Part 1

Produced by PM for Bureau of American Ethnology, Julia Miller, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica) at http://gallica.bnf.fr)

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 was extracted from the complete volume.

A number of typographical errors found in the original text have been maintained 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 of the text. Original spelling has been maintained. A list of inconsistently spelled 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 206 Introductory 207 Materials for the present investigation 210 System of nomenclature 211 In what order are the hieroglyphs read? 221 The card catalogue of hieroglyphs 223 Comparison of plates I and IV (Copan) 224 Are the hieroglyphs of Copan and Palenque identical? 227 Huitzilopochtli, Mexican god of war, etc. 229 Tlaloc, or his Maya representative 237 Cukulean or Quetzalcoatl 239 Comparison 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. STEPHENS on the antiquities of Yucatan, and from time to time I have read works on kindred subjects with ever increasing interest and curiosity in regard to the meaning of the hieroglyphic inscriptions on the stones and tablets of Copan, Palenque, and other ruins of Central America. In August, 1880, I determined to see how far the principles which are successful when applied to ordinary cipher-writing would carry one in the inscriptions of Yucatan. The difference between an ordinary cipher-message and these inscriptions is not so marked as might at first sight appear. The underlying principles of deciphering are quite the same in the two cases.

The chief difficulty in the Yucatec inscriptions is our lack of any definite knowledge of the nature of the records of the aborigines. The patient researches of our archæologists have recovered but very little of their manners and habits, and one has constantly to avoid the tempting suggestions of an imagination which has been formed by modern influences, and to endeavor to keep free from every suggestion not inherent in the stones themselves. I say the stones, for I have only used the Maya manuscripts incidentally. They do not possess, to me, the same interest, and I think it may certainly be said that all of them are younger than the Palenque tablets, and far younger than the inscriptions at Copan.

I therefore determined to apply the ordinary principles of deciphering, without any bias, to the Yucatec inscriptions, and to go as far as I could _certainly_. Arrived at the point where demonstration ceased, it would be my duty to stop. For, while even the conjectures of a mind perfectly trained in archæologic research are valuable and may subsequently prove to be quite right, my lack of familiarity with historical works forced me to keep within narrow and safe limits.

My programme at beginning was, _first_, to see if the inscriptions at Copan 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_, to see how the tablets were to be read. That is, in horizontal lines, are they 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 were phonetic characters, or merely ideographic, or a mixture of the two--rebus-like, in fact.

If the characters turned out to be purely phonetic, I had determined to stop 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, up to this time, have been applied by BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG and others who start, and must start, from the misleading and unlucky alphabet handed down 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 extremely dangerous and difficult in application, and to require a degree of scientific caution almost unique.

Dr. HARRISON ALLEN, in his paper, "The Life Form in Art," in the _Transactions of the American Philosophical Society_, is the only investigator who has applied this method to Central American remains with success, so it seems to me; and even here errors have occurred.

The process I allude to is something like the following: A set of characters, say the alphabet of LANDA, is taken as a starting point. The _variants_ of these are formed. Then the basis of the investigation is ready. From this, the interpretation follows by identifications of each new 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 in the order named. In fact, however, the list of _variants_ is filled out not before the work is begun, but during its progress, and in such a way as to satisfy the necessities of the interpreter in carrying out some preconceived 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_, and an account of the adventures of several Maya gods, is interpreted by BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG as a record of mighty geologic changes. It is next to impossible to avoid errors of this nature at least, and in fact they have not been avoided, so far as I know, except by Dr. ALLEN in the paper cited.

I, personally, have chosen the stones and not the manuscripts for study largely because _variants_ do not exist in the same liberal degree in the stone inscriptions as they have been supposed to exist in the manuscripts.

At any one ruin the characters for the same idea are alike, and alike to a 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 a given sign is made in a fixed and definite way. Finally the MSS. are, I think, later than the stones. Hence the root of the matter is the interpretation of the stones, or not so much their full interpretation as the discovery of a _method of interpretation_, which shall be sure.

Suppose, for example, that we know the meaning of a dozen characters only, and the way a half dozen of these are joined together in a sentence. The _method_ by which these were obtained will serve to add others to the list, and progress depends in such a case only on our knowledge of the people who wrote, and of the subjects upon which they were writing. Such knowledge and erudition belongs to the archæologists by profession. A step that might take me a year to accomplish might be made in an instant by one to whom the Maya and Aztec mythology was familiar, if he were proceeding according to a sound method. At the present time we know nothing of the meaning of any of the Maya hieroglyphs.

It will, therefore, be my object to go as far in the subject as I can proceed with certainty, every step being demonstrated so that not only the archæologist but any intelligent person can follow. As soon as the border-land is reached in which proof disappears and opinion is the only guide, the search must be abandoned except by those whose cultivated and scientific opinions are based on knowledge far more profound and various than I can pretend or hope to have.

If I do not here push my own conclusions to their farthest limit, it must not be assumed that I do not see, at least in some cases, the direction in which they lead. Rather, let this reticence be ascribed to a desire to lay the foundations of a new structure firmly, to prescribe the method of building which my experience has shown to be adequate and necessary, and to leave to those abler than myself the erection of the superstructure. If my methods and conclusions are correct (and I have no doubts on this point, since each one has been reached in various ways and tested by a multiplicity of criteria) there is a great future to these researches. It is not to be forgotten that here we have no Rosetta stone to act at once as key and criterion, and that instead of the accurate descriptions of the Egyptian hieroglyphics which were handed down by the Greek cotemporaries[TN-1] of the sculptors of these inscriptions, we have only the crude and brutal chronicles of an ignorant Spanish soldiery, or the bigoted accounts of an unenlightened priesthood. To CORTEZ and his companions a memorandum that it took one hundred 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 agreeing with it superfluous. It is only to the patient labor of the Maya sculptor who daily carved the symbols of his belief and creed upon enduring stone, and to the luxuriant growths of semi-tropical forests which concealed even these from the passing Spanish adventurer, that we owe the preservation of the memorials of past beliefs and vanished histories.

Not the least of the pleasures of such researches as these comes from the recollection that they vindicate the patience and skill of forgotten men, and make their efforts not quite useless. It was no rude savage that carved the Palenque cross; and if we can discover what his efforts meant, his labor and his learning have not been all in vain. It will be one more proof that human effort, even misdirected, is not lost, but that 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 that in every respect his is the most trustworthy work on the _hieroglyphs_ of Central America. The intrinsic evidence to this effect is very strong, but when I first became familiar with the works of WALDECK I found so many points of difference that my faith was for a time shaken, and I came to the conclusion that while the existing representations might suffice for the study of the general forms of statues, tablets, and buildings, yet they were not sufficiently accurate in detail to serve as a basis for the deciphering I had in mind. I am happy to bear witness, however, that STEPHENS'S work is undoubtedly amply adequate to the purpose, and this fact I have laboriously verified by a comparison of it with various representations, as those of DESAIX and others, and also with a few photographs. The drawings of WALDECK are very beautiful and artistic, but either the artist himself or his lithographers have taken singular liberties in the published designs. STEPHENS'S work is not only accurate, but it contains sufficient material for my purpose (over 1,500 separate hieroglyphs), and, therefore, I have based my study exclusively upon his earliest work, "_Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan_," 2 vols., 8vo. New York, 1842 (twelfth edition). I have incidentally consulted the works on the subject contained in the Library of Congress, particularly those of BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG, KINGSBOROUGH, WALDECK, and others, but, as I have said, the two volumes above named contain all the the[TN-2] material I have been able to utilize, and much more which is still under examination.

* * * * *

One fact which makes the examination of the Central American antiquities easier than it otherwise would be, has not, I think, been sufficiently dwelt upon by former writers. This is the remarkable faithfulness of the artists and sculptors of these statues and inscriptions to a standard. Thus, at Copan, wherever the same kind of hieroglyph is to be represented, it will be found that the human face or other object employed is almost identically the same in expression and character, wherever it is found. The same characters at different parts of a tablet do not differ more than the same letters of the alphabet in two fonts of type.

At Palenque the _type_ (font) changes, but the adherence to this is equally or almost equally rigid. It is to be presumed that in this latter case, where work was done both in stone and stucco, the nature of the material affected the portraiture more or less.

The stone statues at Copan, for example, could not all have been done by the same artist, nor at the same time. I have elsewhere shown that two of 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 the two statues is quite different. I think it far more likely that each was cut from a drawing, or series of drawings, which must have been preserved by priestly authority. The work at any one place must have required many years, and could not have been done by a single man; nor is it probable that it was all done in one generation. Separate hieroglyphs must have been preserved in the same way. It is this rigid adherence to a type, and the banishment of artistic fancy, which will allow of progress in the deciphering of the inscriptions or the comparison of the statues. Line after line, ornament after ornament, is repeated with utter fidelity. The reason of this is not far to seek. This, however, is not the place to explain it, but rather to take advantage of the fact itself. We may fairly say that were it not so, and with 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 refer pictorially to each character, and therefore some system of nomenclature must be adopted. The one I employ I could now slightly improve, but it has been used and results have been obtained by it. It is sufficient for the purpose, and I will, therefore, retain it rather than to run the risk of errors by changing it to a more perfect system. I have numbered the plates in STEPHENS'S _Central America_ according to the following scheme:

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 own number. Thus the hieroglyphs of the Copan altar (vol. i, p. 141) which I have called plate V^a, are numbered from 1 to 36 according to this scheme--

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 in his memoir published by the Smithsonian Institution (1880), has the numbers--

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 the left-hand side, as given by STEPHENS. Whenever I have stated any results here, I have also given the means by which any one can number a copy of STEPHENS'S work in the way which I have adopted, and thus the means of testing my conclusions is in the hands of every one who desires to do so.

In cases where only a _part_ of a hieroglyphic is referred to, I have placed its number in a parenthesis, as 1826 _see_ (122), by which I mean that the character 1826 is to be compared with a part of the character 122. The advantages of this system are many: for example; a memorandum can easily be taken that two hieroglyphs are alike, thus 2072=2020 and 2073=2021. Hence the _pair_ 2020--2021, read horizontally, occurs again at the point 2072--2073, etc. _Horizontal pairs_ will be known by their numbers being consecutive, as 2020--2021; _vertical pairs_ will usually be known by their numbers differing by 10. Thus, 2075--2085 are one above the other.

This method of naming the _chiffres_, then, is a quick and safe one, and we shall see that it lends itself to the uses required of it.

I add here the scheme according to which the principal plates at Palenque 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