FOOTNOTES:

[13] It might be worth while here to note that Stephens declared he found at Copan the remains of two circular towers with stairs.

[CHAPTER XVIII]
HIEROGLYPHICS AND PAINTINGS

Throughout that part of Central America which from time immemorial has been inhabited by the Mayans, in their ruined cities, on the stelae, on the door-posts, on the wooden and stone lintels, on altar-slabs, and on special tablets are hieroglyphics. Wherever the Mayan Linguistic Stock is found, in Yucatan, in Guatemala, in Chiapas, in Tabasco, and in Honduras we find them, the only exception being among the Huastecas, the Mayan tribe living on the Panuco River, Mexico. Considering the extent of the Mayan ruins, these hieroglyphics are few in number; but the Spanish vandals are known to have burnt countless manuscripts written on bark[14] and leaf. And thus, if the carved inscriptions are sparse, there is good ground for believing that the art of writing was practised for some centuries before the Conquest. Four manuscripts only survive, and these we describe later. The hieroglyphics, whether carved or written, and no matter what their position or what the material upon which they are inscribed, are invariably of the same nature, though it is noticeable that those on some monuments are finer cut, more intricate, and display a higher art than others.

In Mexico writing never reached such a high degree of perfection as in Yucatan and the other southern territories of the Mayan tribes. Thus it would seem that at the time of the Aztec invasion the Mayans of the Mexican plateau were only acquainted with the merest outline of the art which their kinsmen of the south had so far perfected. This is entirely consonant with the theories we have earlier advanced as to the comparatively crude stage of civilisation to which the Mexican Mayans, the Toltecs of the Aztec traditions, had attained at the coming of the warlike northern tribes. In most cases the Mexican writings are pictographic rather than hieroglyphic, though Mayan glyphs do occur. The best collection of these pictographs is that made by Alexander von Humboldt and presented by him to the Royal Library of Berlin in January, 1806. Some of these are described in his Vues des Cordillères et Monuments des Peuples indigènes de l'Amérique; while others are reproduced in Lord Kingsborough's Antiquities of Mexico. Up to the present all efforts to find an undeniable "key" to the decipherment of the Mayan hieroglyphics have failed. The most resolute and intelligent work has been done by Americans and Germans. Among the former the most famous are Professor Cyrus W. Thomas, T. Goodman, S. Holden, and in past years the late Dr. D. G. Brinton. Among the latter those most prominent are Professors E. Forstemann, Eduard Seler, and Paul Schellhas. France has been represented by Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg, Professor Leon de Rosny, Count de Charencey, and M. A. Pousse; while England, alas! has been practically unrepresented in this important work, for Mr. A. P. Maudslay, the only British student in this field, has chiefly devoted himself to photographing rather than attempting to decipher the glyphs.

Much might reasonably have been expected from the labours of all these scholars, but practically nothing has resulted but a series of theories, over the exact value and application of which there is endless bickering. Attempts have been made from time to time to compose an alphabet by which the glyphs could be read phonetically. The first great stir in this direction was made by Abbé de Bourbourg in 1864, when he announced that he had discovered a year before in Madrid a manuscript entitled, Relación de las Cosas de Yucatan, by Diego de Landa, Bishop of Merida from 1573 to 1579. In this manuscript was included an alphabet of the Mayan glyphs with their equivalents in Spanish. For the moment this "find" was regarded as a Central American "Rosetta Stone," and every one believed the glyphs would offer no further difficulties. But the archæological world was doomed to disappointment, for on an attempt being made to use the alphabet, it broke down and was declared by all to be an invention of Landa. But the Abbé did not give it up; and, assisted by Leon de Rosny, he defined twenty-nine letters with numerous variants, and published his report in 1869 in the introduction to the Codex Troano; while the result of de Rosny's labours were printed in his Essai sur le Déchiffrement de l'Écriture hiératique de l'Amérique Centrale in 1876.

The next "alphabet" was that propounded in The Scientific American for January, 1885, by Dr. Le Plongeon, who, in an article entitled "Ancient Maya Hieratic Alphabet according to Mural Inscription," declared it to contain twenty-three letters with the usual numerous variants. But this, like Landa's, was strangled almost at its birth by remorseless scholars. Next came forward Dr. Hilborne T. Cresson, who at meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1892 and 1894, advanced the theory that the characters were purely phonetic; but his untimely death cut short his researches. Professor Cyrus W. Thomas, in a paper in The American Anthropologist for July, 1893, entitled "Are the Maya Hieroglyphics Phonetic?" rather follows Cresson, but in recent years has reconsidered this view and now would seem to hold that some, at least, are ideographs.

Thus there may be said to be the two schools of decipherers: those who believe the Mayan writing to be phonetic and those who hold it to be ideographic. For the latter stand the German school (Forstemann, Seler and Schellhas); for the former the Abbé, de Rosny and de Charencey. The American students have been for the most part willing to follow the lead of Cyrus Thomas and declare it to be a mixture of phonetics and ideographs. After years of careful study of the glyphs Professor Forstemann has come to the general conclusion that they are largely composed of numerals made up of astronomical ideographs. He was the first to discover what are now generally accepted as the various numeral signs. His first achievement was his alleged identification of one of the glyphs with our nought in April, 1885. From this start he went slowly up the numeral scale until he asserted he had deciphered the signs for the numbers up to twenty. These are now generally accepted as correct and are composed as shown on opposite page. Thus it would seem, if Professor Forstemann is right, that the highest number to which they counted by means of these dots and dashes was 19. No greater number than this has ever been found in any of the codices or on the monuments. Assuming this as true, it is obvious that the number 20 must be looked for in a new form.

Professor Forstemann's idea is that the 20 glyph changed according to its meaning and surroundings. In some cases it was represented

; while in others

or its variant

. He holds that 20 was the highest number in use among the Mayans. This he tries to show was natural enough, for, writing in The Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 28, p. 499, he says: "Nature suggested this ... because these they could count on their fingers and toes, in four divisions of five each." From the early historians we learn that the Mayan month consisted of twenty days (kin), which was known as one chuen (month). Any number over twenty was thus known as one chuen so many kin, or one month so many days. The Mayan year was composed of eighteen months, forming a period of 360 days known as an ahau. The month-names were (1) Pop, (2) Uo, (3) Zip, (4) Zes, (5) Zeec, (6) Xul, (7) Zo-yaxkin, (8) Mol, (9) Chen, (10) Yaax, (11) Zac, (12) Ceh, (13) Mac, (14) Kankin, (15) Moan, (16) Pax, (17) Kayab, (18) Cunku. The numbering of the years, too, was never carried beyond twenty, when it became known as a katun.[15] Thus the following table of time has been worked out:

20 kin (days) = 1 chuen (month).
18 chuen.. = 1 ahau (year) 360 days.
20 ahaus.. = 1 katun (20 years or 7,200 days)
20 katuns.. = 1 cycle (400 years or 144,000 days)
13 cycles.. = 1 great cycle (5,200 years or 1,872,000
days).
73 great cycles = 1 era.

20kin (days)=1chuen (month).
18chuen..=1ahau (year) 360 days.
20ahaus..=1katun (20 years or 7,200 days)
20katuns..=1cycle (400 years or 144,000 days)
13cycles..=1great cycle (5,200 years or 1,872,000
days).
73great cycles=1era.

It will be noticed that the Mayan year fell short of the Solar Year by five days five hours 48 minutes 49·7 seconds. This was made up by adding five days to the completion of each year, and these are known as "intercalary" days, thus making a year of 365 days, which the Mayans called haar. But although the Mayans knew how to count up to twenty, they did not always use this as a time-count. The year was divided up into weeks of 13 days, which were arranged irrespective of the twenty day-names, which were as follows: (1) Kan, (2) Chicchan, (3) Cimi, (4) Manik, (5) Lamat, (6) Muluc, (7) Oc, (8) Chuen, (9) Eb, (10) Ben, (11) Ix, (12) Min, (13) Cib, (14) Caban, (15) Ezenab, (16) Cauac, (17) Ahau, (18) Imix, (19) Ik, (20) Akbal. Thus it would seem that if the week began with Kan, it would finish with the 13th day Cib, and a new week would start with the 14th month-day Caban as the first day. This cutting up of the year, irrespective of the months, into "weeks" of thirteen days involved further difficulties at the end of the year. At the end of an ahau (360 days) there would have been twenty-seven of these 13-day weeks with an odd nine days. Again, after the "interlacery" days had been added and the solar year was complete, there would be twenty-eight 13-day weeks and one odd day.

To further complicate matters these Mayan time-counts disclose yet another week of five days; but this works in with the 20-day months, the ahau (360 days), and the solar year accurately, so that it is easier to understand. From these generally accepted statements we draw up the following table, showing the days and months as they would appear to make up the solar year.

Names
of
Months.		Pop.Uo.Zip.Zes.Zeec.Xul.Yaxkin.Mol.Chen.Yax.Zac.Ceh.Mac.Kankin.Moan.Pax.Kayab.Cunku.Number
of
Days.
Number of Months.123456789101112131415161718
Names of
Days.
Kan1 8 2 9 3 10 4 11 5 12 6 13 7 1 8 2 9 3 1
Chicchan2 9 3 10 4 11 5 12 6 13 7 1 8 2 9 3 10 4 2
Cimi3 10 4 11 5 12 6 13 7 1 8 2 9 3 10 4 11 5 3
Manik4 11 5 12 6 13 7 1 8 2 9 3 10 4 11 5 12 6 4
Lamat5 12 6 13 7 1 8 2 9 3 10 4 11 5 12 6 13 7 5
Muluc6 13 7 1 8 2 9 3 10 4 11 5 12 6 13 7 1 8 6
Oc..7 1 8 2 9 3 10 4 11 5 12 6 13 7 1 8 2 9 7
Chuen8 2 9 3 10 4 11 5 12 6 13 7 1 8 2 9 3 10 8
Eb..9 3 10 4 11 5 12 6 13 7 1 8 2 9 3 10 4 11 9
Ben10 4 11 5 12 6 13 7 1 8 2 9 3 10 4 11 5 12 10
Ix..11 5 12 6 13 7 1 8 2 9 3 10 4 11 5 12 6 13 11
Men12 6 13 7 1 8 2 9 3 10 4 11 5 12 6 13 7 1 12
Cib..13 7 1 8 2 9 3 10 4 11 5 12 6 13 7 1 8 2 13
Caban1 8 2 9 3 10 4 11 5 12 6 13 7 1 8 2 9 3 14
Ezenab2 9 3 10 4 11 5 12 6 13 7 1 8 2 9 3 10 4 15
Cauac3 10 4 11 5 12 6 13 7 1 8 2 9 3 10 4 11 5 16
Ahau4 11 5 12 6 13 7 1 8 2 9 3 10 4 11 5 12 6 17
Ymix5 12 6 13 7 1 8 2 9 3 10 4 11 5 12 6 13 7 18
Ik..6 13 7 1 8 2 9 3 10 4 11 5 12 6 13 7 1 8 19
Akbal7 1 8 2 9 3 10 4 11 5 12 6 13 7 1 8 2 9 20
Intercalated
Days to
complete
the year
of 365 days		Kan....
Chicchan..
Cimi....
Manik....
Lamat....		10
11
12
13
1 		1
2
3
4
5

We have followed the generally accepted view and begun the year with the day Kan, though some students follow Mr. J. T. Goodman in his belief that Ik represents the first day. Whoever is right, it is certain that the year can begin with its first day-name only once every four years. If a year begins with Kan, it must, as shown in our table, inevitably finish with the day Lamat. Thus the following day, the first in the New Year, would be Muluc. In the same way the second year will finish with Ben and the third year will commence with Ix. This will finish with Ezenab and the new one would commence with Cauac and finish with Akbal, when Kan would again begin the year. In Goodman's theory these days would change. The beginning days would be Ik, Manik, Eb, and Caban; while the last days of the year would be respectively Cimi, Chuen, Cib, and Imix.

One of the things that the Mexicans seem to have adopted from the Mayans was the twenty-day period. The double meaning of the days of the two countries often is seen in the Zapotec country, where it would seem the knowledge of the Maya Calendar had not entirely died out through the invasion of the Aztec, "unless," says Dr. Seler, "we ought to accept the theory that the Zapotecs or their kindred were those among whom the calendar was invented, and by whom the knowledge of it was originally communicated to both the Mexicans and the Mayas" (Bureau of American Ethnology Report, Bulletin 28, p. 274).

Day Signs

Kan. D. G. Brinton says this was the word in Maya to denote polished stone, shell pendant, or bead. It was their medium for bartering. Seler says it represents an eye, Brasseur de Bourbourg a tooth, and Schellhas a grain of Indian corn.

Chicchan. Brinton thinks this day was called after the Maya chich kuck, "twisted thread," whilst Brasseur thought it to represent a woven petticoat and Seler a "serpent's skin."

Cimi. Supposed to have its root in cimil, "closed in death."

Manik. "A hand in the act of grasping," now spoken of in Maya as mach.

Lamat. Generally supposed to have had its origin in lamal kin, "sun-setting."

Muluc. Having same root as month Mol, probably molay ik, "the winds united."

Oc. Brinton says it means "footprints," but Brasseur says the Maya word oc means "dog."

Chuen. Brinton says it was derived from chi, "with fangs," or chu, a calabash. Brasseur and Seler say it is a monkey, Schellhas "a snake." We would say this came from chi, "mouth," and is to represent a snake's mouth.

Eb. In Maya means "ladder," but the glyph is supposed to represent "an old man."

Ben. Brinton suggests the lines across the glyph to represent a "wooden bridge," Maya be che, Seler a mat or straw roof, and Brasseur "a path," be.

Ix. Seler has seen in this the "spotted skin of a jaguar," while Brinton derives it from xiix, "scattered grain-husks."

Men.

Cib.

Caban. Said by Brinton to mean the "cork-screw curl" of women.

Ezenab. Probably represents the flint sacrificial knife known by the same name.

Canac. Seler thinks this the sign of the Moan bird.

Ahau. Supposed to be the "conventional drawing of the full face."

Imix.

Ik. Meaning air, breath, soul, or life.

Akbal. It is suggested that this has a near resemblance to akab, meaning in Maya, "night."

Month Signs

Pep. Brinton says means "mat."

No. Suggested as meaning a "prickly pear" or frog.

Zip.

Zodz. Brinton says means "bat," and Seler has later connected it with Maya "Bat God."

Tec or Tzec.

Xul.

Yaxkin. In Maya means "new moon or high sun."

Mol. Probably derived the same as day name Muluc.

Chen. Means "spring or well."

Yax. Known as the "feather sign."

Zac. Meaning "white."

Ceh. Meaning in Maya, "deer."

Mac. The first character is supposed to represent the lid of a jar known as mac among the Mayas. The second character is much like the day sign Kan, with a "comb"-shaped design underneath.

Kan kin. This month name is supposed to mean "the yellow sun." The first is thought to show the sun sign Kin, while the second sign has been suggested as a breast-bone, a shield, or a dog.

Moan. This is thought to have been named after the crested falcon known to the Mayas as the Moan bird.

Pax. Probably from the Maya word pax-che, meaning "drum," which seems to form the first elements of this glyph.

Kay ab. According to Landa's alphabet these were the signs for a or ak, but Schellhas thinks they are meant for the turtle.

Cum ku. Forstemann's explanation of this glyph is that it represents "two flashes of lightning or the sun's rays striking on a maize field," but we see nothing for this suggestion.

Knowing then that the Mayan year consisted of eighteen 20-day months, the glyphs to represent these days and months have been looked for, and it is believed they have been found. On the opposite page these glyphs are illustrated, namely, the day and month signs. Further, the signs representing the other time-counts have been looked for and declared recognised. The first, the year or ahau sign, is supposed to be represented in a variety of forms, three of which are given on the opposite page. It is thought to be the same with the katun or 20-year sign, and the cycle (20 katuns) and great cycle (13 cycles) signs, three of each of which we give on the opposite page. The first three of this group, namely, the great-cycle signs, if they have been correctly read, would seem to denote an extraordinary date. According to Goodman's chronological table, he would have us believe that at Copan, where these glyphs always head a series of characters on a tablet, they belong to the 53rd, 54th, and 55th great cycles. From these dates various subtractions are made into which we have no space to go in detail. In any case, according to the present mode of reckoning, the glyphs at Copan and Quirigua bear the highest numbers in the chronological calendar, and thus those cities must be assumed to be the latest built, a proposition which, as we pointed out in Chapter XVII., is untenable.

But whether or not this calendar system is really accurate (there are a great many serious discrepancies) has yet to be proved. In the museums of America and Germany scholars have striven hard to soundly base their theories; while others have done yeoman service in the field, and undergone great hardships in collecting material upon which these learned men might work. In their enthusiasm the latter have, without doubt, blundered into deductions which are unjustifiable. They have detected similarities in glyphs which no other person can detect.

As an example of this we give an illustration from Professor E. Forstemann's own work. In the Bureau of American Ethnology Report (Bulletin 28, p. 549), after speaking of the ahau and katun glyphs, he says: "Then follows, almost of necessity, B 3 = 144,000 days [given in our figure 1], as the sign of similar form on the superscription has led us to conjecture, and as we see it repeated in C 5, F 6, U 2, and V 12."

B3
 V12

We agree with him that, as B 3 comes directly under the initial glyph and above the signs representing the ahau and katun, it is the 144,000 days or cycle sign—that is, of course, always allowing that his premisses, to which we give no adherence, are correct; and we follow him when he sees it "repeated" in C 5, F 6, and U 2. There is no doubt that these three glyphs are variations of B 3; but V 12 is an entirely new character bearing not the slightest resemblance except in Professor Forstemann's own imagination. This is but one example of his detecting likeness where none exists. The last-mentioned sign has its counterpart or its variants in many portions of the inscription of the Tablet of the Cross at Palenque with which Professor Forstemann is dealing, and if he had looked he would, with his superior knowledge of the Maya glyphs, have found them quite easily.

But what of the other glyphs? Are they simply all calendar signs interlaced with a few other glyphs appertaining to deities; or are they records of Mayan history? D. G. Brinton, in his book A Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics (Chicago, 1898), says: "We need not search for the facts of history, the names of the mighty kings or the dates of conquests. We shall not find them. Chronometry we shall find, but not chronicles; astronomy with astrological aims; ritual, but no records. Pre-Columbian history will not be constructed from them. This will be a disappointment to many, but it is the conclusion towards which tend all the soundest investigations of recent years."

Is Dr. Brinton right? Are we to find no records of this mysterious civilisation? Are we to be for ever denied written proof whence the Mayans came and how they attained their civilisation? It is to be hoped that his presumption is incorrect, and that these undeciphered glyphs and those which cannot as yet be regarded as satisfactorily accounted for as mere chronological data will prove to be the key to this problem of the New World. Of the glyphs that are alleged to be calendar signs we have already spoken; their importance can only be shown when their neighbours have been deciphered, and until that day comes the wise will withhold their acceptance of the present calendar or astronomical reading. Searches have been made, searches are being made, but the students who have worked and who are working have received little support in their enterprise.

It has been suggested and in some cases proved that many of the glyphs apart from the calendar signs are astronomical and animal ideographs of deities. Amongst those which are repeatedly made use of is the chief beneficent god of the Mayans, Itzamna, who was to them what Quetzalcoatl was to the Mexicans. Tradition relates, according to D. G. Brinton, that "he came in his magic skiff from the East, across the waters, and therefore he presided over that quarter of the world assigned to him." His name meant "the dew or moisture of the morning." To him all the arts are due. He was the god of their culture, their arts, their writings on stone monuments and books. His sign is found throughout the codices, in paintings, and among the glyphs. The tapir was his principal symbol, and to what does this fact point? Is it not possible to see in him a culture-god coming from the East? The Buddhists came from the East; they were the culture-heroes of Central America; they were the men who taught the building arts and who possibly introduced the tapir as a deity instead of the elephant of their native country. Thus may Itzamna have risen the personification of their arts and crafts after they had died, the elephant cult of Asia being represented by the tapir.

The other deities were but minor ones compared with Itzamna. They were Cuculcan, Kin-ich, the God of the North Star, the Bee-God, the Bat-God, and Ghanan, the God of Earth, growth and fertility; Ah-Pach (God of Death), always depicted in battle scenes with his torch or spear and flint knife; Ek Ahau, the Black God, suggested to have been the god of the much-cultivated cocoa plant, although his attitude of war with appendages of shield and spear does not quite harmonise with this suggestion that he was a god of agriculture. In addition to these anthropomorphic deities we find animal life represented by the serpent, the dog, the jaguar, the macaw, deer, armadillo, turtle, monkey, quail, frog, scorpion, zopilote, pelican, blackbird, and what D. G. Brinton has called his "fish and oyster sign."

Again, many are reminiscent of domestic life, for example, of weaving, the spinning whorl, the flint knife (always denoting death or sacrifice and near the God of Death), and lastly there are those having reference to sacrificial acts and the priests' devotion by the piercing of their tongues. Astronomical ideas figure largely too. Primitive peoples always held the heavens in awe. Their calendar was formed partly by the lunations of the moon and by the celestial bodies, and naturally we find their ideographs often portrayed. Landa mentions that the Mayas measured their time by night, "Regianse de noche, para conocer la hora, por el lucero, i las cobrillas i los artilegros, de dia, por media dia."

There is no doubt the Mayan knowledge of the stars was considerable. The Pleiades and Orion were watched by them. They called the North Star Xaman Ek (Xaman north: Ek star). Their astronomers studied the course of the Milky Way and the sun was figured in the glyphs in various forms. The much-discussed Benik sign (Ben, idea: ik, life) had probably much to do with the sun; but D. G. Brinton believed it to more particularly represent "strength and deific power," and says of Dr. Seler, when referring to this glyph, "that he is apt to see gory human heads everywhere," because Seler thought the glyph represented a head carried in a sling as a sign of "conquered in war."

But the signs which have been most in dispute are those which D. G. Brinton has called "Drum Signs." Professor Leon de Rosny thought these variants of the ahau sign; Professor Cyrus Thomas a heap of stones; Dr. Phillip J. J. Valentini a censer or brazier; and Dr. Seler a precious stone. They are always found on the "initial" or cycle glyphs at Copan, Quirigua, and Palenque. D. G. Brinton is probably correct in the christening of them; for they are exactly like the drums which the Indians possessed at the coming of the Spaniards, according to Father Duran's Historia de los Indios, and which are depicted in the ancient codices. Thus it would seem that these are "Drum Signs" with a symbolical meaning. Another sign which has been the subject of much controversy is that which de Rosny and Professor Forstemann are probably right in calling the "Phallus Sign"; but which Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg thought represented a gourd, D. G. Brinton the "Yax or Feather Ornament," and Seler a tree of some kind. Dr. Schellhas has gone further and declared it to be the sign "zapote tree," the wood most used by the Mayans in building.

But the time has not yet come when it is possible to say who is right or wrong in the naming of these glyphs. Up to the present it is all more or less surmise based upon the writings of the Spanish historians—such as Bishop Landa. It is on his work that is based the assumption that the signs on the monuments refer chiefly to the calendar. It is true they seem to be mathematically correct, but this could not be otherwise when the numberings of the dates have been assigned by those who have shown them to be correct. The alphabet which Landa bequeathed us has been proved beyond all question to be false. In fact it is obvious that no alphabet can be formed upon the glyphs, for there are hundreds of signs, some of which would appear to have many variants. If his key to the actual writing through his alphabet is incorrect, there is good reason to doubt his statements as to the calendar signs; and the student ought not to allow himself to begin where others have finished in these researches. He should first of all glance back over the ground which is supposed to have been already covered, and see for himself whether or not there is actual proof that the calendar signs have been correctly interpreted.

Much might be said on the codices and books that have been left us by the historians. They belong to two classes and two widely separate dates. The Codices are the surviving ancient glyphic writings of pre-Conquest times which escaped the Spanish bonfires, and are of native paper about ten inches wide and of various lengths, inscribed on both sides, and folded zigzag-fashion like the oldest Buddhist literature. The others are the books written in Latin characters after the Conquest in several towns and villages and known as the "Books of Chilan Balam."

Only four of the former remain, namely the Codex Peresianus in Paris, receiving its name from the fact that the name "Perez" was written on it in Latin characters, probably the name of the Spaniard who saved it from destruction at the Conquest; the Codex Dresdensis in the Museum at Dresden, from which it gets its name; and the Codices Troanus and Cortesianus in the Madrid Museum, which are probably two parts of the same book. It is generally supposed the Codex Peresianus is of Tzental origin written in Guatemala, the Tzentals being a Guatemalan tribe of the Maya family. The Codex Dresdensis is thought to have been written at or near Palenque; the first copy of it to be made public was in Lord Kingsborough's work on the antiquities of Mexico. The Codices Troanus and Cortesianus are supposed to have been written in Central Yucatan; and, under the direction of the French Government, Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg made many copies in 1869. On them are depicted the same hieroglyphical characters as one sees on the monuments, allowing of course for the difference and discrepancies which would occur between the work on stone and that on paper.

The "Books of the Chilan Balam" are of little value. They are post-Conquest compilations based on the narrations of Indians of their history, traditions, and beliefs. Each town or village at one time probably had its Chilan Balam or record book in which all statements relative to the village were entered. They were formed at the instigation of the Spanish priests, who taught the Indians to write them in Latin characters. The earliest was composed during the latter half of the sixteenth century, but most were written long after the Conquest during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and had become much tainted with the Spanish prejudices. The best collection of these books was that made by D. G. Brinton from various sources, and which he describes in his book The Maya Chronicles. But, as we have said before, if they make indifferently trustworthy sources of history, they offer less help to the deciphering of the hieroglyphics.

Now let us turn to the Mayan paintings. The historians tell us—and there is much reason to believe them—that the buildings of Yucatan were often painted externally in different colours. Traces of paint can be found to-day on many of the monuments. But it is not so much with the painting of the outside of the buildings as the internal mural paintings that we shall deal. From them much of the past history of the country can be gathered. The mode of life, the shape of the houses, the dress, the utensils in use and the food of the Indians are often depicted. Nearly all the buildings in Yucatan have traces of once having been adorned by paintings; but the best still in existence are those in the House of Tigers at Chichen Itza. Although much faded, disfigured and defaced by the vandalism of the conquerors, they show that the ancient inhabitants of Yucatan had a good knowledge of pigments and mixed them so well that to-day, where they exist at all, they are still bright and well preserved. They have been copied by various people; but probably the best reproduction of them is in possession of the American Antiquarian Society of Worcester, Mass.

In them is shown the daily life of the Indians. In one scene we see a woman seated on a kanche, a type of stool still in common use among the natives to-day. Near by her is her basket of small round biscuit-like objects which would seem to be tortillas. The koben or three-stone fireplace, typical of Mayan huts to-day, is just outside the door, and on it a cooking-bowl is standing in which food is being prepared. All the women are dressed in the chemise-like garment, the huipil, which is worn to-day, and ear-ornaments adorn their ears; whilst their long, straight, jet-black hair hangs down over their shoulders, or in some cases is done up in a knot on the nape of the neck. There are warriors, too, depicted in battle array in the act of defending a village, while the women are anxiously watching the result from the doors of their huts. The warriors are shown with their spears raised and shields at the defence ready for the oncoming foe. The figures are very realistic, but the one thing which strikes you above all else is the lack of proportion. Men and women appear as tall as the houses in which they live, and which look mere dolls'-houses. We have spoken of the lack of proportion marking the paintings in the early Buddhistic temples in an earlier chapter, but this is naturally common in all countries during the early stages of development of art.

Considering the vandalism to which the paintings have been subject and the climate, it is clear from the brightness of the paints that the ancient Mayans had the secret of mixing pigments. Nor was their method of placing them on the walls to be despised. This was the superimposing of one colour on another. They would seem to have first of all painted the entire wall with the colour which was to serve as the background for the picture. On this the designs were painted, and in cases where more than one colour was employed in any figure, as was often the case, we found that it had been covered entirely with the most prevalent colour, then overlaid with a new pigment until the desired effect had been obtained. The colours used were yellow, blue, green, and a reddish brown. If the background was green, the wall would first be entirely covered with that colour. If a figure of a man or woman was to be depicted it would be painted in reddish brown (the invariable skin-colour in the paintings), and the colouring of the apparel would be placed on the top of this; and in such cases as depicting ornamentation on the garments, another coating of a different colour would be placed on the top of that. Thus one commonly finds three or four coatings of paint overlaid on the base colour.

It is from these paintings that one can trace the weapons used by the Mayans in the war and chase. The spear or lance is much in evidence; the short serrated sword of flint, examples of which have been unearthed among the ruins, is often depicted. The heavy throwing-stones, which wrought much havoc among the early Spanish adventurers when they attacked and stormed the Mayan cities, and the short obsidian knife associated with those sacrificial orgies that often took place after a victory, are also portrayed. Again, we see shields carried on the warriors' left arm, on which the colour-token of their chief is shown in the same way as our knights of old had painted on their shields the arms of their feudal lords. When in battle array they invariably wear the thick, quilted cotton vest reaching from their necks to their thighs, so closely woven as to be proof against the enemy's darts. When not in battle this is discarded for the more easygoing uit or loin-cloth. Caciques and priests are dressed more elaborately. We see the heavy beplumed head-dress, the leg ornamentation and sandals far more elaborate than the thick, plaited, deerskin, two-thonged foot-covering of their followers.

Last but perhaps not by any means least in importance among these paintings is the much-discussed "red hand." We have spoken of its probable origin on p. 265. We have seen it, as have others, on the ruins of the mainland; but more, we have found it on the walls buried under the débris of fallen roofs in the islands. The best examples of it were found by us at Cozumel in ruins on which probably no other white man has ever looked. On the ruins of the mainland it is rare, but one ruin we discovered, described on p. 180, was literally covered with this form of ornamentation, and here for the first time we realised that the human hand was not always used. It was not always the impression of an actual hand, as has been insisted by many, but of something of a roughly similar shape.

FAÇADE OF BUILDING AT KABAH.

The paintings in all the ruins are fast crumbling away, and to-day a gentle tap upon the walls will show that the layers of paint are losing those adhesive qualities which have held them in position for centuries.

How were such arts of writing and painting attained? The latter question is easily answered. The knowledge of painting in elementary colours has often been found among the most inartistic peoples; but as we have said before, the mural paintings of the monuments of Central America are so similar in design to those of the early Buddhist temples that if we are to believe a migration to America took place in the early Middle Ages the suggestion that the emigrants brought the art of painting into Central America with them is almost irresistible. But it is not so easy with the glyphs. The paper on which the early codices were written and the way in which they are folded bear a striking resemblance to the early manuscripts of the Malay Peninsula, but as yet no counterparts of the characters which form the hieroglyphics on the monuments of Central America have been found in any other part of the world.

Most writers would have us believe, as in the case of the architecture, that it is indigenous to the American continent. It is possible that the invention of this writing is the work of the indigenes, but we are inclined to believe that the Mayan hieroglyphics, if they are ever deciphered, will prove to be a combination writing—partly pictographic and indigenous and partly of a foreign character. In Java and the neighbouring islands have been discovered inscriptions in an ancient form of Sunda writing. These have never been deciphered, and they are in certain particulars reminiscent of some of the markings on the glyphs.

But it may be that for the foreign element, if there be one, students would have to look even further east. Archæology is as yet but a new science. There is much work to be done in the Malay Peninsula and the Eastern Archipelago before the monuments of Cambodia and Indo-China have been explained. Archæologically this region has been little touched. The unsettled condition of the Independent Malay States, the indolence of the natives, the unhealthiness of the kampongs or villages, and the hostility of the tribes of the interior as well as the difficulties of transport have helped to keep the explorer away. But these difficulties are gradually disappearing, and in the near future some enthusiast who has the time and money will perhaps turn his attention to this field, when his name may once and for all become immortal in the annals of science as the discoverer of the cradle-land of the American Indian calculiform writing, at the same time linking the Old World for ever with the New.