Are Maya Glyphs the Same as Aztec Glyphs?

The Maya script of the lowlands of Mesoamerica and the Aztec (Nahuatl) script of central Mexico are both members of the broader Mesoamerican writing tradition, both logosyllabic, and both descended from a common origin in the Formative or Preclassic period. They are, however, not the same script, and the differences between them are revealing of the cultural and historical divergences between the Maya area and central Mexico. A Maya epigrapher cannot read Aztec writing, and an Aztec epigrapher cannot read Maya writing, and the conventions of the two scripts are sufficiently different that even a student of Mesoamerican writing in general needs to learn each one separately.

This pages describes the similarities and the differences between the two scripts. The Maya script is described in detail on the page on Maya hieroglyphs and the glyph system. The Maya codices are described on the page on the Maya codices and surviving books. The broader context is reviewed on the page on Maya writing, language, and books.

The shared Mesoamerican tradition

The Maya and the Aztec writing systems are both descended, by a process of gradual elaboration, from a single origin in the Formative or Preclassic period. The earliest evidence of writing in Mesoamerica comes from the Olmec and Zapotec areas of the Gulf Coast and the Valley of Oaxaca, with dates of around 600–500 BCE, and the writing systems of the Maya and the Aztec are both part of the tradition that grew out of this origin. The other major Mesoamerican writing systems — the Isthmian script of the Pacific coast, the Mixtec script of Oaxaca, the Zapotec script of Monte Albán, and the various smaller scripts of the region — are also part of the same tradition, and they share a number of features with the Maya and the Aztec.

The shared features include:

The use of logograms for common words, such as the names of days, months, and natural objects.
The use of syllabic signs for the consonant-vowel (CV) syllables of the spoken language.
The use of bar-and-dot numerals, in which a dot is the number 1 and a horizontal bar is the number 5.
The use of numerical coefficients for the day-signs and the month-signs of the 260-day and 365-day calendars.
The use of a calendar round that combines the 260-day Tzolkin and the 365-day Haab’ into a 52-year cycle.

The shared features are the result of the shared origin of the writing systems, and they are the reason that the Maya and the Aztec scripts are conventionally described as “logosyllabic” in the same terms.

The key differences

The differences between the Maya and the Aztec scripts are, however, more striking than the similarities. The most important differences are:

Phonetic explicitness. The Maya script is far more systematic in its use of syllabic spelling than the Aztec script. The Maya script can carry extended passages in which syllables do most of the heavy lifting, in a manner that is often compared to Japanese. The Aztec script, by contrast, is more logographic, and uses syllabic signs chiefly to disambiguate the reading of logograms. The difference is so striking that some scholars have described the Aztec script as essentially “logo-syllabic” while the Maya script is more “syllabographic.”
Syllabary size. The Maya script has roughly 300 syllabic signs, while the Aztec script has roughly two dozen. The difference is partly a matter of historical depth (the Maya script is older and has had more time to develop its syllabary), and partly a matter of the conventions of inscription.
Glyph blocks. The Maya script arranges its signs in square or rectangular blocks, typically paired left-and-right or top-and-bottom. The Aztec script does not use the same convention, and its signs are typically arranged in linear or zigzag patterns.
Iconographic conventions. The iconographic conventions of the two scripts are quite distinct. The Maya script uses a number of distinctive visual elements, including the Isim K’uh convention and the personification of syllabic signs, that are not found in the Aztec script. The Aztec script, by contrast, has its own distinctive conventions, including the use of the year sign and the speech scroll.
Script direction. The Maya script is read in a fixed order from upper left to lower right, with the signs in a block read in a fixed order. The Aztec script is typically read in a more linear order, often from top to bottom and left to right, but the conventions of script direction are not as rigid as in the Maya script.

The differences are the result of a long process of independent development, and they are the reason that the two scripts are conventionally described as “different” rather than “dialects” of the same system. The convention is reviewed in detail in the page on how do scholars read Maya hieroglyphs today.

The Maya script in detail

The Maya script is described in detail on the page on Maya hieroglyphs and the glyph system, but a brief summary is useful here. The Maya script is logosyllabic, with roughly 800 distinct signs. The script is arranged in glyph blocks, typically paired, that are read in a fixed order from upper left to lower right. The syllabic signs are of the CV and CVC types, with roughly 130 CV signs and a smaller number of CVC signs. The logograms are roughly 500, with a small remainder of rare and possibly idiosyncratic forms. The script has a long history, going back to the late Preclassic, and is the only fully deciphered script of the pre-Columbian Americas.

The Maya script is also distinctive in its use of the Isim K’uh convention, in which the syllabic signs of a word are spread across the various elements of a glyph block to create a visual pun. The convention is described in detail on the page on Maya hieroglyphs and the glyph system.

The Aztec script in detail

The Aztec script, more properly called the Nahuatl script of the Aztec, is described in a number of standard references, including the works of Frances Berdan and of Elizabeth Hill Boone. The script is logosyllabic, with a smaller syllabary than the Maya. The script is read in a more linear order than the Maya, and the signs are typically arranged in linear or zigzag patterns. The script is associated with the Aztec of central Mexico, and is best known from the central Mexican codices, including the Codex Mendoza, the Codex Borbonicus, the Codex Magliabechiano, and a number of other colonial and post-conquest documents.

The Aztec script is the script of the Aztec of the Valley of Mexico, the people who built the great city of Tenochtitlan and who were conquered by Hernán Cortés in 1521. The script was used to record dynastic histories, ritual prescriptions, divinatory almanacs, and a small number of other texts. The script is best known from the colonial and post-conquest codices that preserve the conventions of the pre-Columbian script.

Shared conventions: the day-signs and the month-signs

The Maya and the Aztec scripts share a number of conventions in their recording of the calendar. The day-signs of the 260-day Tzolkin (in Nahuatl, the Tonalpouhqui) are largely shared, although with different names. The month-signs of the 365-day Haab’ (in Nahuatl, the Xiuhpohualli) are partially shared, although the Aztec month-signs are quite different from the Maya month-signs, and the conventions of the calendar are not the same. The bar-and-dot numerals are shared, and the conventions of the numerical coefficients for the day-signs and the month-signs are shared.

The shared conventions of the calendar are the most visible shared feature of the two scripts, and the most useful for the comparative epigrapher. The conventions are reviewed in detail in the page on how do scholars read Maya hieroglyphs today, and the conventions of the calendar are reviewed in detail on the page on the Maya calendar system.

Shared conventions: the logograms

The two scripts also share a small number of logograms. The sign for the Ahau / Ajaw day (the day-sign of the 20-day cycle that corresponds to the Aztec Ce Tochtli “One Rabbit” / Maya Ajaw “Lord”) is the most striking example. The sign is a face in a cartouche, with a distinctive eye-band and a distinctive headdress. The sign is the same in both scripts, and the shared convention is a useful diagnostic of the shared origin of the two scripts.

A small number of other logograms are also shared. The sign for the number zero, the sign for the year, and the sign for the sun are all shared, with minor variations. The shared conventions are a useful diagnostic of the shared origin of the two scripts, and the conventions are reviewed in detail in the page on how do scholars read Maya hieroglyphs today.

The conventions of the codices

The Maya codices and the Aztec codices share a small number of conventions. Both are screenfold books on bark paper or amate (in the case of the Maya) or on amate or maguey paper (in the case of the Aztec), painted in mineral and organic pigments. Both are read from left to right on each page, with the reader progressing along the screenfold. Both are organized into discrete pages that can be consulted individually for a given ritual.

The conventions of the codices are, however, more divergent than the conventions of the script. The Maya codices are dominated by the Tzolkin almanacs and the astronomical tables, while the Aztec codices are dominated by the ritual almanacs of the 260-day Tonalpouhqui and the 365-day Xiuhpohualli. The conventions of the codices are reviewed in detail in the page on the Maya codices and surviving books.

The historical relationship

The historical relationship between the two scripts is a topic of ongoing research. The most widely accepted view is that the two scripts share a common origin in the Formative or Preclassic period, and that the divergence between them is the result of a long process of independent development. The date of the divergence is not known, but it is thought to have been relatively early, perhaps in the early or middle Formative period.

The historical relationship between the two scripts is reviewed in detail in the page on how do scholars read Maya hieroglyphs today, and the conventions of the calendar are reviewed in detail on the page on the Maya calendar system.

The conventions of the colonial period

The conventions of the colonial period are also revealing. The Maya and the Aztec both produced colonial codices in the Latin alphabet, but the conventions of the colonial codices are quite different. The Maya colonial codices — including the Books of Chilam Balam and the Popol Vuh — are written in the local Maya languages and preserve a large amount of pre-Columbian content. The Aztec colonial codices — including the Codex Mendoza and the Codex Borbonicus — are written in the local Nahuatl language and preserve a smaller amount of pre-Columbian content. The conventions of the colonial period are reviewed in detail in the page on what happened to most of the Maya books.

Conclusion

The Maya and the Aztec scripts are not the same. They are, however, related, and the relationship is a useful diagnostic of the shared origin of the writing systems of Mesoamerica. The Maya script is far more systematic in its use of syllabic spelling, and the Aztec script is far more logographic. The conventions of the two scripts are different enough that a student of Mesoamerican writing needs to learn each one separately, and the conventions of the codices are quite different.

The differences between the two scripts are also revealing of the cultural and historical divergences between the Maya area and central Mexico. The Maya script developed in the lowlands of Mesoamerica, in a region of dense population and intensive agriculture, while the Aztec script developed in the Valley of Mexico, in a region of large cities and centralized states. The conventions of the two scripts reflect the conventions of the two regions, and the conventions are a useful diagnostic of the cultural and historical differences between the two regions.

Sources

Coe, M. D. & Van Stone, M. (2005). Reading the Maya Glyphs (2nd ed.). Thames & Hudson. — link
Houston, S. D. (2004). The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process. Cambridge University Press. — link
Martin, S. & Grube, N. (2008). Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens (2nd ed.). Thames & Hudson. — link
Boot, E. (2009). The Updated Preliminary Classic Maya–English / English–Classic Maya Vocabulary of Hieroglyphic Readings. Wayeb. — link
Knorozov, Y. V. (1952). Ancient writing of Central America. Sovetskaya Etnografiya, 3. — [link](https://www.worldcat.org/title/sovet skaia-etnografiia/oclc/60638864)
Proskouriakoff, T. (1971). Commoners in Classic Maya sculpture. In Memoirs of the Peabody Museum vol. 6. Peabody Museum, Harvard. — link