SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XXI. No. 51S 



"similar, ' but essentially the same. And that the whole hiero- 

 glyph is really the same, is proved by comparing Figs. 19 and 20 

 of the adjoined table, taken from the Dresden Codex, 18^ and 19^. 

 In Fig. 20 the hieroglyph of Fig. 17 is the first hieroglyph of the 

 text. Its representative is shown in the hieroglyph carried on 

 the back of tbe woman figured below. This representative of the 

 text-hieroglyph exhibits the same elements in the same order as 

 Pi'ofessor Thomas's moisture-symbol held on the hand of Fig. 18. 

 Professor Thomas asserts that my statement that the first glyph 

 shown in his Fig. 2, p. 46 {Science, July 23), is the same as that 

 in certain groups mentioned by me, and Figs. 31-33 (of my for- 

 mer paper) are incorrect, as I had failed to include the prefix. 

 The character of my first figure, he says, is the same, but the 

 characters of my two other figures are different and give a differ- 

 ent word. The first character Professor Thomas had interpreted 

 u-zabal, "set the snare." Respecting the latter, he says, it is 

 possible that the signification is suggested by haodb, "a sword, 

 weapon to wound with, a whip." This agrees, Professor Thomas 

 asserts, " very well with what we see in the hands of the figures 

 below, and also with the general tenor of the series." True, in- 

 stead of naming one character and one series, I ought to have 

 spoken of two allied characters and two allied series. But my 

 objections to Professor Thomas's interpretation were chiefly based 

 on the fact that each one of the two hieroglyphs is the leading 

 character in a series of representations, embracing different ac- 

 tions, and not only the "setting of the snare." The first char- 

 acter is the leading hieroglyph in tbe series Figs. 26-31 of the 

 adjoined table; tbe second one in the series Figs 32-35. It is ob- 

 vious that — although there are represented different persons and 

 animals —the general tenor of the two series is essentially the 

 same. Both, undoubtedly, refer to capturing animals, showing 

 the deity armed for hunting and different captured animals. 

 Now, it can be proved that the leading character of the hiero- 

 glyphic groups of a series suggests the action in which tbe per- 

 sons figured below are represented (compare, for instance, Codex 

 Dresden 4o and 7" and the two leading hieroglyphs in Co'dex Dres- 

 den 120, Codex Troano 190, etc.). As, in our case, the general 

 tenor of the two series is the same, the first of our characters 

 (Pigs. 26-31) will be intended to indicate the same action as the 

 second one (Figs. 32-35). We must conclude, therefore, that the 

 second part, which is common to the two hieroglyphs, is the es- 

 sential one; and that the other, the so-called "prefix,'' is subor- 

 dinate, referring to circumstances of minor importance, perhaps 

 interchangeable. This conclusion will be proved once more by 

 the fact that the second part occurs alone, and apparently with 

 the same general signification (see Fig. 35a^ taken from Dresden 

 Codex 60a). 



As to Professor Thomas's interpretation, the name liaoab he 

 gives does not agree with his own alphabet. For the element in 

 question, ^the knot or loop, seen on the top of the second part of 

 the hieroglyph, according to Professor Thomas's alphabet, does 

 not express the sound of the "letra herida" o, that is to say, ts\ 

 but that of z. or s. The word itself is not ha-oab, as Professor 

 Thomas reads, but had-ab, an instrumental noun derived from the 

 verb /lOD, "to whip, to wound." Finally, it is obvious that tbe 

 rendering, 'sword, a weapon to wound with, a whip," does not 

 more agree " with what we see in the hands of the figures below, 

 and also with the general tenor" of the second series (Figs. 33-3.i), 

 as it would agree with that of the first one (Figs. 26-31). I may 

 safely abandon to the reader's judgment to decide whose interpre- 

 tation in this case is the more based on " mere assumptions." Pro 

 fessor Thomas's or mine, and who has more earnestly endeavored 

 to arrive at the truth. 



Professor Thomas acknowledges the correctness of my state- 

 ment that the sign of aspiration found in Brasseur's " Landa" is 

 not in the original text. "Nevertheless," he says " we have to 

 thank the Abbe for a happy suggestion. ... I may add that Dr. 

 Seler has gone farther than Brasseur, as he has given us in his 

 17a a character which appears to be new, — at any rate, I have 

 been unable by a careful search to find it in any of the codices." 

 I refer Professor Thomas to the Figs. 23-25 of the adjoined table. 

 These, and some other variants, act as leading hieroglyphs in a 

 series of twenty-nine hieroglyphic groups, accompanying as many 



figures of the rain-god. My Fig. 23 contains the element in ques- 

 tion, with exactly the same characters as I lendered them in Fig, 

 17a of my former paper. This Fig. 23 occurs three times in the 

 series, in Dresden Codex 30c, aic, and 390. Professor Thomas,, 

 therefore, has not carefully searched. To call a notorious falsifi- 

 cation "a happy suggestion," and to stigmatize a correct state- 

 ment as a conscious falsification (I say it with due regard to 

 courtesy), we are not wont to consider as an earnest attempt to 

 arrive at the truth. 



Professor Thomas argues that I had criticised his article with- 

 out having thoroughly read it, because, in the fourth character 

 of his Fig. 4, I overlooked, he says, the little item on the front 

 of the face. Had I but looked to his Fig. 3, I would not have 

 fallen into the error of considering the two as the same. I re- 

 gret to say that the writer of the Dresden Codex has fallen inta 

 the same error, since he mentions the deity, seen in the Figs. 21, 

 22, of the adjoined table, in Dresden Codex .5a by the first 

 hieroglyph. Fig. 21. in Dresden Codex 13* by the first hieroglyph, 

 Fig. 22, both differing from another in "the little item on the 

 front of the face," nearly in the same way as the characters of 

 Professor Thomas's Figs. 3 and 4 {Science, p. 45) differ from 

 another. 



Professor Thomas himself, in most cases, has overlooked the 

 notorious existence of variants of writing and the replacement of 

 one element by another. He says, "To assume that the Fig. 29 

 (of my former paper) is a variant of Fig. 30, is certainly straining 

 a point to the utmost tension." I could show to my opponent 

 more curious variants. As to the mutual replacement of the ele- 

 ment Kin and Professor Thomas's "letter-glyph" b — that, in 

 my view, renders the sound Kan "yellow" — I i-efer him to 

 Figs. 36, 37, of the adjoined table, the first showing the leading 

 hieroglyphs of Cort. 21, Tro. 35<J, the latter those of Codex Tro. 

 24* 23*a. 



Professor Thomas concludes his objections against my criticism 

 with the following phrase: " I must confess that his (Dr. Seler's)' 

 eyesare sharper than mine, if he can find any figures in either of the 

 Codices representing a god or any one else beating a drum. This, 

 like other of his assertions in regard to the significance of other 

 figures, appears to be ' merely hypothetical.' ' My reply to thi& 

 apostrophe is the Fig. 40, taken from Dresden Codex 34a, which,, 

 for the benefit of the reader, I have contrasted with two Mexican 

 paintings. Figs. 38 and 39, taken from Codex Borgia 55, and Co- 

 dex Land. 39. In the two Mexican paintings, a goddess is seen 

 and a god, the latter beating a drum, in Fig. 39, curiously held 

 between the legs. No scholar versed in Mexican prologranhio 

 style, will deny that the instrument seen in those paintiiigs is 

 really the drum, the Ualpan-neuetl, made of wood and covered 

 with a tiger-skin. Compare Fig. 42a, the well-known musician 

 of the Mendoza Codex. Now the god of Fig. 39 has his exact 

 counterpart in one of the persons of Fig 40. Here, in the very 

 middle of the scenery, we have the head of tbe sacrificed (or the 

 dead deity) exposed on the top of the altar-pyramid. On the 

 left side a fire is burning, and below it an offering of maize is 

 placed on a dish. To the right hand other offerings are seen, 

 consisting of a meal of maize and turkey, and of a meal of maize 

 and certain other game. Four persons sit around, playing dif- 

 ferent instruments. On the upper part of the left side, a black- 

 colored person holds the chicauaztK, the well-known rattling 

 staff of the Mexican paintings (see " Compte Rende, VII. Sess.. 

 Congr. International Americanistes," Berlin, 1888, p. 661-664, 

 and " Veroffentlichungen aus dem Koniglichen Museum fur 

 Volkerkunde," I., p. 147, 153). Below him a woman beats a 

 drum of curious form. The music is seen rising from the end of 

 the instrument. To the right hand of the altar, in the lower 

 part, a man is playing a flute. Here, also, the music is seen ris- 

 ing from the lower end of the flute. The upper figure, on the- 

 right side, with one hand shakes the rattle and with the other 

 beats the drum, held between the legs exactly in the same man- 

 ner as vvith the god of the Codex Land. (Fig. 39). Another series- 

 of musicians occurs in Codex Tro. 24* 23*<l. Here a person, ex- 

 hibiting a black-colored skin, like that of Fig. 40, is seen with the- 

 Chicauaztli in the one hand, and a rattling-ring (?) in the other 

 (Fig. 41), while another deity (Fig. 42) is beating a drum. Orti 



