122 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XX. No 499 



page in question in the publication of Landa's text procured by 

 D. Juan de Dios de la Eada y Delgado. In the hieroglyphic 

 writing the element Fig. 16 occurs as a substitute for the element 

 Fig. 17. The latter, probably, is intended to render the head and 

 the wing of a bird. 



It is quite probable that in Landa's time the Mayas used to write 

 in the manner indicated by Landa; we observe the same in the 

 Mexican area. At a certain time after the conquest the Indian 

 writers were inclined to restrict the phonetic value of their old 

 hieroglyphs, in order to write with them in the same manner as 

 the Spaniards did with their respective hieroglyphs. Compare the 

 so-called Codex Vergara of the Aubin-Goupil collection. But this 

 was not so in ancient times. Certainly there existed in the Maya 

 writing compound hieroglyphs giving the name of a deity, a per- 

 son, or a locality, whose elements united on the phonetic principle. 

 But as yet it is not proved that they wrote texts. And, without 

 doubt, great part of the Maya hieroglyphs were conventional 

 symbols, built up on the ideographic principle. 



In order to illustrate the combination of his letter symbols, Pro- 

 fessor Thomas gives a few interpretations of groups of compound 

 characters. 



This first group (see above, p. 45, Fig. 3) contains in the second 

 hieroglyph (reproduced in my Fig. 24) the elements given by 

 Landa (Fig. 25) as expressing the sounds I, e, i.e., ?e, the lasso, the 

 sling; and, indeed, in the figure below a turkey is seen hanging 

 in the sling. I do not venture to settle the question by giving an 

 explanation of this hieroglyph. I will only remark that the sec- 

 ond element of this sign, that given by Landa as expressing the 

 sound e, occurs in various compound hieroglyphs (see Figs. 

 26-28). In all these cases the action represented refers to handling 

 a rope or to working up thread. Fig. 26 (taken from Codex Troano 

 31 * b) refers to handling the rope trimmed with thorns that the 

 penitent used to draw through the pierced tongue (see the Relief 

 of Lorillard City, published by Charnay). Figs. 37, 38 (taken from 

 Codex Troano, 11*) refer to weaving and embroidery. It would 

 be a curious coincidence that the words expressing these different 

 actions should all contain an e, while considering the idea ex- 

 pressed, the coincidence is a given one. 



Considering the third hieroglyph of this group — which is in- 

 deed that of the turkey, cutz (see Fig. 19), one is in like manner 

 induced at the first glance to think of a phonetic constitution. 

 For the first element is that of the day cauac, given by Landa 

 (Fig. 3) as expressing the sound cm. And the second element — 

 wanting in Landa's as well as in Professor Thomas's list of letter 

 glyphs — would seem to record the sound tz, because it renders 

 the conventional design of a headless carcass or skeleton, tzictzac, 

 seen from behind, or in front, with its ribs and the anal opening. 

 Compare the Fig. 23, the design of a skeleton (the death god) 

 seen "in profile." Nevertheless, it would be a hasty conclusion 

 to proclaim as established and beyond doubt the phonetic consti- 

 tution of this hieroglyph. For the same element of the skeleton 

 occurs in other hieroglyphs, expressing things the names of which 

 do not contain a trace of the sound tz. Fig. 20 is the hieroglyph 

 of the dog, pek; Fig. 21, that of the dog of the heaven that carries 

 the lightning; Fig. 33 is the hieroglyph of the month kan-kin, 

 " the yellow (or ripe) sun." 



But it is principally the first hieroglyph of the group in question 

 that rouses the gravest doubts about the Tightness of Professor 

 Thomas's interpretation. The whole group forms part of a series 

 of representations, filling the upmost division of Plates 34 *-30 * of 

 the Codex Troano, and recording, undoubtedly, the capturing of 

 animals. The series begins with the prey-gods of the five regions. 

 These are followed by various representations showing the hunt- 

 ing god — with a captured turkey under the arm, or holding a bag, 

 or armed with spears and throwing-stick (Fig. 33) ; the black god 

 (Fig. 31 = Ekchuah 9), and different captured animals, an arma- 

 dillo (?) in the trap loaded by heavy stones, a turkey seized by the 

 snare, a deer seized by the snare, a deer impaled on the pointed 

 flint erected in the bottom of the pit, a pizote seized by the snare, 

 and a turkey entangled in the hunter's net. Each figure is ac- 

 companied by a group of four hieroglyphs (as a rule). The first 

 hieroglyph is the same in all the groups (see Fig. 3, page 45, and 

 my Figs. 81-33), and undoubtedly refers to the action of capturing. 



This action is clearly indicated by the form of the hieroglyph that 

 exhibits the head of the victim with the bloody, empty eye-hole, 

 the conventional symbol of sacrifice. This head is held within a 

 sling, the knot of which is seen on the summit. Compare the 

 more accurate design of this hieroglyph in Fig. 18, taken from 

 the Dresden Codex 60 a. In this hieroglyph all is figurative and 

 ideographic; no trace of phonetic constitution can be observed. 



The fourth hieroglyph of the group (Fig. 29) is interpreted by 

 Professor Thomas as the second day of the month yax-kin. But 

 this is obviously erroneous. There does not exist a numeral 

 designation with crosses between the dots. Fig. 39 seems a variant 

 of the hieroglyph seen in Fig. 30 placed on a bowl. In the latter 

 hieroglyph, the second element signifies kan, the yellow color. 

 It is replaced in Fig. 29 by the element kiri, the sun. The hiero- 

 glyph Fig. 30 — which in a former communication was interpreted 

 by Professor Thomas as signifying " moisture" — occurs on differ- 

 ent pages of the Dresden Codex among the figured representations 

 of offerings (turkey, lizard, fish, deer). Undoubtedly it means 

 an eatable thing, perhaps honey. 



I do not enter into a discussion of the second sample given by 

 Professor Thomas (Fig. 3, p. 45), because I find nothing in it that 

 might impel me to accept the translation given by him. 



As to Professor Thomas's third sample (Fig. 4, p. 45), I agree 

 with him that the boards covered with the hieroglyphic design of 

 the day cauac may be intended for " wood" or " wooden." The 

 same board is seen in Troano 13*", but fitted with a twisted 

 handle on its surface. Here the first and fourth hieroglyph of 

 the group are also seen ; the second one is wanting. Variants of 

 the first hieroglyph occur in Troano 35 a, 35 li, 34 b^ and Cortes 

 31 a, where the figure below shows the god beating a drum. 

 Professor Thomas's explanation, mul-cin, "collect together," is 

 merely hypothetical. The same applies to the fourth hieroglyph. 

 It is the same as that given by Landa as expressing the sound x. 

 It is materially identical with that of a well-known deity ex- 

 hibiting in his face the same characteristic design as the face that 

 forms the essential part of this hieroglyph. In Troano 11 * this 

 hieroglyph accompanies the elements which seem to express the 

 action of weaving. And on the two contiguous plates, Codex 

 Troano 35 * and Cortes 32, it is connected with red numerals and 

 forms a row alternating with rows of various offerings. It is 

 scarcely probable that in all these cases the reading xaan should 

 correspond to the matter expressed. 



The problem of the Maya writing is a difficult one. I cannot 

 convince myself that the list given by Professor Thomas as letter 

 glyphs acts as a key to its interpretation. For the,, samples of 

 translation he adduces are not forcible, and include misunder- 

 standings. In my opinion, in the present state of things it would 

 be far more appropriate to point t)ut the real meaning, as to the 

 matter expressed, of each hieroglyph. The determination of their 

 phonetic value will then follow, and consequently will then be 

 done with much more accuracy. Db. Seler. 



Steglitz, Germany, Aug. 7. 



The Fundamental Hypotheses of Abstract Dynamics. 



In Professor MacGregor's interesting paper " On the Fundamen- 

 tal Hypotheses of Abstract Dynamics," the suggestion is made that 

 a fourth law of motion should be added to the three laws of New- 

 ton. The proposed law is, in effect, that the magnitude of the 

 stress between any two particles depends solely upon the distance 

 between those particles. Combined with Newton's third law, the 

 new law is thus stated : — 



" Natural forces may be considered to be attractions or repul- 

 sions whose magnitudes vary solely with the distances of the par- 

 ticles between which they act." 



The reason assigned for introducing this law is that " the funda- 

 mental hypotheses of dynamics should either include" the law 

 of the conservation of energy "or give it by deduction." This 

 reason seems hardly sufficient. In order that the law of the con- 

 servation of energy may be true it is not necessary that the stress 

 between two particles shall depend solely upon the distance be- 

 tween them. It is necessary only that "the work done during 

 any change of configuration of a system of particles acted upon 



