of the Mexicans has not been found. Various elaborate attempts to read the Maya hieroglyphics phonetically have met with failure. Mr. Bowditch (1910, pp. 254-255) sums up the whole question when he writes: While I subscribe in general to these words (that the wrting is chiefly ideographic) of the eminent Americanist (Dr. Brinton), I do not think that the Aztec picture writing is on the same plane as that of the Mayas. As far as I am aware, the use of this kind of writing was confined, among the Aztecs, to the names of persons and places, while the Mayas, if they used the rebus form at all, used it also for expressing common nouns and possibly abstract ideas. The Mayas surely used picture writing and the ideographic system, but I feel confident that a large part of their hieroglyphs will be found to be made up of rebus forms and that the true line of research will be found to lie in this direction. If this is a correct view of the case, it is very important, indispensable indeed, that the student of the Maya hieroglyphs should become a thorough Maya linguist. I am also of the opinion that the consonantal sound of a syllable was of far greater importance than the vowel sound, so that a form could be used to represent a syllable, even if the vowel and consonant sounds were reversed. A further discussion of the hieroglyphic writing of the Mayas would lead us too far away from our subject. I have not attempted to elucidate any new problems or to add to the knowledge of the writing of the Mexicans, but to coordinate and systematize the various forms and employ them as examples of the general development of writing. There is FIG. 16. found in Mexico, perhaps to a greater degree than in any other one place in the world, examples of all the different kinds of writing, as we have seen, starting with a preliminary stage of reminders and passing to pure pictures which are used simply in their objective sense as pictures, thence to the more or less conventionalized and symbolic pictures or ideographs and finally to characters expressing sounds as well as ideas, and the beginning of a syllabary, the first step in the development of a phonetic writing, and a step beyond which the Nahuas did not go. The Spanish priests made the last advance toward the goal, the formation of an alphabet, by selecting a few syllabic characters which they used to express the initial sounds. The first credit belongs, however, to the ancient Nahuas, who arrived, quite independently, at the idea of the possibility of a phonetic writing, and it is not difficult to imagine a further development into a true alphabet had they been left to develop their culture in their own way. BIBLIOGRAPHY. BOTURINI BENADUCI, LORENZO. 1746, Idea de una nueva historia general de la América Septentrional. Madrid. BOWDITCH, CHARLES P. 1910, The numeration, calendar systems and astronomical knowledge of the Mayas. Cambridge. BRINTON, DANIEL G. 1886, The phonetic elements in the graphic systems of the Mayas and Mexicans. In American Antiquarian, vol. 8, pp. 347-357; also in Essays of an Americanist, pp. 195–212. 1886 a, The Ikonomatic method of phonetic writing. In Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 23, No. 123, pp. 503-514; also in Essays of an Americanist, pp. 213–229. CLODD, EDWARD. 1907, The story of the alphabet. New York. KINGSBOROUGH, LORD (KING, EDWARD). 1831-1848, Antiquities of Mexico, folio, 9 vols. London. LANDA, DIEGO DE. 1864, Relación de las cosas de Yucatan; Spanish text with French translation, pub lished by Brasseur de Bourbourg in Paris. Two Spanish editions of this important work have also been published. LAS CASAS, BARTOLOMÉ DE. 1909, Apologética Historia de las Indias. (A new and complete edition). Published in Nueva Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, vol. 13; Historiadores de Indias, vol. 1. (M. Serrano y Sanz, editor.) Madrid. LEHMANN, WALTER. 1905, Les peintures Mixtéco-Zapotèque et quelques documents apparentés. In Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris (n. s.), vol. 2, No. 2. LEJEAL, LEON. 1902, Les antiquités Mexicaines. Published by La Société des Études Historiques, Paris. LEON, NICOLAS. 1900, A Mazahua catechism in Testera-Amerind hieroglyphics In American Anthropologist (n. s.), vol. 2, pp. 722-740. LUMHOLTZ, CARL. 1902, Unknown Mexico. 2 vols. New York. MALLERY, GARRICK. 1888-1889, Picture writing of the American Indians. In Bureau of American Ethnology, tenth report, pp. 3-807. Washington. MAUDSLAY, ALFRED P. 1895-1902, Biologia Centrali-Americana. Archæology. 4 vols. text, 4 vols. plates. London. OROZCO Y BERRA, MANUEL. 1880, Historia antigua y de la conquista de México. 4 vols. Mexico. PEÑAFIEL, ANTONIO. 1885, Nombres geográficos de México. Catálogo alfabético de los nombres de lugar pertenecientes al Idioma "Nahuatl." Mexico. PUTNAM, FREDERIK W. 1887, Conventionalism in ancient American art. In Bulletin of the Essex Institute, vol. 18, pp. 155-167. PUTNAM, FREDERIK W. and WILLOUGHBY, C. C. 1896, Symbolism in ancient American art. In Proceedings of American Association for the Advancement of Science, vol. 44. SAVILLE, MARSHALL H. 1901, Mexican codices, a list of recent publications. In American Anthropologist (n. s.), vol. 3, pp. 532-541. SCHELLHAS, PAUL. 1886, Die Maya-Handschrift der Königlichen Bibliothek in Dresden. In Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, vol. 18, pp. 12-84. SELER, EDWARD. 1888, Der Charakter der aztekischen und der Maya-Handschriften. In Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, vol. 20, pp. 1-10; also in his Collected Works, vol. 1, pp. 407-416. 1893, Die mexikanischen Bilderhandschriften Alexander von Humboldt's in der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin; also in his Collected Works, vol. 1, pp. 162-300, and an English translation in Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 28 (1904), pp. 127-229. 1898, Quetzalcouatl-Kukulcan in Yucatan. In Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, vol. 30, pp. 377-410; also in his Collected Works, vol. 1, pp, 668-705. TORQUEMADA, JUAN DE. 1723, XXI libros rituales i Monarquia Indiana, con el origen y guerras de los Indios Occidentales, de sus poblaciones, descubrimiento, conquista, conversion y otras cosas maravillosas de la mesma tierra. Madrid. 3 vols. (The first edition was in 1613.) VALENTINI, P. J. J. 1880, The Landa alphabet, a Spanish fabrication. In Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, No. 75, pp. 59-91. Worcester. VELADES, DIEGO. 1579, Rhetorica christiana ad concionandi et orandi usum accomodata, utriusque facultatis exemplis sus loco insertis; quae quidem, ex Indorum maximè deprompta sunt, historiis, made praeter doctrinam summa quoque delectatio comparabitur. Perugia. THE DISCOVERERS OF THE ART OF IRON MANUFACTURE.1 By W. BELCK. About three years ago I again brought before our society the question as to the age and origin of the art of ironworking. I can now state with satisfaction that the discussion and study of this problem has not, as in similar cases, after a sudden burst of enthusiasm, well nigh exhausted itself, but it continues, here and elsewhere, to engage the earnest attention of scholars. If it be said that by this time we should have reached some conclusions, I may say that in a measure we really have arrived at somewhat definite results, due chiefly to the present manner of stating the problem, and to a restriction and limitation of the question, which I claim as my modest contribution in the treatment of the subject. In the course of my studies, untrammeled by methods and aims of other investigators, and constantly guided by entirely different viewpoints, I was soon convinced that there was a very long interval between what may be called the accidental and the intentional production of iron implements, an interval that probably covered many milleniums. The question as to when prehistoric man first held in his hand an iron object made by himself is very interesting to us all, the more so because of the apparent impossibility of finding a satisfactory answer. But this question as to incidental ironworking is unimportant beside the query as to whom we are indebted for the intentional production of iron, its manufacture, and for the industry thus made possible. In a word, who gave this industrial art to ancient and modern civilization, when and where was it first practiced? And since the superiority of iron over all other metals known to the ancients is not at all based upon the qualities of wrought iron, which because of its softness and pliability is for many uses considerably inferior to the hard bronze of antiquity, but is due mainly to the excellent qualities of hardened steel, the question as to who were the originators, the time and place, of the first manufactures of steel, becomes of preponderating interest to the historians of civilization. 1 Translated by permission from the German of W. Belck, Die Erfinder der Eisentechnik in Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, vol. 42, 1910, part 1, pp. 15-30. Berlin: Behrend & Co., 1910. * Zeitschr. Ethnol., 1907, pp. 334-381. Compare also Zeitschr. Ethnol., 1908, pp. 45-69 and 241-253. It will not be amiss to glance first at the results of the discussion and researches of scholars during the last three years. First of all, as to the age and origin of steelmaking, the most important stage in the history of the working of iron-it is unfortunate that nobody has attempted to solve this difficult problem. And, indeed, our sources here fail us completely, for the process of making and working fine steel was guarded by the ancients as a most profound secret known only to members of the same sect. The evil repute in which ironworkers were held by some peoples-apparently also by the earliest of the Israelites-must certainly in not a small measure be connected with the superstition of their neighbors, who ascribed skill in the making of fine steel weapons to the aid of evil spirits and demons. And it is self-evident that the masters of this art, the prosperous sword-cutlers of the time, would not themselves divulge, much less write, upon the secrets of their trade. On the contrary, it was in their interest to foster popular belief in the supernatural origin of their workmanship, and thus to put a stop to all inquiry as to the real methods of their trade. The steel makers and workers were therefore looked upon either as artists by the grace of God, or as malignant sorcerers and wizards, and were treated accordingly. In either case the result was the same, the methods of steelworkers remained the secret of the sect and was under no condition betrayed. We can thus understand why such a learned man as Pliny could offer no definite data on the history of the steel industry, although he was well acquainted with the makers of fine steel. The oldest written direct information now known on the employment and working of steel is the Biblical passage in I Samuel xiii, 19-22. Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears: But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock. Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads. So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan: but with Saul and Jonathan his son was there found. The implements mentioned above, according to my conception, can not possibly mean anything other than those of steel. And so also very probably in the following Biblical passages in Joshua xvii, 16 and 18, by "chariots of iron" we should understand "chariots of steel:" And the children of Joseph said, The hill is not enough for us: and all the Canaanites that dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron, both they who are of Bethshean and her towns, and they who are of the valley of Jezreel. But the mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood, and thou shalt cut it down: and the outgoings of it shall be thine; for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong. 1 1 And in Judges i, 19, and iv, 3: And the Lord was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. And the children of Israel cried unto the Lord: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel. It affords me satisfaction to state that investigators generally have tacitly adopted my interpretation of these passages. But it should also be pointed out that there is hardly any prospect that older written evidence will be discovered, for the peoples who have left ample written monuments older than those of the Hebrew, the Assyro-Babylonians and the Egyptians, are not to be considered in our problem. The former, because without question they became acquainted with iron at a much later period; the latter, because— even assuming that they had known wrought iron in earlier timesthey never employed steel. But even if we must confine ourselves to Biblical passages and to accounts of the conquest of Palestine by the invading Habiri (Hebrews) hordes as resting on good tradition and therefore reliable, we obtain quite an early date, about the thirteenth pre-Christian century, for the first mention of steel. At the same time it should be borne in mind that we must postulate for that period a quite well advanced workmanship, so that the ironsmiths were able to turn out scythes at least 1 meter long and correspondingly wide for the scythe chariots. It is self-evident that the making of such steel scythes was attempted only after long practice in making swords, daggers, arrows, and other weapons of steel. If these steel scythes were fixed to the axles and poles of war chariots, it may be assumed that in time of peace they were used for purposes of agriculture. In short, the reference to the scythe chariots of the Canaanites introduces us at once into a period of a highly developed steel industry. In the face of this undeniable fact it appears the more strange and incomprehensible that the Egyptians as well as the AssyroBabylonians, as also the Hittites and all the other great nations of western Asia, had no knowledge whatever of this steel industry which certainly must then have been several hundred years old. For even if the ancient armorers most carefully guarded and practiced their art as a secret, they could hardly have prevented its products from becoming generally known and used by neighboring nations. This condition can be accounted for only by assuming that the actual development of the steel industry, which must have required many years, did not take place in Palestine but elsewhere, and that it was introduced into Palestine shortly before the immigration of the Israelites. These data fully accord with our knowledge of the Philistines, who are assumed by scholars generally to have immigrated |