The current translation of the Maya glyphs -
The great mistake

With the decipherment of the Mayan glyphs or Maya script, the Department of Ancient American Studies has been trying for more than 100 years. Today they announces that more than 80% of the Maya glyphs has been translated. If you work on this deciphering approach to understand, the inability to recognize logical contexts for years, as demonstrated in the following paragraphs, reveals itself.

It is not the archaeological, epigraphical, linguistic or ethnological work and its achievement in documentation, it is only the pure deciphering approach of the Maya script or the resulting mis-translation and associated misinterpretation of the life of the Maya to challenge.

In the 60s and 70s of the last century, the "younger scientists" still rebelled against the omnipotence of a Sir Sir J. Eric S. Thompson, who claimed the deciphering approach of Knorosow not just as a Russian propaganda slogan4, but today's generation closes up against new solutions in a system-compatible manner.

With the departure into the translation of the Maya glyphs, following the deciphering approach Knorosows, a syllabic-logographic system has been installed since the 1970s with which the translation of the Maya glyphs is carried out.

At the same time, allegations are made, that a Maya glyph consists of verb, subject and object, and that the "side glyphs" are to be understood as affixes15 or suffixes, in order to underpin the practiced translation construct4. Certainly, the Mayans have not invented their writing first on grammar, but it makes much sense to want to prove this approach scientifically.

Only in the various codices, including the Dresden Codex, various wall reliefs and steles, etc., can be found the original writing, as well as in the copies of the Chilam-Balam books from the 17th century, written in Latin. In addition, there is only the record Diego de Landas of 1566, the "Relación de las cosas de Yucatán"1, where de Landa tried to write down the basics of the Maya writing. Since this writing is related to the time shortly after the conquest of Central America, it has to be seen as an ultimate basis.

Much of de Landas biography is negated by science today and it is even thought that he would not has understood his own record, that it was an incomplete phonetic alphabet / syllable register noted by him4. This assertion is one of the most serious mistake in the history of the Maya translation.

Even basis-oriented reflections from the 19th century, on which Knorosow partly based on, are no longer needed by the translation work carried out today. The further development by David Stuart has only helped to establish a wrong approach since the 70s of the last century and for this reason it has become enormously important first to ask a few questions.

First questions

1. Why should someone chisel only a syllable into a stone?
2. Where is it written that the glyphs only declare what you obviously see - logograms?
3. Why should a Mayan glyph consist only of verb, subject, and object?
4. Is the approach of Knorosow right at all?
5. Is the subsequent system David Stuarts correct?
6. Could it be that Diego de Landa is right?

If one engages more closely with the Mayan script, the first irregularities in the translation are purely visual.

Mscr.Dresd.R.310, Sächsische Landesbibliothek – Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden Mscr.Dresd.R.310, Sächsische Landesbibliothek – Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden
Kan Cumku

On the left side the glyph Kan from the ritual calendar is shown and the upper part of the glyph has been supplemented by another smaller glyph (right side) and Kan is now called Cumku, a month name from the year calendar. On the basis of a basic logic, Kan only have to be added as we know it from our language and so the word tree would be tree group, tree trunk or tree twig. Suppose the term Cumku refers only to the newly added glyph, where is Kan gone?

Let's go to more glyphs from the ritual calendar Tzolkin. The two most important names are probably Imix and Ahau (new spelling Ajaw). De Landa clearly wrote in his "Yukatan Report" that Ahau means Lord 6. As a result this word has the same value as our name of a weekday. If Ahau is so important why the translation of the word Ahau cannot be found in any language dictionary of the classic Maya?

And when the word Ahau appears, it is translated as Lord. It is followed by the de Landas definition.

Mscr.Dresd.R.310, Sächsische Landesbibliothek – Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden Mscr.Dresd.R.310, Sächsische Landesbibliothek – Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden
Ahau Imix

We can follow our weekdays comfortably up to the Middle Ages, often in a modified way, but a clear reference can be made where the concept of our weekday comes from. The same should be allowed in the Mayan culture.

For the Glyph Imix there is also no translation in a language dictionary of the classic Maya to find. In recent lexicons for Imix only the term day name appears. Since Imix is the first day of the ritual calendar Tzolkin6, it seems highly suspect that no translation exists for such an important day? And if the Mayan ritual calendar were so holy and important, such a reference would have to be made.

How does the Mesoamericanists explain this lack of reference?