a chain. At Labphak (BANCROFT, Vol. Iv. , p. 251), he isheld aloft in the air, and he is on what _may be_ a sacrificial yoke. The _Tlaloc_ eagle is in the head of the staff carried in the hand. Thiseagle is found in the second line from the bottom of Fig. 52, we mayremark in passing. Notice also the crescent moon in the ornament back ofthe shoulders of the personage of Fig. 58. The twisted cords which formthe bottom of this ornament are in the hieroglyph No. 37, Plate XXIV(Fig. 60). Turning now to Plate LX (Fig. 59). This I take to be the sorcerer _Tlaloc_. He is blowing the wind from hismouth; he has the eagle in his head-dress, the jaw with grinders, thepeculiar eye, the four TLALOC dots over his ear and on it, the snakebetween his legs, curved in the form of a yoke (this is known to be aserpent by the conventional crotalus signs of jaw and rattles on it innine places), the four TLALOC dots again in his head-dress, etc. He hasa leopard skin on his back (the tiger was the earth in Mexico) and hisnaked feet have peculiar anklets which should be noticed. Although I am deferring the examination of the hieroglyphs to a latersection, the _chiffre_ 3201 should be noticed. It is the TLALOC eyeagain, and 3203 is the _chiffre_ of the Mexican gods of hell. [Illustration: FIG. 58. --Maya War God. ] [Illustration: FIG. 59. --Maya Rain God. ] In passing I may just refer the reader to p. 164, Vol. Ii, of STEPHENS'book on Yucatan, where a figure occurring at Labphax is given. This Itake to be the same as _Huitzilopochtli_ of Plate LXI. Also in the MS. _Troano_, published by BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG, a figure in Plate XXV andin other plates sits on a hieroglyph like 3201, and is _Tlaloc_. This is known by the head-dress, the teeth, the air-trumpet, the serpentsymbol, etc. In Plates XXVIII, XXXI, and XXXIII of the same workHUITZILOPOCHTLI and TLALOC are represented together, in variousadventures. [Illustration: FIG. 60. --Tablet at Palenque. ] In Plate LX (Fig. 59) notice also the _chiffre_ on the tassels beforeand behind the main personage. Now turn to the Plate XXIV (Fig. 60), which is the main object in the"Adoratorio" (Fig. 57), where the human figures serve as flankers. First examine the caryatides who support the central structure. Theseare _Tlalocs_. Each has an eagle over his face, is clothed in leopardskin, has the characteristic eye and teeth, and the wristlets of PlateLX (Fig. 59). A vertical line through the center of Plate XXIV (Fig. 60) wouldseparate the figures and ornaments into two groups. These groups arevery similar, but never identical, and this holds good down to theminutest particulars and is not the result of accident. One side (theright-hand) belongs to _Tlaloc_, the other to _Huitzilopochtli_. The right-hand priest (let us call him, simply for a name and not tocommit ourselves to a theory) has the sandals of Plate LXI; theleft-hand priest the anklets of Plate LX. The beast on which the first stands and the man who supports the otherare both marked with the tassel symbol of Plate LX. There is a certainrude resemblance between the supplementary head of this beast and thependant in front of the belt of Fig. 52. Four of these beasts supplyrain to the earth with _Tlaloc_ in Plate XXVI of the MS. _Troano_. Theinfant offered by the right-hand priest has the _two_ curls on hisforehead which was a necessary mark of the victims for TLALOC'Ssacrifices. The center of the whole plate is a horrid mask with an openmouth. Behind this are two staves with _different_ ornaments crossed inthe form of the air-cross. On either hand of this the ornaments aredifferent though similar. A curious resemblance may be traced between the positions, etc. , ofthese two staves and those of the figure on p. 563, vol. Iv, ofBANCROFT'S _Native Races_, which is a Mexican stone. Again, this latterfigure has at its upper right-hand corner a crouching animal (?) verysimilar to the gateway ornament given in the same volume, p. 321. Thislast is at Palenque. I quote these two examples in passing simply toreinforce the idea of similarity between the sacred sculptures ofYucatan and Mexico. I take it that the examination of which I have sketched the details willhave left no doubt but that the personage of Fig. 52 is truly_Huitzilopochtli_, the Yucatec representative of HUITZILOPOCHTLI; thatPlate LXI (Fig. 58) is the same personage; that Plate LX (Fig. 59)represents TLALOC; and that Plate XXIV (Fig. 60) is a tablet relating tothe service of these two gods. I have previously shown that the Palenque hieroglyphs are read in orderfrom left to right. We should naturally expect, then, that the sign for_Tlaloc_ or for _Huitzilopochtli_ would occupy the upper left-handcorner of Plate XXIV. In fact it does, and I was led to this discoveryin the way I have indicated. No. 37 is the Palenque manner of writing the top sign of Fig. 52. Ishall call the signs of Fig. 52 _a_, _b_, _c_, etc. , in order downwards. The crouching face in _a_ occupies the lower central part of No. 37. Notice also that this face occurs below the small cross in the detachedornament to the left of the central mask of Fig. 60. The crescent moonof Plate LXI (Fig. 58) is on its cheek; back of this is the sun-sign;the cross of _a_ is just above its eye; the three signs for thecelestial concave are at the top of 37, crossed with rain bands; thethree seeds (?) are below these. The feathers are in the lowerright-hand two-thirds. This is the sign or part of the sign for_Huitzilopochtli_. If a Maya Indian had seen either of these signs a fewcenturies ago, he would have had the successive ideas--a war-god, with afeather-symbol, related to sun and moon, to fertilizing rain andinfluences, to clouds and seed; that is _Huitzilopochtli_, the companionof _Tlaloc_. Or if he had seen the upper left-hand symbol of thePalenque cross tablet (1800), he would have had _related_ ideas, and soon. What I have previously said about the faithfulness with which theYucatec artist adhered to his prototypes in signs is perfectly true, although apparently partly contradicted by the identification I havejust made. When a given attribute of a god (or other personage) was tobe depicted, the _chiffres_ expressing this were marvellously alike. Witness the _chiffres_ Nos. 2090, 2073, 2021, 2045, 3085, 3073, 3070, 3032 of the Palenque cross tablet. But directly afterwards some otherattribute is to be brought out, and the _chiffre_ changes; thus thehieroglyph 1009 of Plate LIV, or 265, Plate LII, has the same protrudingtongue as 2021, etc. , and is the same personage, but the style is quitechanged. In Fig. 52, _Huitzilopochtli_ is the war-god, in Plate XXIV heis the rain-god's companion; and while every attribute is accounted for, prominence is given to the special ones worshipped or celebrated. Scoresof instances of this have arisen in the course of my examination. Again, we must remember that this was no source of ambiguity to theYucatecs, however much it may be to us. Each one of them, and speciallyeach officiating priest, was entirely familiar with every attribute ofevery god of the Yucatec pantheon. The sign of the attribute brought theidea of the power of the god in that special direction; the full idea ofhis divinity was the integral of all these special ideas. The limitswere heaven and earth. This, then, is the first step. I consider that it is securely based, andthat we may safely say that in proper names, at least, a kind of picturewriting was used which was _not_ phonetic. From this point we may go on. I must again remark that great familiaritywith the literature of the Aztecs and Yucatecs is needed--a familiarityto which I personally cannot pertend[TN-10]--and that it is clear thatthe method to reach its full success must be applied by a true scholarin this special field. IX. TLALOC, OR HIS MAYA REPRESENTATIVE. Although there is no personage of all the Maya pantheon more easy torecognize in the form of a _statue_ than _Tlaloc_, there is greatdifficulty in being certain of _all_ the hieroglyphs which relate tohim. There is every reason to believe that in Yucatan, as in Mexico, there was a family of rain-gods, _Tlalocs_, and the distinguishing signsof the several members are almost impossible of separation, so long aswe know so little of the special functions of each member of thisfamily. In Yucatan, as in Mexico, _Tlaloc's_ main sign was a double line aboutthe eye or mouth, or about both; and further, some of the _Tlalocs_, atleast, were bearded. [237-*] CUKULCAN was also bearded, but we have separated out in the next sectionthe _chiffres_, or certainly most of them, that relate to him. Thosethat are left remain to be distributed among the family of rain-gods;and this, as I have said, can only be done imperfectly, on account ofour slight knowledge of the character of these gods. If we examine the plates given by STEPHENS, we shall find many pictorialallusions to _Tlaloc_. These are often used as mere ornaments orembellishments, as in borders, etc. , and probably served only to notify, in a general way, the fact of the relationship of the personagerepresented, to this family, and probably not to convey any specificmeaning. Thus, in Plate XXXV of STEPHENS' work the upper left-hand ornament ofthe border is a head of _Tlaloc_ with double lines about eye and mouth, and this ornament is repeated in a different form at the lowerright-hand corner of the border just back of the right hand of thesitting figure, and also in the base of the border below the feet of theprincipal figure. Plate XLVIII (of STEPHENS') is probably CHALCHIHUITLICUE (that is, theYucatec equivalent of that goddess), who was the sister of _Tlaloc_. Hissign occurs in the upper left-hand corner of the border, and in PlateXLIX the same sign occurs in a corresponding position. Plate XXIV (our Fig. 60) is full of _Tlaloc_ signs. The bottom of thetablet has a hieroglyph, 93 (_Huitzilopochtli_), at one end and 185(_Tlaloc_) at the other. The leopard skin, eagle, and the crouchingtiger (?) under the feet of the priest of _Tlaloc_ (the right-handfigure) are all given. The infant (?) offered by this priest has twolocks of curled hair at its forehead, as was prescribed for childrenoffered to this god. In Plate LVI (our Fig. 48) the mask at the foot of the cross is a humanmask, and not a serpent mask, as has been ingeniously proved by Dr. HARRISON ALLEN in his paper so often quoted. It is the mask of _Tlaloc_, as shown by the teeth and corroborated (not proved) by the way in whichthe eye is expressed. The curved hook within the eyeball here, as in185, stands for the air--the wind--of which _Tlaloc_ was also god. TheMexicans had a similar sign for breath, message. The _chiffre_ 1975, on which _Huitzilopochtli's_ priest is standing, Ibelieve to be the synonym of 185 in Plate XXIV. Just in front of_Tlaloc's_ priest is a sacrificial yoke (?), at the top of which is aface, with the eye of the _Tlalocs_, and various decorations. This faceis to be found also at the lower left-hand corner of Plate XLI (ofSTEPHENS'), and also (?) in the same position in Plate XLII (ofSTEPHENS'). These will serve as subjects for further study. Notice in Plate LVI (our Fig. 48) how the ornaments in correspondingpositions on either side of the central line are similar, yet never thesame. A careful study of these pairs will show how the two godscelebrated, differed. A large part, at least, of the attributes of eachgod is recorded in this way by antithesis. I have not made enoughprogress in this direction to make the very few conclusions of which Iam certain worth recording. The general fact of such an antithesis isobvious when once it is pointed out, and it is in just such paths asthis that advances must be looked for. I have just mentioned, in this rapid survey of the plates of vol. Ii ofSTEPHENS' work, the principal pictorial signs relating to _Tlaloc_. There are a number almost equally well marked in vol. I, in Plates VII, IX, X, XIII, and XV, but they need not be described. Those who areespecially interested can find them for themselves. The following brief account and plate of a _Tlaloc_ inscription at Kabahwill be useful for future use, and is the more interesting as it iscomparatively unknown. _INSCRIPTION AT KABAH (Yucatan). _ This hitherto unpublished inscription on a rock at Kabah is given in_Archives paléographiques_, vol. I, part ii, Plate 20. It deservesattention on account of its resemblances, but still more on account ofits differences, with certain other Yucatec glyphs. We may first compare it with the Plate LX of STEPHENS (our Fig. 59). The head-dress in Plate 20 is quite simple, and presents no resemblanceto the elaborate gear of Plate LX, in which the ornament of a leaf (?), or more probably feather, cross-hatched at the end and dividedsymmetrically by a stem (?) or quill about which four dots are placed, seems characteristic. _Possibly_, and only possibly, the square in the rear of the head ofPlate 20, which has two cross-hatchings, may refer to the elaboratecross-hatchings in Plate LX. The four dots are found twice, once infront and once in rear of the figure. The heads of the two figures haveonly one resemblance, but this is a very important one. The tusks belongto HUITZILOPOCHTLI and to his trinity, and specially to TLALOC, hiscompanion. Both Plate 20 and LX have the serpent wand or yoke clearly expressed. InLX the serpent is decorated with crotalus heads; in 20 by images of thesun (?), as in the FERJAVARY MS. (KINGSBOROUGH). The front apron orornament of Plate 20 is of snake skin, ornamented with sun-symbols. Comparing Plate 20 with Fig. 52 (_ante_), we find quite otherresemblances. The head-dress of 20 is the same as the projecting arm ofthe head-dress of Fig. 52; and the tusks are found in the helmet or maskof Fig. 52. These and other resemblances show the Kabah inscription to be a TLALOC. It is interesting specially on account of its hieroglyphs, which I hopeto examine subsequently. The style of this writing appears to be late, and may serve as a connecting link between the stones and themanuscripts, and it is noteworthy that even the style of the drawingitself seems to be in the manner of the Mexican MS. Of LAUD, rather thanin that of the Palenque stone tablets. From the card catalogue I select the following _chiffres_ asappertaining to the family of the _Tlalocs_. As I have said, these mustfor the present remain in a group, unseparated. Future studies will benecessary to discriminate between the special signs which relate tospecial members of the family. The _chiffres_ are Nos. 3200; 1864; 1403;811; 1107?; 1943?; 4114??; _b_?; 1893 (bearded faces, or faces withteeth very prominent); 166?; 4??; 807?; 62?; 155?; 26; 154?; 165?; 164?;805; 4109; 1915?; 675??; 635?? (distinguished by the characteristic eyeof the TLALOCS). Here, again, the writing is ideographic, and not phonetic. X. CUKULCAN OR QUETZALCOATL. The character 2021 occurs many times in Plate LVI (Fig. 48), andoccasionally elsewhere. The personage represented is distinguished byhaving a protruding tongue, and was therefore at once suspected to beQUETZALCOATL. (See BANCROFT'S _Native Races_, vol. Iii, p. 280. ) Theprotruding tongue is probably a reference to his introduction of thesacrificial acts performed by wounding that member. The rest of the sign I suppose to be the rebus of his name, "Snake-plumage"; the part cross-hatched being "snake, " the feather-likeornament at the upper left-hand corner being "plumage. " It is necessary, however, to prove this before accepting the theory. To do this I hadrecourse to Plates I and IV (Figs. 49, 50), my dictionary of synonyms. This _cross-hatching_ occurs in Plate I. In the six tassels below thewaist, where the cross-hatching _might_ indicate the serpent skin, notice the ends of the tassels; these are in a scroll-like form, and asif rolled or coiled tip. In Plate IV they are the same, naturally. Sofar there is but little light. In Plate IV, just above each wrist, is a sign composed of ellipse andbars; a little above each of these signs, among coils which may beserpent coils, and on the horizontal line through the top of thenecklace pendant, are two surfaces cross-hatched all over. What do thesemean? Referring to Plate I, we find, in exactly the same relativesituation, the forked tongue and the rattles of the crotalus. These are, then, synonyms, and the _guess_ is confirmed. The cross-hatching meansserpent-skin. Is this _always_ so? We must examine other plates todecide. The same ornament is found in Plates IX, XIV, XVI, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXXV (of STEPHENS'), but its situation does not allow us to gain anyadditional light. In Plate XII (STEPHENS') none of the ornaments below the belt will helpus. At the level of the mouth are four patches of it. Take the upperright-hand one of these. Immediately to its right is a serpent's head;below the curve and above the frog's (?) head are the rattles. Here isanother confirmation. In Plate XVIII I refer the cross-hatching to thejaw of the crocodile. In Plate XXII I have numbered the _chiffres_ asfollows: 4201 4202 4203 4204. 4211 4212 4213 4214. * * * * * * * * * * * * 4311 4312 4313 4314. 4204 has the cross-hatching at its top, and to its left in 4203 is theserpent's head. The same is true in 4233-4. In 4264 we have the samesymbol that we are trying to interpret; it is in its perfect form hereand in No. 1865 of the Palenque series. In the caryatides of Plate XXIV(Fig. 60) the cross-hatching is included in the spots of the leopard'sskin; in the ornaments at the base, in and near the masks which, theyare supporting, it is again serpent skin. Take the lower mask; its jaws, forked-tongue, and teeth prove it to be a serpent-mask, as well as theornament just above it. In Plate LX (Fig. 59) it is to be noticed thatthe leopard spots are not cross-hatched, but that this ornament is givenat the lower end of the leopard robe, which ends moreover in a crotalustongue marked with the sign of the jaw (near the top of this ornament)and of the rattles (near the bottom). This again confirms the theory ofthe rebus meaning of the cross-hatching. In Plate XXIV (Fig. 60) thecross-hatching on the leopard spots probably is meant to _add_ theserpent attribute to the leopard symbol, and not simply to denote thelatter. Thus an examination of the _whole_ of the material available, shows thatthe preceding half of the hieroglyph 2021 and its congeners is nothingbut the _rebus_ for QUETZALCOATL, or rather for CUKULCAN, the Maya namefor this god. BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG, as quoted in BANCROFT'S _NativeRaces_, vol. Ii, p. 699, foot note, says CUKULCAN, comes from _kuk_ or_kukul_, a bird, which appears to be the same as the _quetzal_, and from_can_, serpent; so that CUKULCAN in Maya is the same as QUETZALCOATL inAztec. It is to be noticed how checks on the accuracy of any decipheringof hieroglyphs occur at every point, if we will only use them. The Maya equivalents of HUITZILOPOCHTLI and TLALOC are undoubtedlyburied in the _chiffres_ already deciphered, but we have no means ofgetting their names in Maya from the rebus of the _chiffres_. In the cases of these two gods we got the _chiffre_, and the rebus isstill to seek. In the case of _Quetzalcoatl_ or CUKULCAN, the rebus wasthe means of getting the name; and if the names of this divinity had notbeen equivalent in the two tongues, our results would have led us to the(almost absurd) conclusion that a god of certain attributes was calledby his Aztec name in the Maya nations. Thus every correct conclusion confirms every former one and is a basisfor subsequent progress. The results of this analysis are that the Mayagod CUKULCAN is named in each one of the following _chiffres_, viz: Nos. 1009, 265, 2090, 2073, 2021, 3085, 2045, 3073, 3070, 3032, 1865, 265, 268?, 4291? 73?? I give the numbers in the order in which they arearranged in the card-catalogue. There is, of course, a reason for thisorder. BANCROFT, vol. Iii, p. 268, says of QUETZALCOATL that "his symbols werethe bird, the serpent, the cross, and the flint, representing theclouds, the lightning, the four winds, and the thunderbolt. " We shall find all of his titles except one, the bird, in what follows. We must notice here that in the _chiffre_ 2021 and its congeners thebird appears directly over the head of CUKULCAN. It is plainly shown inthe heliotype which accompanies Professor RAU'S work on the Palenquecross, though not so well in our Fig. 48. In what has gone before, we have seen that the characters 2021, 2045, 2073, 3073, 3085, 265, etc. , present the portrait and the rebus ofCUKULCAN. It will not be forgotten that in the examination of thequestion as to the order in which the stone inscriptions were read wefound a number of _pairs_ in Plate LVI, Fig. 48; the characters 2021, etc. , being one member of each. The other members of the pairs in thePlate LVI were 2020, 2044, 2072, 3072, 3084, etc. 264-265 is anotherexample of the same pair elsewhere. I hoped to find that the name CUKULCAN, or 2021, was associated in thesepairs with some adjective or verb, and therefore examined the othermembers of the pair. In a case like this the card-catalogue is of great assistance; forexample, I wish to examine here the _chiffres_ Nos. 2020, 2044, 2072, 3072, 3084, etc. In the catalogue their cards occur in the samecompartment, arranged so that two cards that are exactly alike arecontiguous. We can often know that two _chiffres_ are alike when one isin a far better state of preservation than the other. Hence we mayselect for study that one in which the lines and figures are bestpreserved; or from several characters known to be alike, and of which noone is entirely perfect, we may construct with accuracy the type uponwhich they were founded. In this case the hieroglyph 2020 is wellpreserved (see the right-hand side of Plate LVI, Fig. 48, the upperleft-hand glyph). It consists of a _human hand_, with the symbol of the_sun_ in it; above this is a sign similar to that of the Maya day_Ymix_; above this again, in miniature, is the rebus "snake plumage" or_Cukulcan_; and to the left of the hieroglyph are some curved lines notyet understood. No. 2003 of the same plate is also well preserved. Ithas the hand as in 2020, the rebus also, and the sign for _Ymix_ isslightly different, being modified with a sign like the top of a cross, the symbol of the _four winds_. The symbol _Ymix_ may be seen, by areference to Plate XXVII (lower half) of the MS. _Troano_, to relate tothe _rain_. The figure of that plate is pouring rain upon the earth fromthe orifices represented by _Ymix_. The cross of the _four winds_ isstill more plain in Nos. 2072, 3084, and 3072. The part of this symbol 2020 and its synonyms which consists of curvedlines occupying the left hand one-third of the whole _chiffre_ occursonly in this set of characters, and thus I cannot say _certainly_ whatthis particular part of the hieroglyph means; but if the reader willglance back over the last one hundred lines he will find that these_chiffres_ contain the _rebus_ CUKULCAN, the sign of a _human hand_, ofthe _sun_, of the _rain_, and of the _four winds_. In BANCROFT'S _Native Races_, vol. Iii, chapter vii, we find that thetitles of QUETZALCOATL (CUKULCAN) were the _air_, the _rattlesnake_, the_rumbler_ (in allusion to thunder), the _strong hand_, the lord of the_four winds_. The bird symbol exists in 2021, etc. Now in 2020 and itscongeners we have found every one of these titles, save only thatrelating to the _thunder_. And we have found a meaning for every part ofthe hieroglyph 2020 save only one, viz, the left-hand one-third, consisting of concentric half ellipses or circles. It may be said to bequite _probable_ that the unexplained part of the sign (2020)corresponds to the unused title, "the rumbler. " But it is not rigorouslyproved, although very probable. The thunder would be well represented byrepeating the sign for sky or heaven. This much seems to me certain. Thesign is but another summing up of the attributes and titles of CUKULCAN. 2021 gave his portrait, his bird symbol, made allusion to hisinstitution of the sacrifice of wounding the tongue, and spelled out hisname in rebus characters. 2020 repeats his name as a rebus and adds thetitles of lord of the four winds, of the sun, of rain, of the stronghand, etc. It is his biography, as it were. In this connection, a passing reference to the characters 1810, etc. , 1820, etc. , 1830, etc. , 1840, etc. , 1850, etc. , of the left-hand side ofPlate LVI should be made. Among these, all the titles named above are tobe found. These are suitable subjects for future study. We now see _why_ the pair 2020, 2021 occurs so many times in Plate LVI, and again as 264, 265, etc. The right-hand half of this tablet has muchto say of CUKULCAN, and whenever his name is mentioned a brief list ofhis titles accompanies it. Although it is disappointing to find _both_members of this well-marked pair to be proper names, yet it isgratifying to see that the theory of pairs, on which the proof of theorder in which the tablets are to be read must rest, has received suchunexpected confirmation. To conclude the search for the hieroglyphs of CUKULCAN'S name, it willbe necessary to collect all those faces with "_round_ beards" (seeBANCROFT'S _Native Races_, vol. Iii, p. 250). TLALOC was also bearded, but all the historians refer to QUETZALCOATL as above cited. I referhieroglyphs Nos. 658, 651?, 650?, and 249? to this category. Perhaps also the sign No. 153 is the sign of QUETZALCOATL, as somethingvery similar to it is given as his sign in the _Codex TellerianoRemensis_, KINGSBOROUGH, vol. I, Plates I, II, and V (Plate I the best), where he wears it at his waist. In Plate LXIII of STEPHENS (vol. Ii) is a small figure of CUKULCANwhich, he calls "Bas Relief on Tablet. " WALDECK gives a much largerdrawing (incorrect, however, in many details), in which the figure, the"Beau Relief, " is seen to wear bracelets high up on the arm. This was adistinguishing sign of QUETZALCOATL (see BANCROFT'S _Native Races_, vol. Iii, pp. 249 and 250), and this figure probably is a representation ofthe Maya divinity. He is on a stool with tigers for supports. The tigerbelongs to the attributes which he had in common with TLALOC, and we seeagain the intimate connection of these divinities--a connection oftenpointed out by BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG. This is the third proper name which has been deciphered. All of themhave been pure picture-writing, except in so far as their rebuscharacter may make them in a sense phonetic. XI. COMPARISON OF THE SIGNS OF THE MAYA MONTHS (LANDA) WITH THE TABLETS. We have a set of signs for Maya months and days handed down to us byLANDA along with his phonetic alphabet. _A priori_ these are more likelyto represent the primitive forms as carved in stone than are thealphabetic hieroglyphs, which may well have been invented by theSpaniards to assist the natives to memorize religious formulæ. [243-*] BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG has analyzed the signs for the day and month inhis publication on the MS. _Troano_, and the strongest arguments whichcan be given for their phonetic origin are given by him. I have made a set of MS. Copies of these signs and included them in mycard-catalogue, and have carefully compared them with the tablets XXIVand LVI. My results are as follows: PLATE XXIV (our Fig. 60). No. 42 is the Maya month _Pop_, beginning July 16. No. 54 is _Zip_??, beginning August 25. No. 47 is _Tzoz_??, beginning September 14. No. 57 is _Tzec_? beginning October 4. No. 44-45 is _Mol_?, beginning December 3. No. 39 is _Yax_, _Zac_, or _Ceh_, beginning January 12, February 1, February 21, respectively. PLATE LVI (our Fig. 48). No. 1804 is _Uo_???? No. 1901 is _Zip_???? No. 1816 is _Tzoz_?? No. 1814 is _Tzec_? No. 1807 is _Mol_? No. 1855 is _Yax_, _Zac_, or _Ceh_. No. 1844 is _Mac_? The only sign about which there is little or no doubt is No. 42, whichseems pretty certainly to be the sign of the Maya month _Pop_, whichbegan July 16. No. 39, just above it, seems also to be _one_ of the months _Yax_, _Zac_, or _Ceh_, which began on January 12, February 1, and February 21, respectively. Which one of these it corresponds to must be settled byother means than a direct comparison. The signs given by LANDA for thesethree months all contain the same radical as No. 39, but it isimpossible to decide with entire certainty to which it corresponds. It, however, most nearly resembles the sign for _Zac_ (February 1); and itis noteworthy that it was precisely in this month that the greatestfeast of TLALOC took place, [244-*] and its presence in this tablet, which relates to _Tlaloc_, is especially interesting. In connection with the counting of time, a reference to the bottom partof the _chiffre_ 3000 of the Palenque cross tablet should be made. Thisis a _knot_ tied up in a string or scarf; and we know this to have beenthe method of expressing the expiration and completion of a cycle ofyears. It occurs just above the symbol 3010, the _chiffre_ for a metal. An examination of the original stone in the National Museum, Washington, which is now in progress, has already convinced me that the methodswhich I have described in the preceding pages promise other interestingconfirmations of the results I have reached. For the time, I must leavethe matter in its present state. I think I am justified in my confidencethat suitable methods of procedure have been laid down, and that certainimportant results have already been reached. I do not believe that the conclusions stated will be changed, but I amconfident that a rich reward will be found by any competent person whowill continue the study of these stones. The proper names now known willserve as points of departure, and it is probable that some research willgive us the signs for verbs or adjectives connected with them. It is an immense step to have rid ourselves of the phonetic oralphabetic idea, and to have found the manner in which the Maya mindrepresented attributes and ideas. Their method was that of all nationsat the origin of written language; that is, pure picture-writing. AtCopan this is found in its earliest state; at Palenque it was alreadyhighly conventionalized. The step from the Palenque character to thatused in the Kabah inscription is apparently not greater than the stepfrom the latter to the various manuscripts. An important research wouldbe the application of the methods so ably applied by Dr. ALLEN totracing the evolution of the latter characters from their earlier forms. In this way it will be possible to extend our present knowledgematerially. FOOTNOTES: [225-*] The Life Form in Art, Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc. , vol. Xv, 1873, p. 325. [233-*] From KINGSBOROUGH, vol. I, plate 48, it appears that TLACLITONATIO may have had four hands. His name meant (?) Let there be light. [237-*] See KINGSBOROUGH, vol. Ii, Plate I, of the LAUD MS. [243-*] Since this was written I have seen a paper by Dr. VALENTINI, "The LANDA alphabet a Spanish fabrication" (read before the AmericanAntiquarian Society, April 28, 1880), and the conclusions of that paperseem to me to be undoubtedly correct. They are the same as those justgiven, but while my own were reached by a study of the stones and in thecourse of a general examination, Dr. VALENTINI has addressed himselfsuccessfully to the solution of a special problem. [244-*] See BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG, _Histoire du Mexique_, vol. I, p. 328. Index Allen, Dr Harrison 208, 225, 238, 245 Bancroft, H. H. , Huitzilopochtli, description of 231, Maya hieroglyphics, mode of reading 223 Band, G. H. 229 Braam, S. A. Van 229 Brasseur de Bourbourg, C. E. 208, 210, 243, 244 Card catalogue of hieroglyphs 223 Chalchihuitlicue 237 Codex Telleriano Remensis 243 Copan, Statues of 207, 224, 227, 228, 229, 245 Cortez, H. 209 Cuculkan. (_See_ Quetzalcoatl. ) Deciphering, Principles of 207 Desaix, le Capitaine 210 Herrera 232 Hieratic art 210 Hieroglyphs 210 are read in a certain order 223 Huitzilopochtli 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 239, 241 Kingsborough, Lord 210 Landa, Bishop 208, 243 Landa's hieroglyphic alphabet 208 Leemans, Dr 229 Leon y Gama 232 Lockwood, Miss Mary 224 Manuscript Troano 234 Miclantecutli 229, 232 Months, their hieroglyphs 243 MS. Troano 234 Müller, J. G. , Mexican gods 232 Naolin 230 Nomenclature 211, 220 Palenque, Statues of 207, 224, 237-239, 245 Quetzalcoatl 230, 237, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243 Rau, Dr 221 Stephens, John L. 207-210 Teoyaomiqui 229 Tetzcatlipoca 230 Tlaloc 229, 230, 231, 233-239, 241, 244 Torquemada 232 Touatihu 230 Troano, Manuscript 234 Valentini 243 Variank 208 Waldeck 210, 243 Transcriber's Note TN-1 209 cotemporaries should read contemporaries TN-2 210 the the should read the TN-3 220 Maya day should read Maya day. TN-4 225 coindences should read coincidences TN-5 227 Synonomous should read Synonymous TN-6 230 Cuculkan should read Cukulcan TN-7 231 blue globe. Should read blue globe. " TN-8 232 Tezcatlipoca should read Tetzcatlipoca TN-9 Fig. 55 Huitzilopochtli should read HUITZILOPOCHTLI TN-10 237 pertend should read pretend The following word was inconsistently spelled: Labphak / Labphax The following phrase had inconsistent use of italics andcapitalization: _MS. Troano_ / _Ms. Troano_ / MS. _Troano_