Speaking as a historian of decipherment, on the one hand I'm surprised
you have gotten as much out of Coe as you seem to have done, and on the
other you might look at the page-and-a-bit I was able to devote to the
question in *The World's Writing Systems* (154f.), and then Lounsbury's
articles in the bibliography there (primarily the one in Senner's
*Origins of Writing*); his 1971 article was IMHO the single point that
can be taken as *the* breakthrough in interpreting the script. It came
nearly 20 years after Knorosov perceived the key (I can imagine that Coe
being Knorosov's champion in the US was instrumental in keeping his work
from gaining the recognition it deserved -- it's obvious from this book
that Coe hated Thompson, and it's not clear whether the emotion was
reciprocated). (Does Coe give any indication at all of the importance of
Whorf's work? I don't recall.)

The decipherment of Mayan, I think, would have gone more surely if
accurate accounts of the decipherment of cuneiform had been available
for the past century. W. A. Rodgers's correct version (most easily
accessible in the 1911 Britannica s.v. "Cuneiform") was superseded by
Budge's hagiographic version centering on Rawlinson, who in fact had
almost nothing to do with the decipherment (and was unable to explain to
anyone how he had "done" it -- not surprisingly). The two scripts are
identical in inner form for all intents and purposes, we now know, and
similar techniques probably would have worked.

cricket@... wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I have almost finished reading Michael Coe's "Breaking the Maya Code"
> and I think I'm beginning to understand, in a very general way, how
> the decipherment was (and is) being accomplished. However, some of
> the logic is not clear to me and Coe isn't big on writing about
> method, so I was wondering if anyone could help me to understand some
> of the specifics?
>
> For example, how does one use polyvalence (both polyphony and
> homophony) to determine the meaning for a logographic or a syllabic
> sign? I can see how Knorosov's Principle of Synharmony is helpful,
> but not this. In fact, it seems to me that the repetitiveness of many
> signs standing for the same sound or the same sign having different
> meanings would only confuse things.
>
> Unless somehow the repetitiveness could help by associating different
> inscriptions with each other? For example, if an unknown glyph is
> found to have the same meaning as a glyph in a translated
> inscription, then it could be the key to translating the as yet
> undeciphered inscription in which it is in. But somehow you have to
> find out that that logograph means the same as the other one first...
>
> I suppose the main thing I have trouble understanding is how so many
> logographs have been figured out at all. What is the method for this?

--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...