SCIENCE 



NEW YORK, OCTOBER 7. 1893. 



IS THE MAYA HIEROGLY'PHIC WRITING PHONETIC? 



BY PROFESSOR CYRUS THOMAS. 



I HAD not expected to ask any more space of Science at present 

 for the further discusfion of this subject. Nevertheless, as the 

 interpretation of the aboriginal codices and inscriptions is now 

 the most desirable thing relating to North American archEeology, 

 a few more pages ma)' perhaps be profitably devoted to the sub- 

 ject, if confined to an earnest endeavor to arrive at the truth. 



I have asserted that I find the Maya hieroglyphics to be in part 

 phonetic, and that I have ascertained the interpretation of a suffi- 

 cient number to form a key to the solution of the problem. This 

 statement I firmly believe I can maintain, and trust I will be able 

 to do so in the paper I am preparing for publication by the Bureau 

 of Ethnology. In the meantime I have the kind permission of 

 the Director, Major Powell, to present through the public press 

 such samples as may be deemed sufBcient to afford those working 

 in the same field an opportunity of judging of the correctness of 

 ray claim. As Dr. Seler has (in Science, Aug. 26) seen fit to 

 question this claim, some additional evidence is presented in this 

 paper. I regret to say, however, that his criticisms appear to 

 have been offered without proper consideration and to be based 

 to a large extent on assumptions backed by no proofs. 



As the attempt to reply to mere assumptions would drift the 

 controversy into statements of personal opinions, simple refer- 

 ence to some of these and to some of his mistakes will suffice. 



He asserts that the second element of the symbol interpreted 

 Cutz (his Fig. 19) is not given in my letter-list, when in truth it 

 is number 24 of that list. Referring to my interpretation by 2- 

 Yaxkin. of his Fig. 29, he says it "is obviously erroneous," as 

 '• there does not exist a numeral designation with crosses between 

 the dots;" when a dot and two crosses with a month symbol 

 form a date in the bottom line of plate 49 Dresden Codex, — 1 Mac. 

 His statement that the first glyph shown in my Fig. 2, p. 46, is 

 the same as that in certain groups he mentions, and as his Figs. 

 31-33, is incorrect, as he has failed to include the prefix. The 

 character in his 31 is the same as ray figure, but his 32 and 33 are 

 different, as here the prefix, whieh is materially different from 

 the others, forms part of the symbol and gives a different word. 

 If I am right in my interpretation of this prefix by ha, it is possi- 

 ble, — although the translation this gives to the combination is not 

 found in any lexicon I have at hand, — that the signification is 

 suggested by haoab, "a sword, weapon to wound with, whip," — 

 Henderson (MS. Lexicon in possession of the Bureau of Ethnol- 

 ogy) adds '-rod.'' This agrees very well with what we see in the 

 hands of the figiires below, and also with what seems to be the 

 general tenor of the series. 



Dr. Seler is correct in stating that the sign of aspiration (his 

 Fig. 16) found in Brasseur"s "Landa," is not in the original text; 

 nevertheless, n e have to thank the Abbe for a happy suggestion. 

 But his assertion that it is a substitute for the character shown in 

 his Fig. 17 cannot be accepted, as both (16 and 17b) are found 

 connected with the same glyph, as in Troano 17 and 16 and in 

 Dresden 26 and 28. I may add that Dr. Seler has gone farther 

 than Brasseur, as he has given us in his 17a a character which 

 appears to he new, — at any rate I have been unable, by a careful 

 search, to find it in any of the codices. It occurs in the general 

 form given, but I have failed to find it with the two little in- 

 terior dots and parallelogram. In a very few instances the par- 

 allelogram is present, but never the dots, — usually the only mark 

 in the circle is a short curved hne. These differences are minute 



but important. As yet I have been unable to interpret this char- 

 acter, but think u is- its chief element. 



Speaking of the e symbol, he says "it occurs in various com- 

 pound hieroglyphics " as those shown in his Figs. 36-2S. His 

 26 (from Troano 31*) he says " refers to the rope trimmed with 

 thorns (!) that the penitent used to draw through the pierced 

 tongue." It would seem from this that he has taken the marks 

 showing the twisted strands for thorns, as there is absolutely 

 nothing else in the figure which could possibly suggest this idea. 

 A moment's thought would have reminded him that, if the artist 

 intended to show thorns, he would have projected them from the 

 sides as in Charnay's figure to which he refers. The second 

 part of his Fig. 26 is an e, the whole symbol (our Fig. 10) is 

 probably correctly rendered by Xel (or Xelem), ' ' to part, separate, 

 cut, divide." The left member of the symbol has x as its 

 chief phonetic element, but generally, as it seems, with wi as a 

 subordinate consonant sound. This interpretation agrees much 

 better with the figures below the text than Dr. Seler's suggestion; 

 and when we add that the character to the left of it (our Fig. 9) is 

 to be interpreted Ziim or Zuum, " rope, cord, line " (see the m in 

 my letter-list), there is perfect agreement between the text so far as 

 rendered and the figures, and the interpretations are all consistent 

 with my letter-list. Referring to our Fig. 6, we have the two 

 chief elements of these symbols combined in the word Xamach^ 

 " a vessel " which is found in more than one place accompanied 

 by a vessel (see Codex Oortez 27). 



It is by no means, as he claims, a " curious coincidence " that 

 three words, expressing as many different actions, "should aU 

 contain an e." In fact, each of the three English words Dr. 

 Seler uses to express the actions referred to — " pierce," " weave," 

 "embroider" — contains two e's. This objection on his part is 

 therefore frivolous. 



When he points out with perfect assurance " the prey-gods of 

 the five regions," the " hunting god," "the dog of heaven that 

 carries the lightning." and marks as stones what one at a single 

 glance ought to recognize as the ends of cross-beams, or " weight- 

 poles" with the wood symbol Che on them, it seems (and I say it 

 with due regard to courtesy) unprofitable to attempt to foUow 

 him. To assume that his Fig. 29 is a variant of 30 is certainly 

 straifiing a point to the utmost tension. Nor is he correct in 

 stating that 30 is the glyph I interpreted in a former communi- 

 cation, "moisture" — that character was from the Cortesian Co- 

 dex, p. 32. True, the parts are similar, but the details and sur- 

 roundings are different. Vb, as we have not learned the deter- 

 minatives which indicate the vowel sounds, may be Yeeb •' mois- 

 ture " (Cortez 32) ; Yib " to liquefy or melt " (as honey, Troano 

 3*j ; Yib (or Yb), " a bean" or " beans " (his Fig. ;-iO and Dresden 

 18 and 19); we must therefore decide by the accompanying fig- 

 ures and details. A more thorough study and comparison uf the 

 characters will perhaps enable us ultimately to find the deter- 

 minatives. The little crosses over 29 and 30 may have been placed 

 there as helps in this respect; of this, however, I am unable to 

 speak with any confidence, nor do I feel entirely satisfied with 

 the rendering Yax-kin, although the parts are y and kin, and 

 Dr. Seler's objection is not tenable. 



He speaks of the fourth character of my Fig. 4 as being the 

 same as a number of other chai-acters he refers to, particularly 

 the series on Troano 35* and Cortesianus 22. And he says " it is 

 scarcely probable that in all these cases the reading Xaan should 

 correspond to the matter expressed." It is apparent from this 

 that he has overlooked a minute but important particular in that 

 interpreted by me. which occurs but very few times in the cod- 

 ices. The little item at the front of the face, which is a very es- 

 sential portion of the glyph, has not been carefully examined by 

 him or he would not have fallen into the error of considering 



