Chapter XIV: Front Matter (14)

_4th._ MANNER OF BURIAL, ANCIENT AND MODERN; STRUCTURE AND POSITION OF THE GRAVES; CREMATION.--Are burials usually made in high and dry grounds? Have mounds or tumuli been erected in modern times over the dead? How is the grave prepared and finished? What position are bodies placed in? Give reasons therefor if possible. If cremation is or was practiced, describe the process, disposal of the ashes, and origin of custom or traditions relating thereto. Are the dead ever eaten by the survivors? Are bodies deposited in springs or in any body of water? Are scaffolds or trees used as burial places; if so, describe construction of the former and how the corpse is prepared, and whether placed in skins or boxes. Are bodies placed in canoes? State whether they are suspended from trees, put on scaffolds or posts, allowed to float on the water or sunk beneath it, or buried in the ground. Can any reasons be given for the prevalence of any one or all of the methods? Are burial posts or slabs used, plain, or marked, with flags or other insignia of position of deceased. Describe embalmment, mummification, desiccation, or if antiseptic precautions are taken, and subsequent disposal of remains. Are bones collected and reinterred; describe ceremonies, if any, whether modern or ancient. If charnel houses exist or have been used, describe them.

_5th._ MOURNING OBSERVANCES.--Is scarification practiced, or personal mutilation? What is the garb or sign of mourning? How are the dead lamented? Are periodical visits made to the grave? Do widows carry symbols of their deceased children or husbands, and for how long? Are sacrifices, human or otherwise, voluntary or involuntary, offered? Are fires kindled on graves; why, and at what time, and for how long?

_6th._ BURIAL TRADITIONS AND SUPERSTITIONS.--Give in full all that can be learned on these subjects, as they are full of interest and very important.

In short, every fact bearing on the disposal of the dead; and correlative customs are needed, and details should be as succinct and full as possible.

One of the most important matters upon which information is needed is the “why” and “wherefore” for every rite and custom; for, as a rule, observers are content to simply state a certain occurrence as a fact, but take very little trouble to inquire the reason for it.

Any material the result of careful observation will be most gratefully received and acknowledged in the final volume; but the writer must here confess the lasting obligation he is under to those who have already contributed, a number so large that limited space precludes a mention of their individual names.

Criticism and comments are earnestly invited from all those interested in the special subject of this paper and anthropology in general. Contributions are also requested from persons acquainted with curious forms of burial prevailing among other tribes of savage men.

The lithographs which illustrate this paper have been made by Thos. Sinclair & Son, of Philadelphia, Pa., after original drawings made by Mr. W. H. Holmes, who has with great kindness superintended their preparation.

[Footnote 5.1: Hist. Ind. Tribes of U.S., 1853, pt. 3, p. 193.]

[Footnote 5.2: Antiq. of Southern Indians, 1873, pp. 108-110.]

[Footnote 5.3: Hist. of Carolina, 1714, p. 181.]

[Footnote 5.4: Hist. Ind. Tribes of U.S., 1855, pt. 5, p. 270.]

[Footnote 5.5: Rep. Smithsonian Institution, 1871, p. 407.]

[Footnote 5.6: Voy. dans l’Arizona, in Bull. Soc. de Géographie,
1877.]

[Footnote 5.7: Nat. Races Pacif. States 1874, vol. 1, p. 555.]

[Footnote 5.8: Cont. to N. A. Ethnol., 1877, vol. iii, p. 133.]

[Footnote 5.9: L’incertitude des Signes de la Mort, 1749, t. 1,
p. 439.]

[Footnote 5.10: Rites of Funeral, Ancient and Modern, 1683,
p. 45.]

[Footnote 5.11: Schoolcraft Hist. Ind. Tribes of the United
States, 1853, Pt. 3, p. 140.]

[Footnote 5.12: U.S. Geol. Surv. of Terr. 1876, p. 473.]

[Footnote 5.13: Life and adventures of Moses Van Campen, 1841,
p. 252.]

[Footnote 5.14: Trans. Amer. Antiq. Soc., 1830, vol i, p. 302.]

[Footnote 5.15: Antiquities of Tennessee. Smith. Inst. Cont. to
Knowledge. No. 259, 1876. Pp. 1, 8, 37, 52, 55, 82.]

[Footnote 5.16: Pop. Sc. Month., Sept., 1877, p. 577.]

[Footnote 5.17: Nat. Races of the Pacific States, 1874, vol. i,
p. 780.]

[Footnote 5.18: A detailed account of this exploration, with many
illustrations, will be found in the Eleventh Annual Report of the
Peabody Museum, Cambridge, 1878.]

[Footnote 5.19: Trans. Amer. Antiq. Soc., 1820, vol. i, p. 174 _et
seq._]

[Footnote 5.20: American Naturalist, 1877, xi, No. 11, p. 688.]

[Footnote 5.21: Proc. Am. Ass. Adv. of Science, 1875, p. 288.]

[Footnote 5.22: Bartram’s Travels, 1791, p. 513.]

[Footnote 5.23: Bartram’s Travels, 1791, p. 515.]

[Footnote 5.24: A Concise Nat. Hist. of East and West Florida,
1775.]

[Footnote 5.25: Mem. Hist. sur la Louisiane, 1753, vol. i, pp.
241-243.]

[Footnote 5.26: Uncivilized Races of the World, 1870, vol i,
p. 464.]

[Footnote 5.27: Rep. Smithsonian Inst., 1867, p. 406.]

[Footnote 5.28: Contrib. to N. A. Ethnol., 1877, vol. 1, p. 62.]

[Footnote 5.29: Hist. of Virginia, 1722, p. 185.]

[Footnote 5.30: Collection of Voyages, 1812, vol. xiii, p. 39.]

[Footnote 5.31: Hist. Ind. Tribes United States, 1854, Part IV,
pp. 155 _et seq._]

[Footnote 5.32: Trans. Amer. Antiq. Soc., 1820, vol. 1, p. 360.]

[Footnote 5.33: Letter to Samuel M. Burnside, in Trans. and Coll.
Amer. Antiq. Soc., 1820, vol. 1, p. 318.]

[Footnote 5.34: A mummy of this kind, of a person of mature age,
discovered in Kentucky, is now in the cabinet of the American
Antiquarian Society. It is a female. Several human bodies were
found enwrapped carefully in skins and cloths. They were inhumed
below the floor of the cave; _inhumed_, and not lodged in
catacombs.]

[Footnote 5.35: Cont. to N. A. Ethnol., 1877, vol. i, p. 89.]

[Footnote 5.36: Billings’ Exped., 1802, p. 161.]

[Footnote 5.37: Pre-historic Races, 1873, p. 199.]

[Footnote 5.38: Rawlinson’s Herodotus, Book i, chap. 198, _note_.]

[Footnote 5.39: Amer. Naturalist, 1876, vol. x, p. 455 et seq.]

[Footnote 5.40: Manners, Customs, &c., of North American Indians,
1844, vol. ii, p. 5.]

[Footnote 5.41: Uncivilized Races of the World, 1870, vol. i,
p. 483.]

[Footnote 5.42: Hist. de l’Amérique Septentrionale, 1753, tome ii,
p. 43.]

[Footnote 5.43: Pioneer Life, 1872.]

[Footnote 5.44: I saw the body of this woman in the tree. It was
undoubtedly an exceptional case. When I came here (Rock Island)
the bluffs on the peninsula between Mississippi and Rock River
(three miles distant) were thickly studded with Indian grave
mounds, showing conclusively that subterranean was the usual mode
of burial. In making roads, streets, and digging foundations,
skulls, bones, trinkets, beads, etc., in great numbers, were
exhumed, proving that many things (according to the wealth or
station of survivors) were deposited in the graves. In 1836 I
witnessed the burial of two chiefs in the manner stated.
--P. GREGG.]

[Footnote 5.45: Tract No. 50, West. Reserve and North. Ohio Hist.
Soc. (1879?), p. 107.]

[Footnote 5.46: Hist. of Ft. Wayne, 1868, p. 284.]

[Footnote 5.47: The Last Act, 1876.]

[Footnote 5.48: Cont. to N. A. Ethnol., 1877, vol. iii, p. 341.]

[Footnote 5.49: Hist. Indian Tribes of the United States, 1854,
part IV, p. 224.]

[Footnote 5.50: Adventures on the Columbia River, 1831, vol. ii,
p. 387.]

[Footnote 5.51: Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1820, vol. i, p. 377.]

[Footnote 5.52: Hist. Indian Tribes of the United States, 1853,
part iii, p. 112.]

[Footnote 5.53: Contrib. to N. A. Ethnol., 1877, vol iii, p. 169.]

[Footnote 5.54: Amer. Naturalist, November, 1878, p. 753.]

[Footnote 5.55: Proc. Dav. Acad. Nat. Sci., 1867-’76, p. 64.]

[Footnote 5.56: Pre-historic Races, 1873, p. 149.]

[Footnote 5.57: Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., Nov. 1874, p. 168.]

[Footnote 5.58: Amer. Naturalist, Sept., 1878, p. 629.]

[Footnote 5.59: Explorations of the Valley of the Great Salt Lake
of Utah, 1852, p. 43.]

[Footnote 5.60: Narrative of a Voyage to the Pacific, 1831,
vol. i, p. 332.]

[Footnote 5.61: Nat. Races of Pac. States, 1871, vol. i, p. 780.]

[Footnote 5.62: Am. Antiq. and Discov., 1838, p. 286.]

[Footnote 5.63: Nat. Races of Pac. States, 1874 vol. i, p. 69.]

[Footnote 5.64: Travels in Alaska, 1869, p. 100.]

[Footnote 5.65: Alaska and its Resources, 1870, pp. 19, 132, 145.]

[Footnote 5.66: Life on the Plains, 1854, p. 68.]

[Footnote 5.67: Tour to the Lakes, 1827, p. 305.]

[Footnote 5.68: Long’s Exped. to the St. Peter’s River, 1824,
p. 332.]

[Footnote 5.69: L’incertitude des signes de la Mort, 1742, tome i,
p. 475, _et seq._]

[Footnote 5.70: The writer is informed by Mr. John Henry Boner
that the custom still prevails not only in Pennsylvania, but at
the Moravian settlement of Salem, N.C.]

[Footnote 5.71: Rep. Smithsonian Inst., 1866, p. 319.]

[Footnote 5.72: Uncivilized Races of the World, 1874, v. ii,
p. 774, _et seq._]

[Footnote 5.73: Hist. of Florida, 1775, p. 88.]

[Footnote 5.74: Antiquities of the Southern Indians, 1873,
p. 105.]

[Footnote 5.75: Bartram’s Travels, 1791, p. 516.]

[Footnote 5.76: “Some ingenious men whom I have conversed with
have given it as their opinion that all those pyramidal artificial
hills, usually called Indian mounds, were raised on this occasion,
and are generally sepulchers. However, I am of different
opinion.”]

[Footnote 5.77: League of the Iroquois, 1851, p. 173.]

[Footnote 5.78: Myths of the New World, 1868, p. 255.]

[Footnote 5.79: Hist. N. A. Indians, 1844, i, p. 90.]

[Footnote 5.80: Northwest Coast, 1857, p. 185.]

[Footnote 5.81: Cont. N. A. Ethnol., 1877, i., p. 200.]

[Footnote 5.82: Uncivilized Races of the World, 1870, vol. i,
p. 483.]

[Footnote 5.83: Exploration Great Salt Lake Valley, Utah, 1859,
p. 48.]

[Footnote 5.84: Hist. North American Indians, 1844, vol. ii,
p. 141.]

[Footnote 5.85: Mœurs des Sauvages, 1724, tome ii, p. 406.]

[Footnote 5.86: Autobiography of James Beckwourth, 1856, p. 269.]

[Footnote 5.87: Tour to the Lakes, 1827, p. 292.]

[Footnote 5.88: Nat. Races of Pacific States, 1874, vol. i,
pp. 731, 744.]

[Footnote 5.89: Life Among the Choctaws, 1860, p. 294.]

[Footnote 5.90: Bossu’s Travels (Forster’s translation), 1771,
p. 38.]

[Footnote 5.91: At the hour intended for the ceremony, they made
the victims swallow little balls or pills of tobacco, in order to
make them giddy, and as it were to take the sensation of pain from
them; after that they were all strangled and put upon mats, the
favorite on the right, the other wife on the left, and the others
according to their rank.]

[Footnote 5.92: The established distinctions among these Indians
were as follows: The Suns, relatives of the Great Sun, held the
highest rank; next come the Nobles; after them the Honorables; and
last of all the common people, who were very much despised. As the
nobility was propagated by the women, this contributed much to
multiply it.]

[Footnote 5.93: The Great Sun had given orders to put out all the
fires, which is only done at the death of the sovereign.]

[Footnote 5.94: Ten Years in Oregon, 1850, p. 261.]

[Footnote 5.95: Nat. Races of Pacif. States, 1875, vol iii,
p. 513.]

[Footnote 5.96: Pilgrimage, 1828, vol. ii, p. 443.]

[Footnote 5.97: Canadian Red River Exploring Expedition, 1860, ii,
p. 164.]

[Footnote 5.98: League of the Iroquois, 1851, p. 287.]

[Footnote 5.99: Cont. to North American Ethnol., 1878, iii,
p. 164.]

[Footnote 5.100: Am. Antiq., April, May, June, 1879, p. 251.]

[Footnote 5.101: Pilgrimage, 1828, ii, p. 308.]

[Footnote 5.102: Hist. Indian Tribes of the United States, 1851,
part i, p. 356.]

[Footnote 5.103: Cont. to N. A. Ethnol., 1877, vol. ii., p. 58.]

[Footnote 5.104: Ethnol. and Philol. of the Hidatsa Indians. U.S.
Geol. Surv. of Terr., 1877, p. 409.]

[Footnote 5.105: Long’s Exped., 1824, vol. ii, p. 158.]

[Footnote 5.106: Northwest Coast, 1857, p. 212.]

[Footnote 5.107: Nat. Races Pacif. States, 1875, vol. iii,
p. 512.]

* * * * *
* * * *

_Errors and Inconsistencies: Mortuary Customs_

[List of Illustrations]
1.--Quiogozon or dead house [Quiogozeon]

two small arroyas
[_spelling “arroya” consistent throughout the quoted passage_]
chanting the following chorous:
[_spelling in quoted passage unchanged_]
the Colchians enveloped their dead [Colchiens]
these are considered apochryphal [_spelling unchanged_]
Horace and Tertullian both affirm [Tertulian]
cum grana salis [_error unchanged: correct form is “grano”_]
the same _Dodem_ [_sic_] (family mark) of her husband.
[_bracketed “sic” in original_]
Fröebel states that among the Woolwas
[_spelling unchanged: apparent error for “Froebel” (two letters)
or “Fröbel” (o-umlaut alone)_]
tear myself from you (_sic_) arms
[_error unchanged; parenthetical “sic” in original_]

[Footnote 5.54]
Amer. Naturalist, November, 1878, p. 753. [1878.]

* * * * *
* * * *
* * * * *

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.

[Transcriber’s Note (Picture-Writing):

In Plate numbers and glyph references, “a” and “b” were printed
as superscripts. The notation has been omitted to reduce visual
clutter. For the same reason, italic marking of the word “See” in
Plates has been left off.

For this e-text, a few mechanical changes were made to the
large diagrams (called Plates) on pages 214-220. Parenthetical
notations such as (right-hand side) are in the original; bracketed
and italicized notations such as [_left half_] were added by the
transcriber.

--Plate LII was printed as a single table, with each long line of
the original shown as a pair of lines bracketed together. It has
been separated into left and right halves.
--Plates LIII and LIV were printed horizontally; each has been split
in two.
--Plates XXIV and LVI were each printed in two halves, left and
right. They have been redivided into three segments. In Plate
XXIV, the section headed “In the middle of the plate at the top”
was printed in the empty part of the “left-hand” page; the top
two rows are continuous across all segments.

The forms /----\ and \----/ represent horizontal braces.]

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
Cukulcan 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 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 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 IIIa 135
Portrait, Plate IIIb 136
Stone Idol, Plate IV 138
Portrait, Plate IVa 139
Stone Idol, Plate V 140
Tablet of Hieroglyphics, Plate Va 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 XXa 157
Circular Altar, Plate XXb 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 XXIIIa 266
Profile of Nicaragua Canal, Plate XXIIIb 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 = Va 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 Va, 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).

/------------\
{ 37 37 38 39
{See 1800 See 1800 See 1806
{
{ 40 40 41 42

43=1810 43a=46a 44 45

46=1810 46a=43a 47 48

49 50 51

52 52a=1820? 53 54

55 56=1840? 57 58
See 1802

59 60 61 62=58?

63 64 65† 66
See 2025

67 68 69 70
See 1911

71 72=281 73 74
See 2020

75 76=67 77 78

79 80 81 82

83 84 85 86=56?

86* 86* 87 88

89 90 91 92

93

[* Accidental error in numbering here.]

[† Possibly Muluc--a Maya day; the meaning is “reunion.”]

PLATE XXIV. [_center_]

94 96 98 100 102 104 106

95 97 99=127 101 103 105 107

108
See 91

In the middle of the
plate at the top.

/-----------\
109 115

110 116
See 2020

111 117

112 118

113 119

114 120

PLATE XXIV (right-hand side).

/------------------------\
121 122=86?† 123=87 124=88
See 74, 86* See 61, 1822

125 126‡ 127=99 128
See 1940 See 1940 See (44), 64

129 130 131=147 132
See 50, 58, 62

133 134 135 136=47?

137 138 139 140
See 39, 91 See 1811

141 142§ 143 144
See 54 See 50, 58, 62, 132

145 146 147=131 148
See 71

149 150 151 152
See 56, 1882

153 154 155 156
See 53 See 50, 58, 132

157* 158 159 160
See 68 See 38 See 46a, 49a, 52a

/------------------------------------\
161=50 162 †163=1936 164
See 58, 62, 132 See 56, 73, 1882 See 57 See 58, 62

165 166 167 168
See 81?

169 170 171 172
See 68?

173 174 175 176
See 67, 76, 90, 1910 See 57 See 126

177 178 179 180
See 43a See 50, 58, 62

181 182 183 184
See 57, 163, 1936

185

[* Possibly Ymix--a Maya day.]

[† Possibly Chuen--a Maya day; meaning “a board,” “a tree.”]

[‡ Possibly Ahau--a Maya day; meaning “king.”]

[§ Possibly Ezanab--a Maya day.]

PLATE LII. [_left half_]

200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209

220 221 222 223 224=2060 225 226 227 228 229
See 2030 See 2060 See
1811-2

240 241 242=2020 243=1951 244 245 246 247 248 249

/-------------------\
260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269
See See See 2022
2020 2021

280 281=72 282 283 284 285 286 287 288
See 1820 See 385

300 301 302 303=360 304 305 306 307
See 203

/--------------\
320 321 322 323 324=1824 325 326 327 328 329
See See See See
203 204 285 305

340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349
See 209 See 322

360=303 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369
See 351 See
303, 360

380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389
See
286, 1822

400 401 402 403=360 404 405 406 407 408 409
See 326 367 See 360

420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427
See 324

[_right half of Plate LII_]
[_The 213 column is vacant._]

210 211 212 214 215 216 217 218 219
See 2020

230 231 232 234 235 236 237 238 239
See 1822

250 251 252 254 255 256 257 258 259=1943
See 214

270 271 274=244 275 276 277 278 279
See 204

290 294 295 296 297 298 299

310 311 314 315 316 317 318 319

330 331 332 334 335 336 337 338 339
See 209

350 351 352 354 355 356=1822 357 358 359
See See 230
267, 298

370 371 375 376 377 378 379

390 391 392 394 395 396 397 398 399

410 411 412 414 415 416 417 418 419
See 326 See 324

430 432 434 435 436 437 438 439

PLATE LIII.

[Transcriber’s Note:
The following bracketed paragraph is in the original.]

[The upper left-hand square is No. 500, the upper right is 519, the lower left-hand is 720, the lower right is 739. All the squares from 500 to 508, 520 to 528, 530 to 538, etc., up to 720 to 728, are obliterated (and their numbers omitted here) except a few.]

[_left half_]

509 510 511 512
See 1967

529 530 531 532
See 3012

549 550 551 552

570 571 572

589 590 591 592

604 605 609 610 611 612
See 571

628 629 630 631 632

649 650 651 652

669 670 671=324 672=322?
See 2042

688 689 690 691 692

708 709 710 711 712

729 730=1845 731 732

[_right half of Plate LIII_]

513 514 515 516 517 518 519
See 509 See 510

533 534 535 536 537 538 539

553 554 555 556 557 558 559
See 162

573 574 575 576 577 578 579
See 1823

593 594 595 596 597 598 599

613 614 615 616 617 618 619

633 634 635 636 637 638 639
See 3054

653 654 655 656 657 658 659
See
150, 1882

673=323? 674 675 676 677 678 679
See 77 See 1802

693 694 695 696 697 698 699

713=1802 714 715 716 717 718 719
See 439

733 734 735 736 737 738 739
See 2020

PLATE LIV. [_left half_]

800 801 802 803 804 805 806

900 901 902 903 904 905 906

1000 1001 1002 1003=907 1004 1005 1006

/-----------------\
1100 1101 1102=717 1103 1104 1105=2020 1106
See 1820 See 2021

1200 1201 1202=1110 1203 1204=1008 1205 1206
See 3054

1300 1301 1302 1303=1910 1304 1305 1306

1400=1823 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406

1500 1501 1502=1010 1503 1504=717 1505 1506
1102

1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606

1700 1701 1702=1911 1703 1704 1705 1706

[_right half of Plate LIV_]

/-------------\
807 808 809 810 811 812 813
See 1882 See 26 See See
1940 1941, 3011

907=1003 908 909 910 911 912 913
See 2020 See 1310

1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013
See 2021 See 3054 See
1811-2

1107 1108 1109 1110=1209 1113 1114 1115
See 1840 See 1841?

1207 1208 1209=1110 1210 1211 1212 1213

1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313
See 910

1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413

1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513

/----------------------\
1607 1608 1609=1304 1610=1305 1611=1010 1612 1613

1707 1708 1709 1710 1711=1702 1712=1708 1713
1911

PLATE LVI (left-hand side--Palenque Cross).

{ 1801 1802 1803 1804
{ See
{ 163, 175
1800 {
{ 1805 1806 1807 1808
{ See 155 See 138
{

/------------------------\
*1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816
See 150 See See See See 126,
139, 179 (1852) 131, 146 127, 176

1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826
See 161 See 124 See
122, 160

1830=1820 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836
See 161 See See 121 See 163 See 182 See 123
123, 124

1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845=1822 1846
See See See 124 See 179
1835 124, 1836

1850 1851 1852 1853 1854=1806 1855
See 122

1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865=2021 1866
See See 144 See
126, 127 136?, 184?

1870=1820 1871 1872=1842? 1873=1803 1874 1875 1876
See See 182
160, 161

1880 1881 1882 1883 1884=1834 1885
See See 124 See See
150, 162 163, 182 132, 144

1890 1891 1892 1893 1894=1822 1895
See See See 132? See 124 See 144
130, 158 131?, 147?

1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905=1803
See 146 See
157, 182

1910 1911 1912 1913=1834 1914 1915
See 174 See 174 See 141 1884

/---------------\
1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925
See 123 See 124

1930 1931 1932=1811-2? 1933 1934 1935=1884
See 182

/---------------------\
1940=1862 1941 1942 1943 1944=1922 1945=1923
See See 123 See 124
126, 127

1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955
See 164

[* At and after this place, in vertical columns, 1810-1-2, 1820-1-2,
1830-1-2, 1840-1-2, and 1860-1-2 may be taken as 2 or 3 symbols.
I have assumed them to be 3.]

[_center of Plate LVI_]

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1980 1981 1982

1966 1983

1967 1984
See
131, 147

1968

1969

1970

[_empty rows omitted from e-text_]

{ 1976 1978
{
{ 1977 1979

1971
See 1802

1972

1973

1975 1974

PLATE LVI (right-hand side--Palenque Cross).

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025=123
See 131, See 144 See 163
147, 150

2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
See 132 See 134, See See 124

146, 149 1811, 1812

/---------------\
2040 2041 2042 2043=123 2044 2045
See See
131, 147 132, 150

2000 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055

2001 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065
See 182

2002=122 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075

2003=2021 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085
See 130

2004 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095

2005 3000 3001 3002 3003 3004 3005

2006 3010 3011 3012 3013 3014 3015
See 1902,
1903

2007 3020 3021 3022 3023 3024 3025
See 182?

2008 3030 3031 3032 3033 3034 3035

2009 3040 3041 3042 3043 3044 3045

2010 3050 3051 3052 3053 3054 3055
See 184

2011 3060 3061 3062 3063 3064 3065
See 131,
2020

2012 3070 3071 3072 3073 3074 3075

2013 3080 3081 3082 3083 3084 3085

2014

[* These four each side of the main stem of the cross. 1976 =
_Ezanab_--a Maya day.]

IV.

IN WHAT ORDER ARE THE HIEROGLYPHS READ?

Before any advance can be made in the deciphering of the hieroglyphic inscriptions, it is necessary to know in what directions, along what lines or columns, the verbal sense proceeds.

All the inscriptions that I know of are in rectangular figures. At Copan they are usually in squares. At Palenque the longest inscriptions are in rectangles. At Palenque again, there are some cases where there is a single horizontal line of hieroglyphs over a pictorial tablet. Here clearly the only question is, do the characters proceed from left to right, or from right to left? In other cases as in the tablet of the cross, there are vertical columns. The question here is, shall we read up or down?

Now, the hieroglyphs must be phonetic or pictorial, or a mixture of the two. If they are phonetic, it will take more than one symbol to make a word, and we shall have groups of like characters when the same word is written in two places. If the signs are pictorial, the same thing will follow; that is, we shall have groups recurring when the same idea recurs. Further, we know that the subjects treated of in these tablets must be comparatively simple, and that _names_, as of gods, kings, etc., must necessarily recur.

The _names_, then, will be the first words deciphered. At present no single name is known. These considerations, together with our system of nomenclature, will enable us to take some steps.

Take, for example, the right-hand side of the Palenque cross tablet as given by RAU. _See_ our figure 48, which is Plate LVI of STEPHENS (vol. ii, p. 345), with the addition of the part now in the National Museum at Washington.

Our system of numbering is here

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
3080 3081 3082 3083 3084 3085

Now pick out the duplicate hieroglyphs in this; that is, run through the tablet, and wherever 2020 occurs erase the number which fills the place and write in 2020. Do the same for 2021, 2022, etc., down to 3084. The result will be as follows:

RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF PALENQUE CROSS TABLET (RAU).

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
\---------------/ \-----------/

2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
\---------------/

2040 2041 2042 { 2025 2020 2021
{ \---------------/
{
2050 2051 2034 { 2053 2054 2055
\---------------/

2053 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065

2070 2071 2020 2021 2022? 2024? }
\---------------/ } ?
}
2053 2020 2082 2083 2025 2053 }

2021 2091 2092 { 2025 2094 2095
{
3000 2023 2034 { 2053 2033 3005
\---------------/
\---------------/

3010 2083 3012 2024 3014 2091

2053 3021 2023 2020 3024 2024

{ 2024 2025 2021 3033 { 2025 2034*
{\---------------/ { \------
? { {
{ 2053* 3021 3042 3043 { 2035 3045
{-------/

3050 2083 { 2025 2034 3054 3055
See 2082 {
\---------------/ {
{
2024 2020 { 2035 3063 2024 2025
\--------------/

2021 2031 2020 2021 2035 3045
\---------------/

3080 3081 2091 2093 2020 2021
\---------------/

14 cases of horizontal pairs; 4 cases of vertical pairs; 102
characters in all, of which 51 appear more than once, so that
there are but 51 independent hieroglyphs.

Here the first two lines are unchanged. In the third line we find that 2043 is the same as 2025, 2044 = 2020, 2045 = 2021, and so on, and we write the smallest number in each case.

After this is done, connect like pairs by braces whenever they are consecutive, either vertical or horizontal. Take the pair 2020 and 2021 for example; 2020 occurs eight times in the tablet, viz, as 2020, 2044, 2072, 2081, 3023, 3061, 3072, 3084. In five out of the eight cases, it is followed by 2021, viz, as 2021, 2045, 2073, 3073, 3085.

It is clear this is not the result of accident. The pair 2020 and 2021 means something, and when the two characters occur together they must be read together. There is no point of punctuation between them. We also learn that they are not inseparable. 2020 will make sense with 2082, 3024 and 3062. Here it looks as if the writing must be read in _lines_ horizontally. We do not know yet in which direction.

We must examine other cases. This is to be noticed: If the reading is in horizontal lines from left to right, then the progress is from top to bottom in columns, as the case of 3035 and 3040 shows. This occurs at the end of a line, and the corresponding _chiffre_ required to make the pair is at the other end of the next line. I have marked this case with asterisks. If we must read in the lines from right to left we must necessarily read in columns from bottom to top. Thus the _lines_ are connected.

A similar process with all the other tablets in STEPHENS leads to the conclusion that the reading is in lines horizontally and in columns vertically. The cases 1835-’45, 1885-’95, 1914-’24, and 1936-’46 should, however, be examined. We have now to decide at which end of the lines to begin. The reasons given by Mr. BANCROFT (_Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 782) appeared to me sufficient to decide the question before I was acquainted with his statement of them.

Therefore, the sum total of our present data, examined by a rational method, leads to the conclusion, so far as we can know from these data, that the verbal sense proceeded in _lines_ from left to right, in _columns_ from top to bottom; just as the present page is written, in fact.

For the present, the introduction of the method here indicated is the important step. It has, as yet, been applied only to the plates of STEPHENS’ work. The definite conclusion should be made to rest on _all possible_ data, some of which is not at my disposition at present. Tablets exist in great numbers at other points besides Palenque, and for the final conclusion these must also be consulted. If each one is examined in the way I have indicated, it will yield a certain answer. The direction of reading for that plate can be thus determined. At Palenque the progress is in the order I have indicated.

V.

THE CARD-CATALOGUE OF HIEROGLYPHS.

It has already been explained how a system of nomenclature was gradually formed. As I have said, this is not perfect, but it is sufficiently simple and full for the purpose. By it, every plate in STEPHENS’ work receives a number and every hieroglyph in each plate is likewise numbered.

This was first done in my private copy of the work. I then procured another copy and duplicated these numbers both for plates and single _chiffres_. The plates of this copy were then cut up into single hieroglyphs and each single hieroglyph was mounted on a library card, as follows:

___________________________________________
| | | |
| No. 2020. | Hieroglyph. | Plate LVI. |
| |_______________| |
|__________________________________________|
| Same as Numbers. | Similar to Numbers. |
| ................ | ................... |
| ................ | ................... |
| ................ | ................... |
| ................ | ................... |
| ................ | ................... |
|__________________________________________|

The cards were 6.5 by 4.5 inches. The _chiffre_ was pasted on, in the center of the top space. Its number and the plate from which it came were placed as in the cut. The numbers of hieroglyphs which resembled the one in question could be written on the right half of the card, and the numbers corresponding to different recurrences of this hieroglyph occupied the left half.

All this part of the work was most faithfully and intelligently performed for me by Miss MARY LOCKWOOD, to whom I desire to express the full amount of my obligations. A mistake in any part would have been fatal. But no mistakes occurred.

These cards could now be arranged in any way I saw fit. The simple _chiffres_, for example, could be placed so as to bring like ones together. A compound hieroglyph could be placed among simple ones agreeing with any one of its components, and so on.

The expense of forming this card catalogue of about 1,500 single hieroglyphs was borne by the Ethnological Bureau of the Smithsonian Institution, and the catalogue is the property of that bureau, forming only one of its many rich collections of American picture-writings.

VI.

COMPARISON OF PLATES I AND IV (COPAN).

In examining the various statues at Copan, as given by STEPHENS, one naturally looks for points of striking resemblance or striking difference. Where all is unknown, even the smallest sign is examined, in the hope that it may prove a clue. The Plate I, Fig. 49, has a twisted knot (the “square knot” of sailors) of cords over its head, and above this is a _chiffre_ composed of ellipses, and above this again a sign like a sea-shell. A natural suggestion was that these might be the signs for the name of the personage depicted in Plate I. If this is so and we should find the same sign elsewhere in connection with a figure, we should expect to find this second figure like the first in every particular. This would be a rigid test of the theory. After looking through the Palenque series, and finding no similar figure and sign, I examined the Copan series, and in Plate IV, our Fig. 50, I found the same signs exactly; _i.e._, the knot and the two _chiffres_.

At first sight there is only the most general resemblance between the personages represented in the two plates; as STEPHENS says in his original account of them, they are “in many respects similar.” If he had known them to be the same, he would not have wasted his time in drawing them. The scale of the two drawings and of the two statues is different; but the two personages are the same identically. Figure for figure, ornament for ornament, they correspond. It is unnecessary to give the minute comparison here in words. It can be made by any one from the two plates herewith. Take any part of Plate I, find the corresponding part of Plate IV, and whether it is human feature or sculptured ornament the two will be found to be the same.