January 20, 192 1] 



NATURE 



657 



developed calendrical system long before the first 

 manifestations of culture made their apjjearance 

 in the Valley of Mexico. To render a full appre- 

 ciation and critique of Dr. Morley's book intel- 

 ligible to the general reader, it would be necessary 

 to write an introduction to Central American 

 archaeology ; to deal with it from the purely 

 scientific point of view is impracticable within the 

 limits of an ordinary review, so many and im- 

 portant are the problems w-hich the author raises. 

 It is possible, therefore, to give only the merest 

 sketch of the subject-matter, and to add a few 

 remarks on the author's method of handling his 

 material. 



The early Maya settlements are found scattered 

 throughout the forested region of Chiapas, eastern 

 (iuatemala, western British Honduras, and 

 northern Honduras. It is clear that they had 

 already been abandoned and veiled in thick jungle 

 before the arrival of the Spaniards. The group 

 with which Dr. Morley deals is situated in Hon- 

 duras, in the valley of the Copan River, and covers 

 a site of 30-35 sq. km. The ruins consist of 

 sculptured monolithic stelae and "altars," 

 temples, pyramids, "plazas," and a great com- 

 plex, known as the "main structure," which ex- 

 hibits evident signs of growth by accretion 

 through many years. The site, apart from its 

 architectural and artistic importance, is of para- 

 mount interest from the fact that it includes by 

 far the greatest number of dated inscriptions, 

 about 40 per cent, of those recorded for the whole 

 of the Maya area, indicating that the "city" was 

 in continuous occupation for about 350 years. It 

 is the inscriptions which constitute the principal 

 theme of the book, and the author has dealt faith- 

 fully with every inscribed monument, not only 

 discussing the content of every inscription, but 

 also giving a bibliography of each. 



With regard to these inscriptions a word 

 of explanation is necessary. The only por- 

 tions which can be read with certainty are 

 those connected with the Maya system of 

 reckoning time. As much as 50 per cent, of 

 the entire corpus of these inscriptions deals with 

 calculations relative to the calendar ; the rest arc 

 probably religious, with, perhaps, a small prof>or- 

 tiun of what may be historical data. But, while 

 dated monuments may thus be arranged in se- 

 quence according to Maya chronology, no indis- 

 putable method has yet been reached of correlating 

 that chronology with European time. Dr. 

 .Morley, in a very scholarly appendix, makes the 

 attempt. His views are of particular interest to 

 the present reviewer, who, some years ago, was 

 rash enough to put forward a scheme on similar 

 lines, producing, however, different results. At 

 NO. 2673, VOL. 106] 



the same time, Mr. Bowditch, one of the 

 greatest pioneers in the interpretation of Maya 

 glyphs, working on other evidence, came to the 

 same conclusion. Dr. Morley's theory would 

 make the Copan monuments date from about the 

 close of the second century a.d. to the early 

 part of the sixth century, about 250 years later 

 than the dating of Mr. Bowditch and the re- 

 viewer. Dr. Morley's argument does not carry 

 absolute conviction to the reviewer ; but discussion 

 is perhaps unnecessary. The author gives good 

 prima facie evidence that a certain group of 

 glyphs, which accompanies the so-called " initial 

 dates," relates to eclipses of the sun and moon. 

 With this lead these glyphs should soon be de- 

 ciphered, and the question will then be capable 

 of proof on astronomical grounds. In this con- 

 nection it might be mentioned that Dr. Morley has 

 apparently overlooked, in his otherwise excellent 

 bibliography, two papers by Mr. Richard C. E. 

 Long dealing with the correlation of Maya and 

 European time, which were published in Man 

 during 1918. 



The origin of the Maya civilisation is also 

 closely argued by Dr. Morley in a well-written 

 appendix, but here he lays himself open to 

 criticism. His theory that the Maya came from 

 the region of the Panuco Valley in the north is 

 well argued on general grounds, but he certainly 

 lays too much stress on dates which have been 

 found on two small objects — the Tuxtla statuette 

 and the Leyden plate. Considering the ritual and 

 mythological importance of certain calendrical 

 dates in the Maya religious system, it is impos- 

 sible to regard specimens of this class as belong- 

 ing to the same category as monuments which 

 are so obviously commemorative as stelae, altars, 

 and the like. The Tuxtla statuette, which bears 

 almost the earliest date known in Maya chrono- 

 'o&y> he accepts as belonging to the area where 

 it was found^i.e. considerably to the north of 

 the "classical " Maya area— in spite of the fact 

 that the glyphs are carved in the same style as 

 the Dresden manuscript, which is recognised as 

 belonging to a later period than the Copan monu- 

 ments. The Leyden plate, which is carved in the 

 earlier style, and was found in the southern 

 Maya region, he assumes, is a specimen which 

 has "wandered" — a hypothesis which he dis- 

 misses in connection with the Tuxtla statuette. 

 This savours of "having it both ways," and his 

 theory would have gained strength had he ad- 

 mitted that portable objects such as these arc 

 really hors concours as regards local dating. 



One mistake — and that really of relative in- 

 significance—may be recorded. Dr. Morley states 

 that the few original monuments brought from 



