[Aztlan] Cascajal 900BCE text structure

[ECOLING at aol.com]

On Sept. 16, when the NYTimes article appeared announcing
this find, I attempted an analysis using the "lines" assumed
in the original drawing and numbering of the glyph positions, 
and distributed copies at the PCSWDC symposium in honor
of Betty Benson.

Since then, I have come to believe that another reading order
is *much* smoother.  It assumes much more equal glyph spacings, 
and reveals more parallel passages.
It is more obvious when the glyph numbers are removed, 
so the blank spaces are more apparent, but once having seen it, 
I can see it even with the numbers present.
It is partly like Mixtec codices, allowing us to read boustrophedon 
within one of the columns.  See what you think.
I will be producing a graphically nice version of this analysis
within the coming week for potential publication.

The original publication in _Science_ numbered glyphs in lines thus:

Line 1.  glyphs   1 to   8
Line 2.  glyphs   9 to 14
Line 3.  glyphs 15 to 27
Line 4.  glyphs 28 to 34
Line 5.  glyphs 35 to 39
Line 6.  glyphs 40 to 49
Line 7.  glyphs 50 to 62

Here is the structure I suggest instead:
Three major columns, each line in each column containing several glyphs,
normally three or four, but four times containing five glyphs, 
and four times containing only two glyphs.
The left and middle columns contain seven lines, while the right-hand 
column contains only five lines, more or less equally spaced from top
to bottom of the tablet.
Between the left and middle columns,  the 6th lines down are almost 
lined up with each other, so one could think of reading across the two
columns from glyph 44 to glyph 45.  But other parts of the texts 
are not lined up in that way.  
Between the middle and right columns, only the first and last lines 
could plausibly be thought to continue each other.  Other lines of the
middle column do not line up with the lines of the rightmost column.
So I do not think we are intended to read across any of these three
columns.
For a reader of the script, who knows what is being said, there would be 
no problem at all seeing this division into columns, if it is correct.
If we accept this division into three columns, then we conclude that
the scribe or scribes were quite neat, neater than if we assume we
should read all the way across the block, across what I am here
suggesting are three separate columns.

Column A.    (lines 1-2 read boustrophedon, likewise lines 3-4)
glyphs   1-  2-  3-10-  9  (lines 1 and 2)
glyphs 15-16-17-18       (line 3)
glyphs 30-29-28            (line 4)
glyphs 35-36  (perhaps written once, but to be read in both columns A and B?  
                        Or read only glyph 35 in column A?)
glyphs 40-41-42-43-44  (line 6)
glyphs 50-51-52-53-54  (line 7)

Column B.   (possibly all read left-to-right?)
glyphs   4-  5-  6 (line 1)
glyphs 11-12      (line 2, left-to-right?)
glyphs 19-20-21-22  (line 3)
glyphs 31-32-33-34  (line 4)
glyphs 35-36  (perhaps written once, but to be read in both columns A and B?  
                        Or read only glyph 36 in column B?)
glyphs 45-46-47-48-49  (line 6)
glyphs 55-56-57-58-59  (line 7)

Column C.  This column has wider vertical spacing between lines,
                   and only five lines total, so the separation from the 
                   first two columns is especially evident.
                   Also possibly read left-to-right throughout?
glyphs    7-  8-13-14  (lines 1 and 2, compare glyphs 40-41-42)
glyphs  23-24-25-26-27  (line 3)
glyphs  37-38-39  (line 4)
glyphs  60-61-62  (line 5)

Recurring sequences:

Each of the three sequences given just below shares first and last glyphs.
Each of the three sequences shares at least two of the middle three glyphs 
with another one of the three sequences, though not in identical order.  
(2 = 24 = 52 = 38; 10 = 25 = 39; 26 = 51)

  1-  2-  3-10-  9
23-24-25-26-27
50-51-52-53-54
     38-39

Two resemblant sequences precede two of the three just above,
so there is a much longer and stronger parallelism:
  7-  8-13-14  (just before sequence 23 to 27)
40-41-42-43-44  (just before sequence 50 to 54)
This second sequence appears to confirm the reading order 7-8-13-14.
Glyph 44 also ends the sequence 31 to 34.

Two additional sequences are partially resemblant:
15-16-17-18
45-46-47-48-49
Since 15-16 would equal 46-45 rather than 45-46,
there is a change in order of signs.  This bothers me, 
since other than adverbs, which are presumably rare in inscriptions,
we might not most readily expect the same words to be
written twice with signs in different orders, especially not if the
spellings are phonetic, which is by no means guaranteed.
It is possible if several of these glyphs are logograms, 
which could for example represent royal titles given in different orders.

The extra glyph 14 ending the sequence 7-  8-13-14 is the same as
the extra glyph ending the sequence 45-46-47-48-49,
and so might represent a grammatical suffix or the sounds of such a suffix,
since in each case there is a similar sequence without the equivalent of
glyphs 14 = 49.

If indeed glyphs 15-16-17-18 are followed by 30-29-28,
reading in boustrophedon order,
then a partial parallel may be glyphs 45-46-47-48-49 
followed by 55-56-57-58-59,
where 30 = 55, and 28 = 58.
But if glyphs 30-29-28 are to be read right-to-left,
the orientation of the glyphs is not changed, 
so 28 - 58 face the same way,
and 29 = 37 = 6 face the same way.

Another small set of possible parallels is 
glyphs 11-12
glyphs 55-56  
     (both 12 and 56 have a "spike" attached to the bottom, 
       which I suggested in the 16 Sept. arrangement might
       be segmentable, perhaps a phonetic complement or suffix;
       David Mora-Marin on 26 September has made a similar suggestion
       in private communication.)

And a possible parallel might be
glyphs 60-61-62
glyphs 40-41
where 62 = 41, so 60-61 might have the a function similar to 40 alone.

***

As to the content reading of a few glyphs,
the authors of the _Science_ article have made several plausible suggestions.
One of the nicest comparisons is of glyphs 2, 24, 38, 52 with a celt from
La Venta (see Fig.12a in Karl Taube's 2004 
_Olmec Art at Dumbarton Oaks_.

I doubt that glyph 4 refers to maize, though it may
(see Taube 2004 Fig.35a).
Glyphs 3 (a sprout?) and 7 = 40 (a mature cob?) seem much more likely.
Glyphs 12, 33, 56, and 60 I doubt refer to a "dart tip", though they may --
the analysis here suggests rather a phonetic subfix which could come 
from an unexpected source with iconicity vanished or misleading.  
Notice the sequence
glyphs 11-12
glyphs 55-56
in which 11 = 55, and both 12 and 56 have the "spike" subfixed,
   though to different base glyphs, suggesting to me perhaps a grammatical
   parallel with difference of content.

I would add a comparison of glyph 22, 
plausibly the same as the main parts of glyphs 12 and 60, 
with the "X" element which occurs twice on the back of the 
Dumbarton Oaks pectoral, both times with attached ears or wings or such,
once adjacent to a bird (raptor?), and once conflated with it.  
This might mean "lord" (analog of Mayan Ajaw).

The combination of glyphs 21+22 might be related to the "emblem"
which occurs at position R24 on the La Mojarra stela
and at G4 on the Tuxtla statuette.
I owe to John Carlson the suggestion to compare the distinct 
iconography inside the eyes of various Olmec figures 
which have an "X" in only one of the two eyes. 
I agree with that comparison, but have not yet found ideal 
illustrations to cite.  I have not yet searched my collection of photos 
from the Jalapa museum for this one, though I suspect it may be there.

If the drawings of the monument are accurate, two glyphs
which look a bit similar may need to be carefully distinguished.
Glyphs 10 = 25 = 39 have flat tops, no sharp points there, and rounded
or bulging sides.
Glyphs 16 = 45 = 53 = 59 do have sharp points on top,
and much straighter sides.

I venture only one interpretation of a sequence of signs,
but think it is almost certainly wrong, since we have so little to go on
at this point.  Glyphs 19-20-21-22 might include a verb-subject 
sequence.  The _Science_ article refers to a symbol like a "mat",
and that might have been intended to refer to glyph 20.  My own
interpretation before seeing the _Science_ article was a possible
knife (analog of Etz'nab).  In either case, this might be a verb,
followed by a subject (emblem or title?) as the combination of
glyphs 21+22.  While glyphs 19 = 35 might possibly be the
eyes of the "Olmec dragon" only half aboveground,
it might also possibly be a date like a K'atun ending,
at which an offering by a ruler of their own blood might have
occurred.  It is not similar enough to Isthmian year signs to
make me comfortable with this interpretation, however.
Glyphs 11 = 55 (? = 30 ?) might also be a date?
At least they appear to be clause-initial or phrase-initial.

It's wonderful to have this material available,
and I hope everyone has fun with it.
Thanks so much to investigators 
Ma. del Carmen Rodríguez Martínez and Ponciano Ortíz Ceballos
for their work, and all of the authors of the _Science_ article.

Best wishes,
Lloyd Anderson
Ecological Linguistics
PO Box 15156
Washington DC 20003
ecoling at aol.com
202-547-7683