Editing Maya script (section)

== Decipherment ==
[[File:Yuri Knorosov monument in Mérida, Yucatán (cropped).jpg|thumb|Monument to [[Yuri Knorozov]] and his cat Asya in [[Mérida, Yucatán]]]]
Deciphering Maya writing has proven a long and laborious process. 19th-century and early 20th-century investigators managed to decode the [[Maya numerals|Maya numbers]]<ref>[[Constantine Samuel Rafinesque|Constantine Rafinesque]] (1832) "Philology.  Second letter to Mr. Champollion on the graphic systems of America, and the glyphs of Otolum or Palenque, in Central America – Elements of the glyphs," ''Atlantic Journal and Friend of Knowledge'', '''1''' (2) : 40–44.  [https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/104571#page/50/mode/1up From p. 42:]  "This page of Demotic has letters and numbers, these represented by strokes meaning 5 and dots meaning unities as the dots never exceed 4."</ref> and portions of the texts related to [[astronomy]] and the [[Maya calendar]], but understanding of most of the rest long eluded scholars. In the 1930s, [[Benjamin Whorf]] wrote a number of published and unpublished essays, proposing to identify phonetic elements within the writing system. Although some specifics of his decipherment claims were later shown to be incorrect, the central argument of his work, that Maya hieroglyphs were phonetic (or more specifically, syllabic), was later supported by the work of [[Yuri Knorozov]] (1922–1999), who played a major role in deciphering Maya writing.<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia|title=Yury Valentinovich Knorozov {{!}} Russian linguist | encyclopedia=Britannica|url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Yury-Valentinovich-Knorozov|access-date=2023-02-12|date=2004|language=en}}</ref> [[Napoleon Cordy]] also made some notable contributions in the 1930s and 1940s to the early study and decipherment of Maya script, also arguing for some share of phonetic signs in 1946.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Cordy |first=N. |author-link=Napoleon Cordy |date=1946 |title=Examples of Phonetic Construction in Maya Hieroglyphs |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-antiquity/article/abs/examples-of-phonetic-construction-in-maya-hieroglyphs/0D2624C68F64AE90DC5351E35AB65C8D |journal=American Antiquity |language=en |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=108–117 |doi=10.2307/275343 |jstor=275343 |issn=0002-7316|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

In 1952 Knorozov published the paper "Ancient Writing of Central America", arguing that the so-called "de Landa alphabet" contained in [[Bishop Diego de Landa]]'s manuscript ''Relación de las Cosas de Yucatán'' was made of [[syllabary|syllabic]], rather than [[alphabet]]ic symbols. He further improved his decipherment technique in his 1963 [[monograph]] "The Writing of the Maya Indians"<ref>{{in lang|ru}} [http://mesoamerica.narod.ru/knorozov.html Yuri Knorozov]</ref> and published translations of Maya manuscripts in his 1975 work "Maya Hieroglyphic Manuscripts". In the 1960s, progress revealed the dynastic records of Maya rulers. Since the early 1980s scholars have demonstrated that most of the previously unknown symbols form a [[syllabary]], and progress in reading the Maya writing has advanced rapidly since.

As Knorozov's early essays contained several older readings already published in the late 19th century by [[Cyrus Thomas]],{{sfn|Coe|1992|p=151}} and the [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] editors added propagandistic claims{{sfn|Coe|1992|p=147}} to the effect that Knorozov was using a peculiarly "[[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninist]]" approach to decipherment,{{sfn|Coe|1992|p=147}} many Western [[Mayanist]]s simply dismissed Knorozov's work. However, in the 1960s, more came to see the syllabic approach as potentially fruitful, and possible phonetic readings for symbols whose general meaning was understood from context began to develop. Prominent older epigrapher [[J. Eric S. Thompson]] was one of the last major opponents of Knorozov and the syllabic approach. Thompson's disagreements are sometimes said to have held back advances in decipherment.{{sfn|Coe|1992|p=125–144}} For example, {{harvtxt|Coe|1992|p=164}} says "the major reason was that almost the entire Mayanist field was in willing thrall to one very dominant scholar, Eric Thompson". [[Galina Yershova]], a student of Knorozov's, stated that reception of Knorozov's work was delayed only by authority of Thompson, and thus has nothing to do with [[Marxism]] – "But he (Knorozov) did not even suspect what a storm of hatred his success had caused in the head of the American school of Mayan studies, Eric Thompson. And the Cold War was absolutely nothing to do with it. An Englishman by birth, Eric Thompson, after learning about the results of the work of a young Soviet scientist, immediately realized 'who got the victory'."<ref>{{Cite web|title=Ершова Г. Г. Юрий Валентинович Кнорозов // Портреты историков. Время и судьбы. М., Наука, 2004. С. 474–491|url=https://h.120-bal.ru/istoriya/18884/index.html|access-date=2023-02-12|website=h.120-bal.ru}}</ref>
[[File:Escritura maya.jpg|thumb|left|Maya glyphs at [[National Museum of Anthropology (Mexico)]]]]
[[File:Detail of Codex Dresdensis drawn by Lacambalam.jpg|thumb|300px|Detail of the [[Dresden Codex]] (modern reproduction)]]

In 1959, examining what she called "a peculiar pattern of dates" on stone monument inscriptions at the Classic Maya site of [[Piedras Negras, Guatemala|Piedras Negras]], Russian-American scholar [[Tatiana Proskouriakoff]] determined that these represented events in the lifespan of an individual, rather than relating to religion, astronomy, or prophecy, as held by the "old school" exemplified by Thompson. This proved to be true of many Maya inscriptions, and revealed the Maya [[epigraphy|epigraphic]] record to be one relating actual histories of ruling individuals: dynastic histories similar in nature to those recorded in other human cultures throughout the world. Suddenly, the Maya entered written history.{{sfn|Coe|1992|pp=167–184}}

Although it was then clear what was on many Maya inscriptions, they still could not literally be read. However, further progress was made during the 1960s and 1970s, using a multitude of approaches including [[pattern analysis]], de Landa's "alphabet", Knorozov's breakthroughs, and others. In the story of Maya decipherment, the work of [[archaeology|archaeologists]], art historians, epigraphers, [[linguistics|linguists]], and [[anthropology|anthropologists]] cannot be separated. All contributed to a process that was truly and essentially multidisciplinary. Key figures included [[David Kelley (Mayanist)|David Kelley]], [[Ian Graham]], [[Gilette Griffin]], and [[Michael Coe]].

A new wave of breakthroughs occurred in the early 1970s, in particular at the first [[Mesa Redonda de Palenque]], a scholarly conference organized by [[Merle Greene Robertson]] at the Maya site of [[Palenque]] and held in December, 1973. A [[working group]] consisting of [[Linda Schele]], then a studio artist and art instructor, [[Floyd Lounsbury]], a linguist from [[Yale University|Yale]], and [[Peter Mathews (Mayanist)|Peter Mathews]], then an undergraduate student of David Kelley's at the [[University of Calgary]] (whom Kelley sent because he could not attend). In one afternoon they reconstructed most of the [[King list|dynastic list]] of [[Palenque]], building on the earlier work of Heinrich Berlin.{{sfn|Coe|1992|pp=204–205}}{{sfn|Breaking the Maya Code|2008}} By identifying a sign as an important royal title (now read as the recurring name ''Kʼinich''), the group was able to identify and read the life histories (from birth, to accession to the throne, to death) of six kings of Palenque.{{sfn|Coe|1992|p=205}}{{sfn|Breaking the Maya Code|2008}} Palenque was the focus of much epigraphic work through the late 1970s, but linguistic decipherment of texts remained very limited.

From that point, progress proceeded rapidly. Scholars such as [[J. Kathryn Josserand]], [[Nick Hopkins]] and others published findings that helped to construct a Mayan vocabulary.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.nightfirefilms.org/breakingthemayacode/interviews/JosserandHopkinsTRANSCRIPT.pdf|title= Josserand, Hopkins interview transcript |website=Nightfirefilms.org |via=Google Docs |access-date= 5 June 2015}}</ref> The "old school" continued to resist the results of the new scholarship for some time. A decisive event which helped to turn the tide in favor of the new approach occurred in 1986, at an exhibition entitled "The Blood of Kings: A New Interpretation of Maya Art", organized by [[InterCultura]] and the [[Kimbell Art Museum]] and curated by Schele and by Yale art historian [[Mary Miller (art historian)|Mary Miller]]. This exhibition and its attendant catalogue—and international publicity—revealed to a wide audience the new world which had latterly been opened up by progress in decipherment of Maya hieroglyphics. Not only could a real history of ancient America now be read and understood, but the light it shed on the material remains of the Maya showed them to be real, recognisable individuals. They stood revealed as a people with a history like that of all other human societies: full of wars, dynastic struggles, shifting political alliances, complex religious and artistic systems, expressions of personal property and ownership and the like. Moreover, the new interpretation, as the exhibition demonstrated, made sense out of many works of art whose meaning had been unclear and showed how the material culture of the Maya represented a fully integrated cultural system and world-view. Gone was the old Thompson view of the Maya as peaceable astronomers without conflict or other attributes characteristic of most human societies.

However, three years later, in 1989, supporters who continued to resist the modern decipherment interpretation made their last argument against it. This occurred at a conference at [[Dumbarton Oaks]]. It did not directly attack the methodology or results of decipherment, but instead contended that the ancient Maya texts had indeed been read but were "epiphenomenal". This argument was extended from a populist perspective to say that the deciphered texts tell only about the concerns and beliefs of the society's elite, and not about the ordinary Maya. In opposition to this idea, Michael Coe described "epiphenomenal" as "a ten penny word meaning that Maya writing is only of marginal application since it is secondary to those more primary institutions—economics and society—so well studied by the dirt archaeologists."{{sfn|Coe|1992|p=268}}

Linda Schele noted following the conference that this is like saying that the inscriptions of ancient Egypt—or the writings of Greek philosophers or historians—do not reveal anything important about their cultures. Most written documents in most cultures tell us about the elite, because in most cultures in the past, they were the ones who could write (or could have things written down by scribes or inscribed on monuments).{{Citation needed|date=June 2015}}

Over 90 percent of the Maya texts can now be read with reasonable accuracy.{{sfn|Breaking the Maya Code|2008}} {{As of|2020}}, at least one phonetic glyph was known for each of the syllables marked green in this chart. /tʼ/ is rare. /pʼ/ is not found, and is thought to have been a later innovation in the Ch'olan and Yucatecan languages.

{| class=wikitable
|+ Syllables for which at least one phonetic glyph has been found{{sfn|Kettunen|Helmke|2020}}<ref>{{cite web |title=Updated List of Characters for Mayan Codices |url=https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20248-mayan-update.pdf |publisher=Unicode.org |access-date=24 April 2021}}</ref>
|-
!  !! (ʼ) !! b !! ch !! chʼ !! h !! j !! k !! kʼ !! l !! m !! n !! p !! s !! t !! tʼ !! tz !! tzʼ !! w !! x !! y
|- align=center
! a
| {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || bgcolor="#e0e0e0" | || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}}
|- align=center
! e
| {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || bgcolor="#e0e0e0" | ? || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || bgcolor="#e0e0e0" | || {{yes}} || bgcolor="#e0e0e0" | ? || {{yes}} || bgcolor="#e0e0e0" | ? || {{yes}}
|- align=center
! i
| {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || bgcolor="#e0e0e0" | || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || bgcolor="#e0e0e0" | || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}}
|- align=center
! o
| {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || bgcolor="#e0e0e0" | ? || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || bgcolor="#e0e0e0" | || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}}
|- align=center
! u
| {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || bgcolor="#e0e0e0" | || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || {{yes}} || bgcolor="#e0e0e0" | ? || {{yes}} || {{yes}}
|}