University of Nevada, Reno

Writing of the Americas

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English

by

Jaycob A. Nolte

Dr. Ian Clayton/Thesis Advisor

Dr. Valerie Fridland/Thesis Co-Advisor

May, 2021 THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by

Jaycob Nolte

entitled

Writing of the Americas

be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Dr. Ian Clayton Advisor

Dr. Valerie Fridland Co-advisor

Dr. Ignacio Montoya Committee Member

Dr. Jenanne Ferguson Graduate School Representative

David W. Zeh, Ph.D., Dean Graduate School

May, 2021 i

Abstract This paper aims to highlight the different forms of writing within the Americas, establish

connections between the systems, and discuss the impact of European colonization. Writing systems within the American Continents contain a vast array of different indigenous systems that first started around 1000-900 BCE and spread throughout Mesoamerica into varying communities innovated to make their writing systems. The writing systems discussed are Olmec, Zapotec,

Maya, Epi-Olmec, Teotihuacan, Aztec, Mixtec, Khipus, Cree, Cherokee, and Inuktitut writing systems. Primary sources of each system, secondary sources that discuss and synthesize these primary sources, policies, laws, and other cultural materials discussed within these indigenous communities are used throughout the paper to further the discussion. The impact of colonization on the writing systems of the Americas creates a division between pre-and post-contact systems that show the extent of colonial powers. This paper also discusses the writing systems that are still in use and their community's development of revitalization tools and resources. The writing systems of the Americas are an integral part of history, showcasing the people who have lived there for many thousands of years.

Keywords: Writing Systems, Mesoamerica, Colonization, Abugida, Logographic Writing

ii

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 1 – Writing Systems in Context ...... 4 1.1 Writing Systems ...... 4 1.2 Writing in Other Parts of the World ...... 7 Chapter 2 – Development of Writing in Mesoamerica ...... 9 2.1 Olmec ...... 11 2.2 Zapotec ...... 13 2.3 Maya ...... 16 2.4 Epi-Olmec ...... 21 2.5 Teotihuacan ...... 23 2.6 Aztec ...... 25 2.7 Mixtec ...... 28 Chapter 3 – Development of Writing Systems in South America ...... 31 3.1 Khipus ...... 32 Chapter 4 – Development of Writing Systems in North America ...... 36 4.1 Cherokee ...... 36 4.2 Cree (Nêhiyaw) ...... 40 4.3 Inuktitut ...... 43 Chapter 5 – Impact of Colonization ...... 46 5.1 Mesoamerica ...... 46 5.2 South America ...... 49 5.3 North America ...... 50 Chapter 6 – Current Writing Systems and Their Futures ...... 54 6.1 Cherokee Syllabary ...... 55 6.2 Cree Syllabary ...... 57 6.3 Inuktitut Syllabary ...... 59 Conclusion ...... 61 Appendix A: Code for Map of Writing Systems ...... 63 References ...... 67

iii

List of Tables TABLE 1: Breakdown of Writing Systems ...... 6 TABLE 2: Mesoamerica Writing ...... 10

iv

List of Figures Figure 1: Evolution of the Cuneiform Script showing the line characters that were marked on the outside of envelopes into the marks made with styluses (Dedovic 2019)...... 7 Figure 2: 3D printed Oracle bone with early Chinese writing inscribed on it (Augenstein 2016). . 8 Figure 3: Drawing by David Mora-Marin showing surviving lines, and cracks that have damaged certain lines (Mora-Marin 2020)...... 12 Figure 4: Frequency list revised for Mora-Marin (2020)...... 13 Figure 5: Zapotec year signs, year bearers and number coefficients (Marcus 1992)...... 15 Figure 6: Cross Section of Maya grapheme table (Coe 2005)...... 17 Figure 7: Grapheme representing “ti k’ak’- al jul” meaning “with a fiery spear.” (Coe 2005). .... 18 Figure 8: Section of Maya Numbers Depicting both numerical and deities that represent each number (Coe 2005)...... 19 Figure 9: Reading order of Maya graphemes (Coe 2005)...... 21 Figure 10: Drawing of La Mojarra Stela (Justeson 1993)...... 22 Figure 11: Teotihuacan graphemes with Numerical Coefficients (Taube 2000) ...... 24 Figure 12: Page from Codex Borbonicus (retrieved from Famsi.org)...... 26 Figure 13: Numbers from various codices (c-Aubin, d-Quinatzin, e/f-Mendoza) (retrieved from Boone 2000)...... 27 Figure 15: Image of the Codex Vindobonensis (Codex Yuta Tnoho) (retrieved from Famsi.org) 29 Figure 14: Example of Boustrophedon Reading order (Jansen 2010) ...... 30 Figure 16: Khipu construction Elements (Urton 2003) ...... 32 Figure 17: Wrap counts on two axsus from Candelaria. (Gilsdorf 2008). Showing the complexity and understanding of numbers textile makers had in order to provide accurate and precise textiles...... 34 Figure 18: Depiction of Sequoyah’s Syllabary in alphabetical order. (Scancarelli 1996) ...... 37 Figure 19: Depiction of syllabary used in a classroom on a clock. (Bender 2002) ...... 39 Figure 20: Star Chart depicting the different Spirit Markers (University nuhelot’įne thaiyots’į nistameyimâkanak Blue Quills. n.d.) ...... 40 Figure 21: Art fixture in River lot 11 made by Amy Malbeuf. (Fish 2017) ...... 42 Figure 22: Depicts a sign in Iqaluit, NU, CA with both Inuktitut and English Source: Nunatsiaq.com ...... 44 Figure 23: Inuktitut Syllabary (retrieved from tusaalanga.ca) ...... 45 Figure 24: The above image is a translation of Fray Pedro de Gante’s catechism which Fray Pedro de Gante had natives of Texcoco (Aztecs) write to depict his prayers (Delmas 2012)...... 48 Figure 25: Depiction of the Khipukamayuqs from the Spanish Conquistadors (Urton 2003)...... 49 Figure 26: Cherokee syllabary inscription from around Manitou Cave (Carroll 2019)...... 51 v

Figure 27: Cherokee Nation logo from Cherokee Nation in OK, USA (Cherokee Nation Cherokee Language. n.d.)...... 55 Figure 28: Part of the Luxx Spring/Summer 2020 with a side bag with Cree graphemes printed on to represent the Cree culture (Jardine 2019)...... 58 Figure 29: Example of Dialogue on the Tusaalanga learning website (“Lesson Index” n.d.)...... 59 Figure 30: Example of code, World Map with All Systems ...... 65 Figure 31: Example of code, World Map with Epi-Olmec Selected ...... 66

1

Introduction

With the development of writing, certain societies started to document and contain different ideas and records that were used to look back upon for reference and guidance.

Historically, there are three separate instances where writing developed without outside influence; these instances occur in Mesopotamia, China, and Mesoamerica (Rogers 2005). There is even a fourth possible instance that writing has occurred in South America. This will be discussed later surrounding the implementation of the khipus. Writing systems usually evolved from methods of record-keeping or imagery. These systems were explicitly used by the upper stratum of societies while working to keep the majority of the public out of the literacy circle they had created.

Throughout the hundreds to thousands of years that a specific writing system has existed, these three systems diverged, and all the writing systems today have stemmed from these origin points.

Over the years, the development of writing systems created a separation in the types of writing systems understood. Writing systems contain common roots that have broken off and diverged to create different ways linguists use to categorize systems. Many current-day systems stem from the Mesopotamian and Chinese development of writing, while for the most part, writing that came out of Mesoamerica has been forcibly removed or replaced by another system due to colonialism.

This paper aims to explore the avenues and structures surrounding writing systems in the context of North and South America, often understudied or overlooked in the field of writing systems. It will show a distinction between writing systems that were developed pre-and post- contact with European colonists and emphasize their impact on writing. To understand the connection that each system has with each other, their cultural implications, and, if applicable, their forced eradication and potential revival will also be discussed. The main question discussed in this paper is “How writing systems developed in the Americas, and what was their impact on 2 societies that developed them and those in contact with them?” This question orients the understanding that the importance of indigenous identity is heavily tied with writing. This paper will address eleven writing systems from the American continents, exploring the type of system, origin, usage, dialectal understanding/differences, and any cultural information relevant to each system, including decipherment lack thereof. As the systems themselves are no longer used, many

of them will be looked at through a historical lens using data gathered over the years. There are three distinct locales of writing systems in this region: Mesoamerica, North America, and South

America. By separating the systems into specific locations, their differences and similarities can be further examined. In Mesoamerica, and to some extent South America, as will be discussed, writing was primarily used as a form of record-keeping, whether with census, calendrical, or ritual data. Writing systems that came out of North America hundreds of years after the destruction of these Mesoamerican systems are often more widespread among the public and have continued to gain traction over the years through revitalization efforts and continued technological advances further the use of their writing systems.

To answer and address all parts of this question, this paper uses primary examples of each writing system alongside discussion and analysis of these primary examples. It also includes current works, consisting of policies, statutes, academic resources, revitalization efforts, and articles produced by people within each community. The sources chosen are included due to their impact on communities using the writing systems or outside communities. Many primary writing samples are the only decipherable or available text within a writing system. More modern sources include policies and statutes that describe revitalization efforts or forced migration that directly impact these peoples and their form of writing. Finally, cultural documentation is used to discuss what communities are currently doing to revitalize or restore their writing system and how this information has spread in the age of technology. 3

This paper is broken up into different chapters and sections to separate the topics being discussed. First, Chapter 1 will discuss writing systems, their context, and definitions of terms used throughout the paper. Chapters 2-4 will each focus on specific areas (Mesoamerica, South

America, and North America) and explore the writing systems located in each area and create an image of the system to further the discussion. Each section will contain a preface of the system typology report to summarize and identify what kind of systems are found in each location.

Chapter 5 will then discuss the impact of colonization of the Americas, starting with contact in

1521, impacting each writing system, and the division between pre-and post-contact writing systems. This section will also discuss indigenous identity relating to pre-contact writing systems.

Chapter 6 will then consider the writing systems currently in use and show their linguistic landscape and any revitalization or public policy efforts that are taking place while addressing these post-contact system’s indigenous identity as tied to writing. Finally, a conclusion will discuss the implications of this paper and further research that can be done, and potential futures for writing systems in the Americas.

In addition to this report, an interactive map was created to show the locations of ancient texts currently on display in museums. The map aims to further emphasize the colonial impact on these writing systems by showing where many historical documents containing these writing systems. While this map is not all-encompassing, it tries to help those with little to no understanding of the subject gain more context. This map is created using the programming language R and uses Geo computational models to help create the map. The code used for the map can be found in Appendix A. 4

Chapter 1 – Writing Systems in Context

1.1 Writing Systems

The term writing system throughout this paper will use the definition “A set of visible or

tactile signs used to represent units of language in a systematic way, with the purpose of

recording messages which can be retrieved by everyone who knows the language in question and

the rules by virtue of which its units are encoded in the writing system.” (Coulmas 1999). This

definition of writing systems will be used due to the inclusion of many different systems that may

otherwise not be thought of as a writing system to other definitions. Specifically, the

understanding through the word tactile includes different writing systems that are not necessarily

“written,” such as Braille or Khipus. These systems are not fully understood by only looking at

other definitions without the tactile portion. At the same time, they are still used to retrieve

information or create the information to be used.

The types of writing systems discussed throughout this paper will include syllabaries,

abugidas/moraic, logographic, and semasiographic writing systems. A syllabary is a form of writing where the characters have a one-to-one representation with a language’s syllables

(“Syllabic Alphabet” n.d.). Some of the Mesoamerican syllabaries described in this paper may identify more with abugidas. Still, due to the unknown understanding of specific languages and their syllable structures, they are categorized as syllabaries for this discussion. While this can be an accurate understanding in some cases, certain characters can be used in the coda position in certain syllables, so moraic or abugida is a better definition to use. Some languages have complex syllable structures that are not addressed in a syllabary, such as CCV, CVC, CVCC, or VC, which is the cause of this distinction. The notion of a mora surrounds an Abugida or Moraic writing system. 5

Understanding a mora deals with how each grapheme can be expressed by looking at the onset + nucleus (CV) in each syllable instead of taking into account different forms of syllables that a language may have (Rogers 2005; “Syllabic Alphabet” n.d.). Some writing discussed will include mixed systems containing more than one type of writing system within them. Usually, the first component of these systems is syllabic, while the second part is often logographic.

Logographic writing systems are systems whose graphemes are mostly tied to a language’s words or morphemes (Rogers 2005). Logographic systems include Chinese, with it being a majorly analytic language meaning each word itself contains only one meaning. The last system that will be discussed throughout the paper is the semasiographic system. Semasiographic systems are described as semantic writing systems, meaning the graphemes themselves can describe whole utterances (Rogers 2005). Semasiographic writing systems are fundamentally different from logographic systems. They contain multiple morphemic meanings in one grapheme instead of having a one-to-one ratio, which is often the case with logographic systems. Table 1 also represents a visual representation of these distinctions by using writing systems discussed in the paper. Understanding these definitions help build the relationships between each writing system.

Their usage within their societies can be better explained by focusing on what each system used as a preference to write, whether that be a syllable, mora, word, or phrase.

6

TABLE 1: Breakdown of Writing Systems

TYPE OF SYSTEM MAIN FOCUS SYSTEM EXAMPLES

SYLLABARY Rooted in the Zapotec, Syllable Maya, Epi- Olmec, Pure syllabaries Teotihuaca contain all n, Mixtec, syllabic variations Aztec of a language within the writing system

(Coe 2005)

ABUGIDA/ Rooted in a CV Cherokee, MORAIC structure Cree, Inuktitut All graphemes are CV oriented with variation in V characters and certain coda specific (University nuhelot’įne graphemes thaiyots’į nistameyimâkanak Blue Quills. n.d.)

LOGOGRAPHIC Rooted in the Zapotec, word Maya, Epi- Olmec, Each grapheme Teotihuaca represents a n, Mixtec, different word Aztec (Coe 2005)

SEMASIOGRAPHIC Rooted in the Khipus Sentence/ phrase

Each grapheme is used as a whole phrase in a language.

(Urton 2003)

7

1.2 Writing in Other Parts of the World

In looking towards one area of the world where writing developed, it is essential to note the other two points in history that writing developed without any outside influence. Both China and Mesopotamia’s writing development create a broader understanding of how writing can arise and the reasons for the need for writing. Since they were developed over 4,000-5,000 years ago, there is still some dispute regarding certain aspects of each of these writing systems.

Mesopotamia’s writing system is named Cuneiform, and the development can be traced back to its proto-writing form. This writing is said to be the oldest in the world, with clay tablets being dated to as early as 3000 BCE, and the development of the system can be traced further back around 8500 BCE (Rogers 2005). The shift from proto-writing to what is seen as Cuneiform went through many processes. The development of this system is attributed to trade and record keeping. Cuneiform developed out of tokens within clay envelopes. These tokens were later impressed on the top of the envelopes to showcase the items a person had, and as these tokens

Figure 1: Evolution of the Cuneiform Script showing the line characters that were marked on the outside of envelopes into the marks made with styluses (Dedovic 2019). 8 began to represent the signs of the spoken language in addition to the development of more complex graphemes, eventually the writing system was developed (Rogers 2005).

The development from the tokens inside envelopes to imprinted on clay tablets shows a significant shift in how records were kept. The Sumerian people would come to invent their form of writing. The shift to writing from the intricate symbols began around 4400-3000 BCE, and from then on, the development of carving on clay tablets began (Rogers 2005). Cuneiform’s first

“writing” came out of a pointed stick called a stylus carving wet clay, and once the clay was heated, the block would harden, preserving the writing (Rogers 2005). The transition from line drawing to using the stylus in writing is depicted in Figure 1. The Mesopotamian example of the development of writing is the most documented history out of any of the three developed, likely due to the medium in which they used and the preservation of these tablets. In contrast, in other parts, such as Mesoamerica, many records were lost in the 16th century due to colonial eradication efforts during colonization on most indigenous cultures.

The development of Chinese writing began out of oracle bones (Ox scapulas or turtle plastrons) for divination; these bones were heated with the cracks that were made by this were then interpreted surrounding a person’s request or future (Boltz 1996). In this instance, writing was developed for the ritual practice of divination. These writings came out of the Shang period in China around 1200

BCE, with pottery with similar markings being dated to 4800 BCE, but these markings are still disputed due to their connection with Chinese writing (Boltz

1996). While some graphemes were Figure 2: 3D printed Oracle bone with early Chinese writing inscribed on it (Augenstein 2016). 9

created as a direct result of the cracking (the word for divination 卜 or /bǔ/ coming from two cracks in a bone), most were written in a proto form of the current day writing system on the bones themselves (Rogers 2005). The result of this was to detail what the cracks depict for a person. In understanding that writing in China came out of divination, readings show that writing has many ways of developing as in Mesopotamia, the creation of writing was for record-keeping.

Looking towards Mesoamerica and the writing that developed throughout the area, it is like Mesopotamia writing. They were developed as a form of record-keeping but are different

because of the usage. In the next chapter, Mesoamerican writing systems will be discussed and

potential motives that created the space for writing in Mesoamerican civilizations.

Chapter 2 – Development of Writing in Mesoamerica

Writing systems in Mesoamerica have common characteristics that confirm theories of connections between the writing systems and peoples themselves. These include extensive calendrical and numerical systems as well as the type of systems used throughout this area.

Looking at the history and interactions between different peoples also affirms these connections.

These connections will be discussed further in each respective system’s section. Most writing

systems that come out of this area are a hybrid/mixed system, meaning that they comprise more than one writing system. These systems tend to have a syllabary and a logographic component that is intertwined in most writings. Most also have extensive calendrical systems, with innovations developing that allow for growth and further development. This section will discuss the understood creation of writing within the Western Hemisphere, and many of the systems developed from it. 10

TABLE 2: Mesoamerica Writing 11

2.1 Olmec

• Dates Used: Approx. 900 BCE

• Type of System: Unknown

• Location: Veracruz, Mexico

While linguists know that the Olmec created a writing system, there is currently insufficient data on the Olmec people to determine what language was spoken or what they called themselves (Diehl 2004). Assumptions have been made that the Olmecs’ language is an earlier form of the Zoquean language spoken by the Epi-Olmecs and was used in their writing system

(Martinez 2006). But since there is no concrete evidence surrounding this theory, it is not widely accepted. The word Olmec comes instead from the Aztecan language, Nahuatl, meaning “rubber people” (Coe 1968). Many language names and people’s names used throughout this section are the Nahuatl names, and original names will be discussed when available.

The Olmec’s writing system is still undergoing research to determine the type of writing system and its use. As there is no language currently associated with the writing, the graphemes used in the system currently have no phonetic or phonological meaning attached to them. They are mainly researched in frequency and determining which graphemes are separate or compounded. The only known writing by the Olmec was discovered in Veracruz, Mexico, close to the San Lorenzo site, a once flourishing city during the Olmec empire (Martinez, 2006). This location is connected to the Olmec and the Epi-Olmec empire as both cultures inhabited these areas. The writing was on a block of serpentinite, called the Cascajal Block; it is dated to 1000-

900 BCE, making it the earliest identified piece of writing in the Western Hemisphere (Martinez,

2006). As the first recognized piece of writing of America’s, it is crucial to look at what it does for the Olmec and what additional contributions it had to the rest of Mesoamerica and its 12 influence on the writing systems developed later. Epi-Olmec and Zapotec writing is theorized to have come from Olmec writing, which will be discussed later.

Figure 3 shows the Cascajal Block as drawn by David Mora-Marin in his 2020 paper discussing new understandings of the block’s graphemes. As seen in the depiction itself, although it was carved 3000 years ago, the graphemes themselves remain primarily clear and readable to this day, showing the hardiness of the writing and serpentinite block. While there is still missing information on precisely what the

Cascajal Block says, it is clear that it is a form of a writing system or at least some form of nonverbal communication Figure 3: Drawing by David Mora-Marin showing used for storing information. The surviving lines, and cracks that have damaged certain lines (Mora-Marin 2020). repetition of certain characters tends to lend itself to the idea that it is a writing system. However, how the block itself is read is still up for debate. Without factual information regarding how the language is constructed, it creates difficulty in knowing which grapheme is supposed to be read after the other. In Figure 4, the usage of each grapheme is shown. Understanding the most common graphemes and potential reconstruction of a proto-language is one way that the language can be one step closer to decipherment. The chart has recently been revised as specific graphemes were once thought of as single parts, while through another reading, Mora-Marin (2020) believes them to have multiple components. The concatenative nature that is alluded to is similar to other Mesoamerican writing 13 systems; as will be discussed with graphemes, specifically the syllabic graphemes will be stacked on top of each other to create new meaning within the singular grapheme. Examples of the graphemes being looked at as being singular and broken apart from combinations include the upside-down triangle and the box with an “x” in it (Mora-Marin 2020).

While the Cascajal block is the first

concrete example of Olmec writing, there have

been other discoveries that are potentially a part of

this system as well. Other items, such as incised

celts (stone ax) from other locations that were

historically Olmec cities, such as Arroyo Pesquero,

have been found to have similar inscriptions on

them (Mora-Marin 2020; Hammond 2019). These

similar inscriptions continue the notion that there is

a writing system that was used by a class of people

within the Olmec empire as their usage was

widespread throughout the empire. Looking at Figure 4: Frequency list revised for Mora- Marin (2020). inferences into the evolution of this writing system, the understanding that compounded graphemes can be separated is reminiscent of many of the syllabary systems found elsewhere in Mesoamerica Zapotec, Maya, and Epi-Olmec systems.

2.2 Zapotec

• Dates Used: Approx. 600 BCE – 1000 CE

• Type of System: Logographic, Syllabic

• Location: Eastern Oaxaca, Mexico 14

One of the following writing systems to come out of Mesoamerica is the Zapotec writing system. The Zapotec language is a tonal language, part of the Oto-Manguean language family and

is related to the Mixtec language (Carlin 2010). The tonal language constitutes five vowels (/a e i

o u/) and 25 consonants (/b s k tʃ kw d dʒ g w h l m n nʲ p k r s t ts ʒ ʃ j z ʔ/) (Zapotec n.d.).

Zapotec is one of the first systems developed outside of the Olmec and is thought to have

developed alongside Epi-Olmec writing. These two writing systems would be the basis of all

other writing systems that came out of Central America, including the Maya, Teotihuacan, Aztec,

and Mixtec systems (Serrano 2001). Zapotec is said to have developed around 300 years after the

Olmecs in 600 BCE. The Zapotec system employs logographic and syllabic graphemes to create a

unique style of writing that can appear as a form of art at first glance.

About 100-300 current graphemes have been deciphered, with many others being only

appearing once within the limited data, making it challenging to understand their meaning

presently (Marcus 1992). This limited data makes it difficult to understand the Zapotec system

itself entirely. Still, certain aspects can be looked at and understood through other systems’

innovation on writing that was already on the linguistic landscape due to Zapotec's creation. One

way to further the understanding of Zapotec graphemes is by doing comparative reconstruction.

Comparative reconstruction is a process that uses data from a later date to try and reconstruct

what could have been there in the past by looking at changes made to the system of Mixtec,

Maya, and other writings that developed out of Zapotec (Serrano 2011). Using this method would

help better understand some of the graphemes that are still unknown today by connecting the

newer forms of Maya writing or other systems developed out of Zapotec writing to define more

graphemes.

While there are some unknowns on the writing system itself, those who used the system

were documented. Zapotec scribes were taught writing in a school for solely upper-class citizens 15 and were often called huezeequichi, meaning an “artist on paper” in the Zapotec language

(Marcus 1992). The idea of scribes being artists is seen throughout Mesoamerica, showing that the idea of writing is often closely related to art and other handiwork tasks. The separation of the upper class from other classes demonstrates that literacy is closely tied to power. Those in the higher status can read and write and shape the past’s narrative in their favor, especially when looking at the calendrical systems developed.

Mesoamerican societies used their high-level astronomy knowledge to develop specific calendars and ways of marking dates in their writing. These calendars used two types of measurements; one was a 260-day ritual calendar split into four sections of 65 (Marcus 1992).

The other is a 365-day secular calendar, broken up between the wet and dry seasons for better knowledge when growing crops

(Marcus 1992). The use of these calendars served specific cultural purposes and worked in tandem to create a marking time within the writing. These two different types of calendars will be referenced in most writing systems developed after this, and differences or innovations created by each system will be further explained. The 260-day ritual calendar had day counts that would show how far within the 65- day cycle the Zapotec people were (Marcus Figure 5: Zapotec year signs, year bearers and number coefficients 1992). As calendars and date marking of the (Marcus 1992). 16

Mesoamerican people developed, the calendars evolved through innovations made in future writing systems discussed in each given section.

Zapotec scribes used and potentially created a numbering method using a combination of bars and dots, with each bar representing five and each dot a one (Marcus 1992). As information has been lost during the transition from Olmec to Zapotec writing, there is no current concrete connection from the numbering system seen in Zapotec to that of Olmec writing, and even if it had a numbering system. The bar-dot system was used to count to 13 to represent different dates within the 260-day calendar (Serrano 2001). Figure 5 depicts various counts using this method.

Other information brought about by this figure includes the use of day signs, directly above the number and year bearers, directly above the day signs (Marcus 1992). This counting method became a way of marking dates seen in other Mesoamerican societies as the number systems and year markers developed to create more complex imagery in writing. Other systems that used this method of counting included the Maya, Mixtec, and Aztec writings.

2.3 Maya

• Dates Used: Approx. 400 BCE – 1600 CE

• Type of System: Logographic, Syllabary

• Location: Yucatan, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Belize, Honduras

After the Zapotec system, writing started appearing in different parts of Mesoamerican societies, including the Maya Empire to the East. Maya was written in the Maya language, which is part of the Mayan language family and is the ancestor to many indigenous languages in

Mesoamerica (Marcus 1992). The language of Yucatec Maya consists of five short and five long vowels /a e i o u aː eː iː oː uː/ 3 diphthongs /aj ej oj/ and 22 consonants /ɓ tʃ tʃʼ d h k kʼ l m n p pʼ r s t tʼ ts tsʼ w ʃ j ʔ/ (Yucatec Maya n.d.). The Maya Writing System is the most well-documented writing system of Mesoamerica due to many famous ruins that provided numerous examples and 17 data to help the writing system be deciphered. The Maya empire spanned many current-day countries, including Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, and Honduras, with Central cities located in Guatemala and Mexico’s Yucatan state (Marcus 1992). The first instance of Maya writing is approximately 400 BCE, with more examples being dated to 300-200 BCE; these include graphemes in murals and other sculptures (Hudson 2018). Like the Zapotec system, the

Maya writing employed different forms of writing to convey their meanings. The Maya writing system contains mainly syllabic graphemes mixed with logographic characters that create the remaining graphemes.

While logographs were used, the Maya syllabary’s extensiveness suggests that it was used more often. There is a shift later in writing systems where specific systems (Aztec and Mixtec) had opposite usage of logographs and syllabics. Figure

6 depicts a cross-section of a table created to separate all syllabic graphemes into their phonetic representation (Coe 2005). The graphemes on the table demonstrate that specific phonemes had different iterations, while others contained only one or two different graphemes as representation. Figure 6: Cross Section of Maya The underrepresentation of particular graphemes grapheme table (Coe 2005). may be due to specific graphemes’ usage. More widely used phonemes have many different representations, and infrequent phonemes only have one to two representations. Understanding 18 where the graphemes were written on or carved into also helps determine what time the writing was done.

Figure 7: Grapheme representing “ti k’ak’- al jul” meaning “with a fiery spear.” (Coe 2005). An example of the logographic breakdown can be seen in Figure 7 with the word “ti k’ak’- al jul” meaning “with a fiery spear.” This glyph can be further broken down into its

components of “ti,” “k’ak’,” “-al,” and “ju -lu (jul),” each representing a different morpheme of the word comprising its meaning (Coe 2005). The prefix “ti” is a preposition, and in the context of this distribution, it means “with” (Coe 2005). Next, “K’aK’” is represented by the grapheme and means “fire” (Coe 2005). After reading “k’ak’,” it is “-al,” which is often attached to the bottom of another glyph. It is depicted by the curved line on top of it and is an adjectival suffix attached to k’ak’ making the meaning “fire” change to adjectival meaning “fiery” (Coe 2005). The final grapheme in the word is “ju-lu” or “jul” if it is at the end of a word meaning “spear” and completing the meaning of the word

“ti-k’ak’-al ju-l” or “with a fiery spear” (Coe 2005). Understanding the meanings and placement of specific glyphs can help understand their meanings better, as is the case with the adjectival suffix -al as well as the prepositional prefix ti-.

Maya writing can be found in many different places around the Maya empire. They can be found on Stelae (Free-standing monuments), Lentils (Private ritual stones), Zoomorphic sculptures, Hieroglyphic staircases, and temple wall panels (Marcus 1992). The diversity of writing in the Maya case exemplifies the importance of the writing system in important buildings and temples and their usage within rituals. Around 900 CE, Maya tapered out of carving 19 monuments and architecture as a form of writing and moved on to create codices written on animal skins, which include the Paris, Madrid, and Dresden Codex; while architectural writing was still used occasionally, scribes mainly created codices to record events (Marcus 1992).

Mayans often used different calendrical systems to record events. The 260-day count had

20-day signs with 13 counting signs attributed to an inevitable “fate,” while the 365-day year was

split into 18 months of 20 days (and a final month of 5 days), with each month having a patron

(Marcus 1992). As the Maya people used both calendrical systems simultaneously, they also used another form of date counting to trace back when events happened from the main point in time.

This third type of calendar is termed as the Long Count, which was used so that there would be no confusion about when an event happened and tell the exact date from when the long count started on September 8th, 3114 BCE (Coe 2005, 45). The difference in what the calendrical system was used is based on how important the event was and whether the event may be confused with another. Using the Long Count system made sure that there was no mistake as to when certain events took place within the timeline of the Maya civilization.

Figure 8: Section of Maya Numbers Depicting both numerical and deities that represent each number (Coe 2005). 20

Not only did Maya graphemes have many different variants, but they also had different forms of numbers. Most numbers are written with three shapes, similar to the Zapotec system, with a dot (representing 1), a line (representing 5). Still, Maya added an absence marker (usually in a “C” shape), which also could be written using the face, or full figure, of the deity associated with the specified number (Coe 2005). Figure 8 shows different numberings of 1-4 and 11-14 to showcase the differences with the lines, dots, absence markers, and the faces of deities that can also be used in place of that number.

Scribes within Maya society were often of an upper-class nobility and were labeled tz’ib, which also labeled them as artists (Coe 2005). The connection between scribes and artists lends itself to the cultural aspect of scribes being critical and the writing system itself being viewed as a form of art. Scribes were also seen as a different class of people in Maya society. Only an elite group was allowed to be taught writing, leaving them with the power of literacy, and was passed down through generations of fathers and sons (Marcus 1992).

Deciphering the Maya graphemes posed a challenge to many researching linguists when trying to uncover the writing system. There was not just the deciphering of the graphemes themselves but also figuring out the calendrical system and how that fits into the Maya’s culture.

Ernst Forstemann is credited with the decipherment of Maya glyphs by using codices that were not destroyed during the colonization by Spaniards in the area, while Floyd Lounsbury is credited for discovering the type of systems used within Maya writing (syllabary and logographic)

(Daniels 1996). European conquistadors created a lengthy decipherment process because of the destruction of information surrounding the Maya, as well as misconceptions about the writing itself. Other implications will be discussed in a later chapter. Other key figures in the decipherment include Heinrich Berlin, who discovered glyphs about specific Maya sites. Tatiana 21

Proskouriakoff discovered a dating system that pertained to rulers’ births and deaths instead of the specific calendrical systems already discussed (Daniels 1996).

Reading order in Maya graphemes contains two different directions that scribes need to be aware of and make sure they follow. As shown in

Figure 9, a figure from Coe 2005, each grapheme itself is comprised of smaller graphemes that come together to form a meaning. Depending on the placement of the grapheme itself determines the reading order of what is to be read. The uppermost grapheme is shown with two columns, with the left column being read first and the right next, while the following graphemes are read in rows or a combination of the two. While Maya writing is often attributed to coming out of Zapotec writing, another form Figure 9: Reading order of Maya graphemes (Coe 2005). of writing was eastward of Zapotec and was found in the homeland of the Olmecs.

2.4 Epi-Olmec

• Dates Used: Approx. 300 BCE – 500 CE

• Type of System: Logographic, Syllabary

• Location: Veracruz, Mexico

After the Olmec civilization started to decline, a new culture and civilization emerged in this area and was labeled either Isthmian or Epi-Olmec. Since the Epi-Olmec empire was founded in Veracruz, Mexico, the Olmec writing system is thought to have evolved into this system, with

Zapotec cities being not too far away for communication between empires (Justeson 1993). The language spoken in this society represents the Zoque language, which is part of the Mixe- 22

Zoquean language family, four languages of which are still spoken today in the Veracruz area

(Justeson 1993). In most Zoquean languages, there are six vowels /a ɘ i u ɛ ɔ/ with each having a

corresponding long vowel and 13 consonants /p m w t ts s n j k ŋ ʔ h/ (Boudreault 2018).

Like other writing systems around this time, the Epi-Olmec system contains both logographic qualities and syllabic qualities (Davletshin 2014). The use of both forms of writing can be seen in many of the different inscriptions made by Epi-Olmec scribes.

There are a limited number of inscriptions from the Epi-Olmec script. The primary sources of understanding this script are the

La Mojarra Stela, a Teotihuacan-style mask, the Tuxtla Statuette, and the Tres Zapotes

Stela C, with additional incomplete inscriptions being discovered on the

Alvarado Stela, Stela 2 from Tres Zapotes,

Stela 2, and a pottery shard from Chiapa de

Corzo, and the O’Boyle Mask (Davletshin

2014; Justeson 1997). Figure 10 depicts one Figure 10: Drawing of La Mojarra Stela (Justeson 1993). of these inscriptions and highlights the use of the combined writing systems. It showcases a larger grapheme of a deity with syllabic writing along the top and right side of the Stela. This writing format is similar to Zapotec writing as well as in systems that will be discussed later on in that they have a central logographic element, with potentially some syllabic elements, and are surrounded usually with other writings either depicting dates or events that took place. 23

While there are few other examples of Epi-Olmec writing, the most important is the

Mojarra Stela. The Mojarra Stela is the most important because of the volume of writing on this

Stela that led to researchers being able to decipher the writing system and only one of two that contain enough information for grammatical analysis, the other being the Tuxtla Statuette

(Justeson 1993). This decipherment took place in the early 1990s and required knowledge of the pre-proto-Zoquean due to there being no bilingual texts to aid research (Justeson 1993).

Decipherment of Epi-Olmec shows the difficulty in deciphering a language with little information about the language itself. In other languages discussed in this paper, it is the case that there is a lack of crucial information, and so they cannot be deciphered currently (Olmec and Teotihuacan).

The decipherment itself arose from the discovery of the Mojarra Stela. It helped uncover information about the writing system and the language spoken in the Epi-Olmec society itself with similarities in current Mixe-Zoquean languages having certain grammatical affixation

(Justeson 1993). Little is known about Epi-Olmec scribes and their education and or statuses within society.

Numbers in Epi-Olmec follow the dot-bar approach similar to Maya and Zapotec writings

(Davletshin 2014). Calendrical systems seem to follow a similar pattern as seen in these two systems as well. When looking at the Maya “Long Count,” the Epi-Olmec Empire has a similar style and approach to date markers in both the 260-day ritual calendar and the 365-day year calendar (Justeson 2019). The markers in question are the ones used to mark months. The first grapheme in both Maya and Epi-Olmec (from the limited amount) calendrical systems is used to show the Long Count date and then is followed by the grapheme for the month itself takes place.

2.5 Teotihuacan

• Dates Used: Approx. 100 – 600 CE

• Type of System: Logographic, Syllabic 24

• Location: Teotihuacan, Mexico

Other Mesoamerican cultures often occupied similar spaces, whether at the same time or after the collapse of another empire. Teotihuacan is a state that can be found in the northeastern

Basin of Mexico (Nichols 2016). The location of where the Teotihuacan Empire was is vital to recognize due to the contact made with outside empires and the later space that the Aztecs occupied. Teotihuacan itself was a city that had deep cultural exchange happening with possible

Zapotec and Maya settlements within the city itself as, at the time, it was the largest city within the area (Colas 2011). The connections between Zapotec and Maya peoples and Teotihuacan may be a reason for using these writing systems within the Aztec empire.

The language spoken in Teotihuacan is unknown and this is a factor in some of the ignorance surrounding the writing system (Browder 2005). While little is known about the actual

Figure 11: Teotihuacan graphemes with Numerical Coefficients (Taube 2000) language used in Teotihuacan, some developments have been made in the decipherment of their writing system due to similar existing systems during this time. Teotihuacan developed from the

Zapotec system and is seen mainly as consisting of logograms (Taube 2000). While the writing system can be looked at through looking at its ancestors, there are still some roadblocks in research.

Since the Teotihuacan writing developed out of the Zapotec system, they had a similar numbering system with the dot and bar numbering system from helping represent dates in many 25 writings relating to events such as the birth or death of a leader or a famous battle (Taube 2000).

The numbering system can be seen in Figure 11, with three different examples of numbers being shown. The numbers portrayed in each of these contain both the dots and bars often seen in Maya and Zapotec. With them marking 7, 9, and 12 respectively, each bar represents five, and each dot represents 1. Along with each number, it is thought to have a date marker similar in other languages, being represented by the circular grapheme and the two headdress graphemes (Taube

2000). Understanding these numbers in Teotihuacan is vital in tracing writing systems throughout

Mesoamerica due to the similarities that arise. It is also important to note that the headdresses were a unique factor to Teotihuacan writing which shows this innovation in the usage of date markers.

This writing system is less understood due to the lack of knowledge surrounding the connections from the spoken language to graphemes (Millon 1973). Researchers can compare graphemes and numbering but cannot say for sure, without the connection to the spoken language, what the graphemes represent in certain situations. While numbering is one thing that can be connected and understood without direct translation, ritual pieces cannot be fully understood yet, which is one of the drawbacks in research into Teotihuacan writing. Unlike that of Maya and Zapotec scribes of the time, Teotihuacan writing was often painted instead of carved into monuments or architecture (Taube 2000). Painting graphemes instead of carving was the beginning of a change in writing in Mesoamerica; as we will see from around this time on, a lot of writing was done by painting on animal skin instead of carving into stelae or architecture.

After the fall of the Teotihuacan society, many years later, a new society developed into what most people know today as the Aztecs.

2.6 Aztec

• Dates Used: Approx. 1400 – 1600 CE 26

• Type of System: Logographic with minimal Syllabics

• Location: Valley of Mexico, Mexico

The Teotihuacan society that took place mainly in the city of Teotihuacan eventually led into the Aztec empire, which created innovations in the writing system used by many other empires at the time (Nichols 2016). Due to the variety of smaller communities in Central

America, it is evident writing made its way outside of the already discussed language families.

The Aztec writing system represents the Nahua languages of the Uto-Aztecan language family

(Marcus 1992). Nahuatl, which is often attributed to being what was written with the Aztec

system, contains /a e i o u/ with four long variations /aː eː iː oː/, two diphthongs /aj aw/, and 14

consonants / tʃ ʔ k kw l m n p s t tɬ ts ʃ j/ (Nahuatl n.d.). With another language family in the area

that has developed writing out of other systems, it is good to note that there are other examples

outside of Mesoamerica

where languages with no

relation to one another use

the same writing system.

An example of this is the

Japanese Kanji writing

system developed out of

the Chinese writing system

and had to be used for a

different language than

what it was initially created

to do.

Figure 12: Page from Codex Borbonicus (retrieved from Famsi.org). 27

The Aztec empire was founded around the valley of Mexico once on a large lake, Lake

Texcoco, which was then split into two separate lakes: Lake Mexico and Lake Texcoco (de Rojas

2012). These locations were more towards central Mexico and became a seat of power for the

Aztec empire in Mesoamerican politics and outside politics.

Some of the translated codices contain Latinate script from Spaniards explaining the text,

but the Aztec writing consists solely of logographs. Aztec writing did not utilize syllabic writing

as much as before the invasion as they did once they were occupied by the Spanish (Marcus

1992). This usage decline is most likely due to the Spanish’s writing reflecting phonetic writing.

Figure 12 depicts a page from the Codex Borbonicus. Aztec writing was used in similar ways to

many of the other Mesoamerican systems by using it to mainly document dates and events in

calendars. This codex page depicts a month, with the month itself being the larger square in the

upper left and each 2-box column surrounding it being a day. The bottom box depicts the day

itself, and the top box depicts the patron for the day and lets the Aztec scribes know the fate of

the day itself if the day was going to have positive or negative energy (Marcus 1992).

Numbers used in the Aztec writing system were unlike the Maya and Zapotec writings,

and instead of using bars and dots, they used dots solely (Boone 2000). These numbers were

primarily used in the date and

were paired with a year sign to

signify an event's exact date.

When looking at more significant

numbers, Aztec scribes would use

logograms to represent them.

Figure 13 depicts some of the Figure 13: Numbers from various codices (c- different styles of bigger numbers with Aubin, d-Quinatzin, e/f-Mendoza) (retrieved from Boone 2000). 28 numbers like 80 (8c), 100(8d), 400(8e), and 8,000(8f) (Boone 2000). The use of these characters to represent numbers is essential in seeing that these logograms expanded beyond words and had someplace in numbers as well, with both 8e and 8f being hard to discern meaning without prior knowledge of the number they represent. Looking at the way calendars were used is similar to many other cultures that were already discussed. The 260-day calendar and 365-day year worked like many others, with there being a 52-year cycle in the 260-day calendar and each day having a name that is repeated over four-year markers (Marcus 1992).

Scribes, in a similar fashion to other Mesoamerican cultures, were one of the elites.

Specialized schools were created for members of the upper stratum in the Aztec empire to learn various trades called calmecac, boys, and telpochalli, for girls (Marcus 1992). Understanding the differences these schools had and the importance of a scribe that came out of calmecac was to the society is necessary for understanding the role of writing in the Aztec Empire. Scribes were often revered as craftsmen or artists that helped document the long history of the Aztecs (Marcus

1992).

2.7 Mixtec

• Dates Used: Approx. 1100 – 1600 CE

• Type of System: Logographic, Syllabic

• Location: Western Oaxaca, Mexico (“La Mixteca”)

The Mixtec writing system contains certain similarities with other systems that have been explored so far. The language associated with the Mixtec people and their writing system is Dzaha Dzaui from the Oto-Mangue family of tonal languages in the Oaxaca area, similar to the

Zapotec language (Carlin 2010). The Dzaha Dzaui language consists of 6 vowels /a e i ɨ o u/ and

20 consonants /tʃ ð g x k l m n nd ŋ ɲ p r s t ts β ʃ ʒ ʔ/ (Mixtec n.d.). Understanding the dynamic within the prominent language families that use this script (Oto-Mangue, Maya, Mixe-Zoquean, 29 and Uto-Aztecan) is important in understanding these connections peoples as the writing systems have so many shared forms. The name “Mixtec” itself comes from the Nahuatl word meaning

“inhabitants of the land of the clouds,” being that they mainly inhabited areas in Western Oaxaca that were mountainous, reaching at times 2000 meters above sea level (Jansen 2010; Marcus

1992). Many people’s current-day understanding of these areas shows how impactful the interaction and later eradication of the Aztec people were in being the standardized names that are now taught around the world. Since they were the first contact, most names of peoples and places that we know of in the contemporary world are names coined by the Aztec peoples.

Mixtec writing was around for about 500 years from 1100 – 1600AD and started to diminish due to colonization efforts by Spain (Marcus 1992). Like other writing systems of the time, Mixtec also had a pictographic writing system with some syllabic graphemes. The Mixtec writing system is read in a boustrophedon style which is not wholly left to right. This pattern is referred to as the “following the furrow” method because of the shape it makes. The writing is read from side to side and returning oppositely (Jansen

2010). Figure 14 showcases this style in which it can either be more of a vertical reading or horizontal reading. Mixtec is thought to have come out of

Zapotec writing as they are closely related linguistically.

In addition, Zapotec had some writings written in the Figure 15: Image of the Codex Vindobonensis (Codex Yuta boustrophedon format some Tnoho) (retrieved from Famsi.org) 30 years earlier from 300 - 1000 CE (Marcus 1992). Mixtec writings were mainly found on animal leathers and were usually painted on them. These writings are seen in many of their codices that are still around today in museums, including the Codex Bodley (Codex Huahi Andevui), Codex

Vindobonesis (Codex Yuta Tnoho), and Codex Nuttall (Codex Tonindeye) (Jansen 2010). All codices were painted on animal skins and written in the Boustrophedon format, with specific dates being shown and marked calendrical events in specific periods of the Mixtec Empire.

Understanding the Mixtec Codices and writing started in 1944 with the Map of Teozacualco presented at a History Congress meeting in Guadalajara, with glosses on the map matching graphemes the codices, which allowed for a future translation of certain parts of the codices

(Jansen 2010).

Figure 14: Example of Boustrophedon Reading order (Jansen 2010) Mixtec also had a tradition of creating toponymic graphemes. These graphemes usually contained two different parts: the geographical identity of the place in question and the second being a specifying adjective that could help identify the location further (Jansen 2010).

Understanding the geographical graphemes explores another use for writing and documenting data that would be useful for the community by creating signs and writing depicting where and what places were. In documenting toponymic information, it allows other scribes, being the only literate people within the society, to understand what is readily being communicated.

Calendars and dates were an essential mark of documenting events that had taken place and the use of growing crops to understand seasonal cycles. Like most writing systems in

Mesoamerica, Mixtec had two different calendars, one of 260-days and then one for the solar year, which consisted of 365-days mainly meant for growing crops (Jansen 2010). Having 31 thought to have been developed out of the Zapotec script, it is understandable to have a similar calendar system as this was a common understanding amongst these Mesoamerican cultures.

With the calendar system itself, looking at the dates and numbering can differ from other societies with writing systems.

By looking at other writing systems developed later than many others, specific

innovations can be attributed to the “newer” systems. In contrast, other markers can indicate the

time “older” systems were used. The numbering system used in Mixtec writing was similar to that

of the Aztecs. The bar was not used, and instead, dots were solely used unless logographs of numbers that scribes created were used, and these usually stemmed from the idea of the dots

(Boone 2000). In figure 15, Codex Yuta Tnoho or Vindebonensis is displayed, and numbers are seen throughout with dots forming lines that usually end in a larger figurehead. These figureheads are the year in which the date itself took place, with a cycle of 52 years using the 13 numbers starting with Year 1 – reed and ending with year 13 – rabbit (Jansen 2010). In writing itself, the year bearer marker is accompanied by another number indicating the year of the Monkey or the

11th year of the fourth-year bearer, making it the 50th year in the total cycle (Jansen 2010;

Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies n.d.). On the following side of the document, we also see the simplified mark for the year-bearer being represented solely by the flint, which, combined with the monkey head, continues to mark an event taking place in the 50th year (Jansen 2010; Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies n.d.).

Chapter 3 – Development of Writing Systems in South America

There is only one South American writing system, and whether or not it is a writing system often comes into question. This writing system is thought of as a Semasiographic writing system. The system from South America is created using pliable materials and is heavily 32 connected to other practices using these materials. This section will discuss the understanding of this system and why it is classified as a writing system.

3.1 Khipus

• Dates Used: Approx. 1400-1600s

• Type of System: Semasiographic

• Location: Inkan Empire

Khipus are unlike many other writing systems on this list. They are not written or carved

but are instead created by twisting and knotting different pliable materials. The khipu was

developed in South America and used by

the Inkan empire (Urton 2003). The system itself is often described as

Semasiographic, meaning that each knot and twist of the strings involved within the khipus contain signs associated with them but are not entirely tied to a phonetic meaning. The khipus not containing Figure 16: Khipu construction Elements phonetic meaning brings up the question (Urton 2003) of whether or not this is a writing system. As will be discussed later on, numerical khipus may be classified as more of a proto-writing form similar to proto-cuneiform while the narrative khipus that contain stories and myths are more developed as a writing system, eventhough they are still in the development of being researched to be better understood. With this understanding, we can also say that many of these khipus were meant for the sole purpose of containing numerical information. The khipus themselves came out of textile creation in the Inkan empire who saw its rise during the 1400s, the height of the Inkan empire (Urton 2017). In Andean culture, there 33 became a hierarchy as to how khipus were made and housed. Often, Inkan secretaries whose jobs were labeled as “Khipukamayuqs” or a khipu keeper were involved on the community level and reported to higher-up khipu keepers to share information they gathered (Salomon 2004). These khipu keepers tended to have carts filled with Khipus, either their own or ones they were transporting (Urton 2014). After these keepers died, they would be buried alongside their khipus, while other keepers would make copies of necessary Khipus so that their information was not lost when they were buried (Urton 2014).

Different interpretations and meanings within the khipus themselves all depended on the twist of the pendant string and other components along the khipu. Each khipu was comprised of a primary cord, which was the base of meaning, and attached to it were either pendant cords or top cords, depending on which side of the primary cord they were attached (Urton 2003). Primary cords and pendant cords were typically used in every khipu, while top and subsidiary cords were not necessary for khipu construction. Each of these components contained features that the khipu keepers used to generate an overall greater meaning. These components could range from the color used in the primary or pendant cords to where knots are located on the string and could get down to the ply's direction (Urton 2003). The color twisted into different cords held meaning by showing that the cord either held an opposing meaning to those without that color twisted in or were a separate entity being counted instead (Urton 2003).

The direction of the ply in each cord is looked at in one of two ways, either Z-spun strings or S-spun strings. When looking at ply direction, it is important to note that each cord on a khipu may be spun in a different direction like color. Gary Urton discusses in detail his theory of how information is encoded on numerical khipus by comparing it to that of a binary in looking at both knots, ply direction as well as color (Urton 2003). Sabine Hyland expanded on this theory by applying the theory of markedness to ply direction and other information of khipus, meaning that 34 each combination of ply, color, knots held a different meaning (Hyland 2014). The research into this markedness and binary comparison is still ongoing in the khipu field and is more complicated

when looking into narrative khipus, which will be discussed later.

Knots were perhaps the essential part of the numerical khipus because they dictated different numerical values. Depending on the location and sizing, meaning how many times it was wrapped before the knot was tied off, is important in understanding the interpretation of the numbers within the khipu (Urton 2003). Knots are vital in understanding the meaning of numerical khipus, and the additional information often tells Khipu keepers what exactly is being counted. There are different types of knots as well as additional features that create further complexity within khipus. Looking at where khipus developed from can help better understand the Andean culture at the time of use. Khipus were developed out of Andean weaving and geometry that many women used. The khipus were developed in the 1400s and had a very similar structure to textiles created around this time with different ply and colors being used (Urton 2017).

Figure 17 depicts the complex mathematics that went

into textile creation and the different patterns that

were used.

Khipus are looked at differently from most of

the other writing systems discussed, mainly due to the

complications when looking at the translation aspect

and what people know about these today. There are Figure 17: Wrap counts on two axsus from also varying degrees on whether or not this is a Candelaria. (Gilsdorf 2008). Showing the complexity and understanding of numbers writing system or conveys information. There are textile makers had in order to provide accurate and precise textiles. 35 still beliefs that this could be a mnemonic system or are just used by individuals and could not be shared amongst other Khipukamayuqs (Hyland 2014). While looking at khipus, it is interesting to

see the controversy surrounding different aspects and contribute their ideas to this conversation. It

is important to note again that certain khipus can be translated, while others cannot be. The narrative khipus tend to have knotting differently from the numerical khipus and is an important indicator of whether a khipu is narrative or numerical. Numerical khipus often employ a base-10

counting system with the lowest knot(s) being the 1’s position and each knot or set of knots above

that is x10 higher (Urton 2003). Understanding the basis of these knots is important in reading the

numbers that they produce and seeing that even with some more cosmetic differences, the numbers tend to stay in similar patterning. These knots follow a pattern and show the absence of knots in a section to be a 0-marker for that numeral, depicting a binary (Urton 2003).

Research on khipus continues to search for an answer to how to read the narrative khipus

and its influence on Inkan culture. These narrative khipus hold the key in instating the khipu system as a writing system due to the verbal language being held within the knots. While the numerical system already understood in khipus can be argued to be a form of proto-writing, the

narrative versions hold more information on developing this type of system. This would also

provide insight into how the writing developed from a numerical system into a narrative one. This

is similar to the other instances of writing being developed without any outside influence and

would create a fourth instance in the world with two of them coming out of the Americas. While

researchers are still trying to determine how to read these khipus, foundations and projects such

as the Khipu Database Project continue to record khipus and make sure that their lists are

updated. Lists and databases like this provide one place to gather and store data and allows

researchers to determine what information is available to them. The research surrounding the

binary understanding of khipus is still relatively new, and there is an increasing interest in the

field. While Urton started his theory in 2003, advancement and other research interests have 36 developed into more current years. The further development of this field shows the importance and intrigue that understanding khipus has had on younger academics coming into their research,

which shows a promising future.

Looking at the research of khipus, it is necessary to understand that they are still being

used in the present day. The understanding and usage of these khipus are labeled as ethnographic

and used numerically, similar to the Inkan khipus, mainly in counting livestock and other items

(Hyland 2014). These khipus show the importance of the heritage and culture of the Inkan society

being passed down generations with them using this technique. The culture surrounding khipus

and the textile industry in these areas is still very prevalent today, with similar themes

progressing. One of these themes is the cultural identity within the textiles, where each ethnic

group has a different form of textile that they would wear to show which group they belonged to

(Urton 2014). There are also examples of khipus being developed out of these textiles, and these

are often more narrative khipus than the numerical ones.

Chapter 4 – Development of Writing Systems in North America

Writing systems in North America were developed in the 1800s and are still used in areas today. While the writing systems may look different, they all have a similar structure. They are all described colloquially as Syllabaries, while all are technically a form of Abugidas or Moraic systems. The unique experiences of these peoples led to the development of these systems. Many of these communities have developed revitalization efforts to help spread the language and writing system.

4.1 Cherokee

• Dates Used: 1821 - Present

• Type of System: Abugida

• Location: Cherokee Reservations and Counties in Oklahoma and North Carolina 37

The Cherokee writing system is the earliest system developed in North America, and its development is different than any other system that has come out of the area. The Cherokee people are currently found in two different states in the United States of America (USA),

Oklahoma and North Carolina. The residents currently residing in Oklahoma are due to colonial expansion by the USA that will be discussed further in Chapter 5. The Cherokee language is part of the Iroquoian language family, typically found in the Northeastern area of the United States, with some languages further south (Klein 2019).

When looking at the Cherokee language, some research issues are surrounding the language besides the writing system. There has been analyses that have determined the following

23, 21, 19, 18, and 13 consonant phonemes with six vowel phonemes (Klein 2019). For the use of this paper, Scancarelli’s (1996) depiction of 21 consonantal phonemes will be used for the sake of clarity. These consonant phonemes include /k, kʰ, h, l, ɬ, m, n, hn, kʷ, kwh, s, t, tʰ, tl, tlh, ts, tʃ, w, hw, j, hj/ (Scancarelli 1996), and the vowel inventory of Cherokee includes /i, e, u, o, a, v/ (Klein

2019). Most documented reports of Cherokee do not account for dialectal differences and may be

Figure 18: Depiction of Sequoyah’s Syllabary in alphabetical order. (Scancarelli 1996) 38 why the many discrepancies within phonemic understanding. Figure 18 depicts the full 85 graphemes within the Cherokee writing system. While it is often called a syllabary, it is an

Abugida due to the previous discussion of graphemes representing a syllable with only the onset and nucleus. In some cases, it will have graphemes for coda consonants that are frequently used.

By looking at the writing system, its influences can be seen to come from Latin and

Cyrillic writing systems, with graphemes at times being exaggerated or shifted slightly to create a new one. While the graphemes themselves were developed with this influence, their application is completely different. The difference lies in the system being an abugida, while the graphemes were taken from alphabets. Unlike many other systems, there is a consensus of the creation and development of the Cherokee writing system and can be attributed to Sequoyah. The writing system that Sequoyah created is said to have been created in a month by assigning arbitrary symbols to phonetic values (Klein 2019). This idea connects back to the idea that some graphemes used within the Cherokee writing system are exaggerated Latin and Cyrillic graphemes forms.

The development of the writing system by Sequoyah in that month creates a narrative of reclamation for the Cherokee peoples of their language because, without his influence, it is unsure if the Cherokee people would have adopted a writing system. Other writing systems in North

America occasionally will use the Latin Alphabet to write their language instead of using a writing system that may have been developed for their language. While Sequoyah had created the writing system in 1821, it was not recognized and officiated by the Cherokee Nation until four years later, in 1825 (Simek 2019). The time to adopt shows a lag in acceptance of the system itself and a possible time for adaptation to the system by Cherokee elders and implementation into the Cherokee Nation. 39

The Cherokee

Syllabary was taught in

Cherokee classrooms to get younger generations to be able to read and write in their native language and try and pass on the language (Bender

2002). Figure 19 depicts a clock that was used in one of these classrooms as a way to Figure 19: Depiction of syllabary used in a classroom on a clock. (Bender 2002) help students learn numbers. The use and implementation of different ideas similar to this to revitalize the Cherokee language will be further discussed in Chapter 6. With the advancement of technology, Cherokee also advanced.

There became online fonts and writings of the Cherokee, with specific differences between printed Cherokee and the written version. One of the main differences is spacing that in printed and electronic Cherokee communication, words are demarcated by using space, while in writing, it can either be shown by using a space or by placing a dot between words (Scancarelli 1996).

The Cherokee Nations used not all contributions to the writing system that Sequoyah made. A number system was created by Sequoyah but was never used, and instead, Arabic numerals were widely used (Scancarelli 1996). Numbers are usually one of the first constants in writing, as seen with many Mesoamerican writing systems; even if certain other aspects of writing changed, numbers usually stayed in a particular realm with dots used to count. The form of the dots may have changed but overall were consistent. The refusal to change numbering systems may suggest that Cherokee individuals were already using the Arabic numerals as used in

English and did not want to change that aspect of their writing since numbers are more a constant. 40

This change would shift their writing of their language because there used not to be a way to write their language phonetically.

4.2 Cree (Nêhiyaw)

• Dates Used: Approx. 1840 – Present

• Type of System: Abugida

• Location: Canada

The Cree or Nêhiyaw languages are part of the Algonquian language family located in

Canada, with there being different dialects including Plains (nêhiyawêwin ᓀᐦᐃᔭᐍᐏᐣ), Woods

(nīhithawīwin ᓃᐦᐃᖬᐑᐏᐣ), Swampy (maskêkowiyiniwak), Moose (ililîmowin ᐃᓕᓖᒧᐎᓐ), and others totaling around ten different dialects (“Cree Language” n.d.). With there being minor differences in these dialects, the Plains dialect will be used to discuss their writing as it is the most standardized and closely used with the writing system.

Like the Cherokee writing system, the Cree writing system is considered a syllabary but is more specifically an abugida. The four vowels of the Cree Syllabary are /a i o e/, with /a i o/, all being short and having long counterparts, and /e/ being already long. Within the language’s early documentation around the first usage with the writing system, there Figure 20: Star Chart depicting the different Spirit Markers (University nuhelot’įne thaiyots’į nistameyimâkanak Blue Quills. n.d.) 41 were 16 consonants /h p t k c m n s ʃ ts j w r l f ð/ (Buford-Manson 1996).

In more recent teachings of the Cree Syllabary, there are shown to be only about ten consonants /w p t l m n s k j r h ts/. In romanization, the ‘c’ consonant is realized as the voiceless affricate /ts/, and ‘y’ is realized as the glide /j/. This newer version of the syllabary is often taught in directional sections connecting the writing system to cultural principles. The characters within the system are oriented in directional sections that indicate which vowel is attached to the syllable. The Cree writing system uses the concept of eight directions that correspond in many teachings to the cardinal directions of North, Northeast, East, Southeast, South, Southwest, West, and Northwest. These different directions all correspond to different vowels within the abugida system, with North and Northwest combining consonants with the /i/ vowel, West and Southwest using the /a/ vowel, South and Northeast combining with the /e/ vowel, and East and Southeast having the /o/ vowel (Amiskwaciy History Series 2016a). Each vowel, excluding /e/, has an additional diacritic depending on a long vowel, where the short counterpart does not have the diacritic.

The syllabary is thought to have been created during the colonial period of Canada and possibly even earlier. There have been three theories developed as to how the Cree writing system has come to be. The first is that the “a” character was found on a stone and carbon-dated to

10,000 years ago (Amiskwaciy History Series 2016a). The second theory discusses Calling

Badger, Mistanâkôwêw, and describes a visit he received by spirits that depicted the writing to him. The story depicts that in 1840, Calling Badger was on his way to a meeting near the Norway

House (Present-day Manitoba) when he saw a bright light and fainted when he was discovered he was pronounced dead (Stevenson 1999). A couple of days later, he woke up from his slumber and described the syllabary he was given by the spirits who told him he was supposed to teach it to the Cree (Stevenson 1999). The third theory is the belief that a Missionary created the Cree 42

Syllabary to translate and write religious texts for the Cree. This story depicts James Evans, who was located at the Norway House, obtained a fluency of the Cree language due to his knowledge of (the related Algonquian language) Ojibway and developed it with people traveling with him

(Stevenson 1999). While looking at this third theory, it is the most widely accepted by history books and media. This theory is widely accepted due to a colonial lens used to look at the situation and the understanding that the colonists were helping the Inuktitut people develop a writing system for their language through the Cree’s. Understanding the different developments and theories around the syllabary leads into the conversation of colonialization and interactions

with the Cree, specifically how they currently look at their writing and how they want it to be

portrayed. In looking at all three different theories, there is a common thread for want of a

different communication style and is shown to be a new way to view this language and its dialects.

Romanization is also used for the Cree language in certain situations and communities and tends to have more discrepancies amongst writers than the syllabary. Romanization is when a language that does not use the Latin alphabet in their writing system use it to show a similarity in pronunciation to foreign speakers or speakers who do not know the written system (Okimasis

2008). Other languages that use romanization include Chinese, Japanese, and Korean.

When looking at romanization itself, and especially in the Cree example, there are many different interpretations in the romanization of the language. The Roman alphabet has a limited number of graphemes that are conventionally used to represent Figure 21: Art fixture in River lot 11 made by Amy Malbeuf. (Fish 2017) vowels, and so in writing, it can be difficult to 43 express certain vowels that adopting language has that are not represented in the writing system.

The length distinction found in writing is important to pay attention to because depending on the

length of the vowel, the entire world can change. There are two main styles of writing longer

vowels is by using a double vowel such as or adding a diacritic over a vowel <ê> to

determine if a vowel is long (Okimasis 2008).

Many of the first usages of the Cree Syllabary were to translate religious texts to try and

convert the Cree people. In modern times, many other areas use the syllabary or the romanization

to mark these areas of culture. A majority of people in these Canadian communities use the

Romanized version of Cree instead of the syllabary but still understand and recognize the cultural significance that it brings to their lives. In Canada, many First Nations peoples will use the syllabary as a symbol for their culture and have developed art and fashion with the writing system incorporated. People have also used the writing as symbolism by using characters in their abstract form instead of compiling words. Cree is seen in many art installations, and clothing lines with the characters used represent the Cree identity. Figure 21 depicts an art installation in River lot

11, made by Amy Malbeuf, and is referenced solely as an art fixture instead of being used for the meaning of the word it depicts (fire) (Fish 2017).

4.3 Inuktitut

• Dates Used: Approx. 1850 - Present

• Type of System: Abugida

• Location: Nunavut and Nunavik, Canada

The Inuktitut writing system is another system that is used by indigenous populations in

Canada. Inuktitut is part of the Eskimo-Aleut language family whose languages range from

Eskimo languages (Yupik, Aluttiq, etc.), Greenlandic, and the Aleut language (“Family: Eskimo-

Aleut” 2018). The Inuktitut language has around 12 different dialects spoken across 50 different 44

Inuktitut communities throughout the Northern Canadian Shoreline and Alaska. Due to this, some

pronunciations change depending on where a person was to go (“National Inuit Positions” 2017).

Similar to Cree, the Roman Orthography can be used in the Inuktitut Syllabics or Qaniujaaqpait.

The Qaniujaaqpait is an abugida type of writing system centered around the consonants of the writing system, and the vowels have a slight shift in the writing of the syllable but are not the main focus (“Inuktitut (ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ),” 2020). The writing system is said to have been created by missionaries that wanted to translate the Bible into Inuktitut using the Cree writing system and applied it to Inuktitut in the 1850s (“Inuktitut (ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ),” 2020).

Figure 22 depicts a sign within the capital of Nunavut, Canada, indicating both Inuktitut and English. The linguistic landscape of Canada, specifically in areas where Inuktitut is spoken, includes speakers of English and French. Bilingualism or sometimes trilingualism of writing within areas of a heavy concentration of Inuktitut, English, and French speakers creates a need for all systems to be used. Inuktitut as a language is recognized as an official language in government in Nunavut, Canada (“Consolidation of Official Languages Act” 2008).

Figure 22: Depicts a sign in Iqaluit, NU, CA with both Inuktitut and English Source: Nunatsiaq.com

While at first used as a translation tool for religious texts, the writing system was mainly written on parchments or animal skins. As the years and technology progressed, the Inuktitut writing system did the same. Letterpresses were made with a syllabic typeface and were used until around the 1950s with the development of Inuktitut typewriters and eventually Inuktitut 45 keyboards and fonts (Taylor 2003). The forward-thinking given to the Inuktitut writing system has created a space for it in the digital age. The development of learning websites and these fonts help propel indigenous systems into the eyes of the masses for further use. The current status of

Inuktitut and other significant developments with it in law and policy will be discussed further in chapter 5.

The difference in spoken dialect is somewhat mitigated in the orthography. Some characters have two different sounds depending on where you go but still having the same form in the written language.

The difference is the case with the s/h character. Different dialects use “s” and “h” in different situations;

Qikitaaluk mainly uses the “s” and in borrowings will use “h” while,

Paallilrmiutut and Nattilingmiutut use

“s” and “h” in different areas

(“Pronunciation,” 2020). The writing system itself is presented in Figure 23 and is displayed in a table, with each row being a different consonant and each column being a different Figure 23: Inuktitut Syllabary (retrieved from tusaalanga.ca) vowel. The difference between the

Cree and Inuktitut portrayal of their writing system shows a way of use for their peoples. 46

Chapter 5 – Impact of Colonization

Writing systems of the American continents have a separate component that connects them all. This component is colonization, and while they all have some connection, it is critical to make certain distinctions. These distinctions are whether or not the writing system was developed pre-or post-contact with European colonists. This distinction drastically changes the dynamic that many of the communities had with their writing system. For the Mesoamerican and South

American writing systems, their writing was already established without any European influence

and was forcibly wiped out due to this fact. The North American systems then have a different

connection with Europeans. Two of the three systems are thought to be developed by colonists,

with the third being developed by an indigenous person after seeing European writing. With any

language native to the Americas, it is essential to look at colonization's impact on the peoples and their languages. Starting in the 16th century, native peoples came in contact with Europeans looking to occupy the “Newfound” land. This section will break down the impact that colonization and colonialism had on the writing systems in the Americas.

5.1 Mesoamerica

Looking at the impact that colonization had on Mesoamerica takes an unfortunate turn.

With these writing systems being a part of the pre-contact writing, colonists in the area brought two significant factors that led to the downfall of preexisting writing within Mesoamerica: their alphabet and religion. Starting with the Spaniard’s Conquest of the Aztec empire and quickly onto adjacent areas (1519-21), the writing systems of Mesoamerica were thought to be

“uncivilized” by many of the Spanish invaders (Delmas, 2012). The understanding that these colonists had of “civilizing” was seen throughout Mesoamerica in Maya, Mixtec, and Aztec cities that impacted the knowledge that linguists know about the system in modern times. This understanding may also be attributed to the fact that writing and literacy are associated with 47 power. The indigenous populations knew this as they had a particular stratum in their society that had the privilege to be literate, while most of the population was not.

The Aztecs were the first to have Spaniard Conquistadors invade their lands and thus have extensive documentation on the writing system itself, although many documents that are around today are reduplications created from memory due to Spaniards purging the writings at

first contact (de Rojas 2012). The Aztecs being the first contact with the Spaniards shows within

their writing as it evolved from friars translating and eventually making copies of their text for

their records. Decipherment of some codices was done with friars and scribes working on

translating them into Latinate scripts (de Rojas 2012). Some codices that have been translated and

replicated include Codex Borbonicus, Codex Ixtlilxochitl, Codex Magliabechiano, and many

others (Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies n.d.). The use of these texts

and move into more of the Latinate script continues the idea that the conquistadors believed them

to be “uncivilized” and wanted to teach them their script.

The writing itself of the peoples of Mesoamerica became one of the first items that

Spaniards attacked, besides the people themselves. Looking to modern times, the primary system

used in the current day is the Latin alphabet with no literary use of the now ancient writing

systems. The Spanish began to destroy many texts to create what they thought of as “A more

civilized people” and labeled Maya and Aztec people as “barbarians” (Delmas 2012; Ginzberg

2018). Continuing the idea of civility between the Spanish and the indigenous peoples was how

they often used the idea of the “other” to motivate their actions to try and be their saviors to bring

them into the realm of civility. By doing this, the conquistadors also emphasized their culture and

position of power as the ones giving the knowledge of literacy to an already literate community.

After burning many codices that had existed for many years, Spaniard friars had native

scribes, tlahcuilos, recreate some of their writings to keep them as records (Delmas 2012). 48

Recreating these writings was often tricky for scribes because the Spanish forced them to learn

the Latin script and lost some of their previous writing system knowledge. They often created

writings that looked different from the originals because they had not used their original writing

systems for Latin (Delmas 2012). The fact that indigenous peoples had a hard time translating

Spanish back into their systems shows the conquistadors' widespread impact to destroy any aspect of this writing system. It was not their own and was thought to be a threat to their “civility.”

Figure 24: The above image is a translation of Fray Pedro de Gante’s catechism which Fray Pedro de Gante had natives of Texcoco (Aztecs) write to depict his prayers (Delmas 2012).

Religion was another entity that the Spaniards brought and forced upon the indigenous peoples of Mesoamerica. Figure 24 shows an example of the first contact writing of Aztec scribes who were documenting the friar’s prayers that would then be disseminated to other speakers as another way of religious assimilation that the Spaniards employed. Besides the writing system itself, many of the hierarchies that were in place were destroyed as well. The Mesoamerican social hierarchies, specifically the Aztecs, and labor allocation systems were destroyed to make way for the Spaniards to convert them to Christianity (Ginzberg 2018). 49

Looking at the systems and their impact on the cultures within the area, with the forced assimilation towards the Spanish ideal, forced out indigenous writing and the cultural implications of many calendrical systems and record keeping. By forcing them to write in the

Latin script, they ripped away from the need to utilize their form of writing and caused it to die out. Mesoamerican writing being the first pre-contact writing to be terrorized by Europeans can also be seen in South America with the destruction of many of the Khipus.

5.2 South America

Similar to the Mesoamerican peoples, the Incans also encountered colonists exploring their territory. Khipus were the other pre-contact writing system and had many similarities to the

Mesoamerican systems. This first contact took place around 1532; the colonists believed the khipus to be some mnemonic memory aids, similar to rosary beads, and began to unknot some of them (Urton 2003). The act of untying these khipus shows a similar idea to Mesoamerican writing and contact with Europeans, with them looking at these civilizations as

“uncivilized.” Understanding the specific importance of the khipus to the Inkan people, or their usage, was not high on the Spaniard’s list. They also began burning khipus as a way, they believed, to help maintain their composure as they feaered that the khipus themselves may revert the colonists to

“savages” (Urton 2014). The burning of entire collections of khipus from Figure 25: Depiction of the Khipukamayuqs from the Spanish Conquistadors (Urton 2003). Khipukamayuqs was not unheard of and 50 was often the case with these burnings. The burnings also created a scarcity in the use of khipus and resulted in a limited number that can be viewed in modern times. Figure 25 shows a depiction of Khipukamayuqs created by Spanish Conquistadors and contain a Latinate script.

In 2002 and continuing for the next three years, the National Science Foundation funded a Khipu Database project to record and document all of the khipus currently known about or in private collections. The Khipu Database Project lists around 700 khipus still in existence from the

Inkan era (Khipu Database Project 2005). While this may often be thought of as a lot of kept information, this is still a tiny portion of the khipus used within the Inkan empire. While this is one place to locate documented khipus, many others are most likely still in existence, just inaccessible to the public. This inaccessibility is because the Inkan peoples were very in tune with their dead and would often commune with them or read khipus similar to those they were buried with, which was another practice that the colonists tried to wipe out as soon as possible (Urton

2014). Being buried with the khipus was part of Inkan indigenous identity that the Europeans tried to eradicate immediately. This eradication is similar to Mesoamerican writings. The essence of it was removed so that the Europeans could create an image of themselves within the indigenous peoples so that they were no longer distinct. Colonization and colonial efforts by the

Spanish in South America led to the diminished use of khipus. They were nearly wiped out due to their unusual nature that the Spanish believed they had.

5.3 North America

In North America, the indigenous peoples had a different experience with colonists than the Meso and South American peoples. This difference is mainly due to the time in which their writing was developed. All of the North American writing systems were developed post-contact with European colonists. One of the significant differences is that colonists did not destroy these 51

Figure 26: Cherokee syllabary inscription from around Manitou Cave (Carroll 2019). writing systems and were one of the factors that helped ignite the development of writing in

North America.

First contact made with the Cherokee peoples was in 1540, and then again in 1673, contact from various European diseases caused the death of many Cherokee people (Klein 2019).

These initial contacts that Europeans made with the Cherokee people were just a start of a future of continued hardships placed on them by the Europeans. An impact on the Cherokee people themselves was the forced removal of an estimated 16,000 Cherokee people and relocation 950 miles away, where 4,000 died due to various conditions (Cherokee Nation Remember the

Removal n.d.). The deaths of many Cherokee peoples and the forced removal caused extra contact with Europeans who were already using the Latin writing system and taught some of the

Cherokee to use it. While the writing system has some differences when looking at the impact of colonists, the forcible removal of indigenous peoples is similar to what was seen in Meso and

South America to give space for these colonists. 52

For the writing system itself, a significant impact of the contact with the Europeans’ writing caused inspiration for the syllabary. Sequoyah was illiterate in English, who developed the writing system after seeing many of the men he was around writing things down (Klein 2019).

This contact let Sequoyah think about his language differently. It allowed him to develop a system unlike the Europeans that he and his people could use in their language and for many years to come. It is difficult to say whether this system would have had the same impact if it was developed by a colonist instead of by a person of Cherokee descent.

When looking at the Cree people, it can be clear to see some of these impacts, the main one being that James Evans, the missionary, was involved with developing the writing system.

Suppose one takes this approach of the origin of the system. In that case, the impact of the colonists is that they helped develop a writing system for the Cree, with the primary motivation being religious conversion. Other impacts that the colonists had on the Cree, regardless of which approach is taken, are the enforcement of religion on them, translating many prayers and other religious texts into their language to try and convert them to Christianity. Colonization impacted future generations of Cree by forcing children into residential schools where they were forced to assimilate to colonial culture while also trying to eradicate their own culture and, often, language

(Indigenous Canada n.d.). The generation of children forced to attend these residential schools and assimilate into a culture that was not their own caused historical trauma that created a generation that did not want to use the syllabary or teach it to their children. European colonists have created a space to assimilate Cree people to their ideals that they cannot use the system they developed for them.

Some communities still used the syllabary, but most were taught romanization because the colonists believed it would lead to higher literacy skills in English among the indigenous populations (Bennett 1991). These communities that were forced to assimilate show how the Cree 53

Syllabary was seen as something they wanted to take away from the Cree people, a developing part of their culture. In recent years, there has been a revival in its usage for many different purposes, further discussed in the next chapter. This revival is heavily tied to the Cree identity and a general indigenous identity within Canada.

Looking a little further North to the Inuktitut writing system was harshly repressed due to similar Indian Residential Schools throughout the area that eradicated any indigenous language.

These Residential Schools, while some were already developed, the majority were enforced around the end of the second world war and were schools that focused on teaching English literacy to Inuit children by taking students away from their native languages and controlling the education that they received (Bonesteel 2008). Inuit societies faced English residential schools, but as the feud between English and French became more prevalent rival French residential schools started appearing because they were fearful of English becoming the more dominant language in the linguistic landscape in the area (Bonesteel 2008). This feud between French and

English colonists shows that these groups of people were more focused on converting more people to their language than on the students' well-being. After many years of residential schools, there was a shift in the 1970s when the Northwest Territories began developing immersion schools (grades K-3) that would contain lessons taught in Inuktitut and not only the language taught but also Inuit culture and customs (Bonesteel 2008).

The development of these schools also led to further legislation to protect and create opportunities for the Inuktitut language and writing system to be used by the general public in this territory. Then in 1974, the first Inuit-controlled school board was initiated to give Inuit peoples the right to govern their education the way they would like it taught (Bonesteel 2008). With the past suppression of the Inuktitut language, there are reparations to help restore what the Inuktitut people have lost and their language usage. One significant event recently is that in August 2010, 54 the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development apologized to Inuit families relocated in the 1950s to the High Arctic due to these residential schooling programs

(“Indigenous Peoples and Communities” 2019). Showing that the government is trying to work with these communities to work out how they can revitalize their language. Policies developed to correct past wrongs that colonists took against the Inuit people are still in development and will continue to uplift the Inuktitut writing system and the culture of their people. The understanding that while writing systems developed in different ways depending on the time of contact with

European colonists, the assimilation efforts were implemented in all societies they came into contact with to remove the indigenous people’s culture forcibly.

Chapter 6 – Current Writing Systems and Their Futures

Some writing systems are still in use today by indigenous peoples of the Americas.

Although European colonists eradicated all the Mesoamerican and South American writing systems that were in existence upon arrival, the North American systems have stayed in use or are currently undergoing revitalization. One major factor contributing to this is that these writing systems were developed post-contact with European colonists. This section will discuss the status of these writing systems with users and their governments, what they are used for, and any new and emerging resources for potential learners. It will also discuss indigenous identity and its connection to all of the systems. While many of these systems currently have many prominent resources for revitalization, understanding the complications that come with revitalization is also important. In two of the systems discussed, there is minimal government aid or support to their communities. Minimal government aid is a significant challenge for indigenous languages and writing systems because it makes it challenging to create resources available in indigenous writing if the government is not on board. After all, they have the authority and money to help make this happen. These systems with little government support are trying to develop these tools 55 with the help of community members or even outside connections. The impact that these complications have include furthering some ideas from the colonization section. One impact includes creating a narrative in which these societies are erased from many policies and laws that directly impact the land that these writing system’s communities inhabit.

While all these writing systems have started to develop computational tools to further the reach of their systems, it is necessary to note that this is not always the case. The difficulties occasionally stem from the number of users of the writing systems being drastically lower than the superstratum writing. Another challenge addressed in these communities is the usage of a new font for the writing system as all these systems do not use the Latinate alphabet but instead have distinct graphemes.

6.1 Cherokee Syllabary

The Cherokee Syllabary is one of the few indigenous writing systems currently used today and is currently used by people of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. Figure 27 depicts the

Cherokee Nation’s seal and the translation of the Cherokee Nation into the syllabary. The Nation itself uses Cherokee in many different avenues. The main feature of the revitalization efforts that the Cherokee Nation has taken for their language and their writing system is to offer a variety of

Figure 27: Cherokee Nation logo from Cherokee Nation in OK, USA (Cherokee Nation Cherokee Language. n.d.). 56 resources available to the public through the Cherokee Nation’s website. One of these resources is classes that people can take to learn the language itself.

Cherokee classes are split into different categories depending on what the student is looking for out of the course. The courses offered include Adult Immersion, Community

Cherokee classes, and online Cherokee classes (“Cherokee Nation Cherokee Language n.d.). The variety of classes allow for people within the Cherokee Nation to take classes. At the same time, it also opens up the opportunity for those who may not be close to the Nation but would still like to learn the language. The use of online classes, especially in language learning, is becoming more and more popular and is a way to help spread awareness of the language to places that might not have otherwise known about it.

Looking at specific technological innovations the Cherokee people have made with the syllabary itself include various partnerships. One of these is that the Cherokee Nation has partnered with Google, Facebook, and Microsoft to create products that allow users to use the

Cherokee Syllabary instead of English; these programs include OneDrive, Gmail, and Windows

8/10 (“Cherokee Nation Cherokee Language n.d.). Developments like this are crucial for fluent readers and writers of the Cherokee Syllabary and for learners who may not be as confident but want to try it out and see how much they know. It also allows a different medium for the

Cherokee Syllabary instead of solely being a written language. Other innovations that the

Cherokee Nation has employed are the creation of keyboards for the syllabary as well as the development of specific fonts for users to be able to type in Cherokee (“Cherokee Nation

Cherokee Language n.d.).

As noted in earlier sections, the importance of Sequoyah creating the writing system instead of a colonist can be seen within the indigenous identity within the Cherokee community.

If a colonist developed the writing system, it might not be as widespread due to the forcible 57 removal of the Cherokee nation and relocation into modern-day Oklahoma. The generational trauma associated with this removal would most likely create a lot of tension if colonists created the system.

6.2 Cree Syllabary

There is a cultural and written revitalization in Canada currently surrounding the Cree writing system, which exemplifies the importance of raising awareness of indigenous languages.

While Cree people have a form of romanization for their language, the syllabary creates a more profound cultural meaning with the connection to the spirit markers. Other examples of this include the oral stories surrounding the creation and many new developments in teaching it. From

Reuben Quinn to many art installations that have popped up in Canada depicting Cree syllabics are becoming more and more recognizable to show belonging with Cree culture. Each part of

these revitalization efforts creates a piece in understanding the association with the indigenous

identity of the Cree people and the writing system. Many revitalization efforts of Cree are more

cultural than creating meaning with the syllabary.

Other mediums similar to art include fashion. The Luxx ready to wear brand was

developed by Derek Jagodzinsky, a person of Cree descent, and many items in their lines contain

the graphemes of the syllabary. These items tend not to have any meaning besides the symbolism

of the Cree heritage and community. The syllabary is used in such a way to showcase Cree

culture and have it seen in the public eye so that others can be informed and made aware of the

importance of it. Some of Luxx’s most recent collections are named “Cree Couture”

(Spring/Summer 2020) and “Metamorphosis” (Fall/Winter 2019), which have significant 58 meaning and understanding of the Cree culture within each of the collections. Jagodzinsky states that the “Cree Couture” contained themes

surrounding “the prophecy of the Rainbow

Warriors,”; a prophecy foretelling the Rainbow

Warriors, which was recounted by many

Indigenous Nations across North America

(Jardine 2019). This platform and the medium of fashion create a new way of showing support to Cree culture and a way to showcase the writing that many have forgotten. By using the syllabary in a way that is not writing but to signify indigeneity shows that the syllabary is tied to the idea of indigenous identity for certain Figure 28: Part of the Luxx Spring/Summer 2020 with a side bag with Cree graphemes Cree people who choose to wear Luxx products. printed on to represent the Cree culture (Jardine 2019).

An important place for reviving the language itself is the Edmonton Center for Race and

Culture, located in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. This center has developed many resources surrounding the Cree language, including language courses taught by Reuben Quinn, who helps learners understand the syllabary through the use of spirit markers understanding (Amiskwaciy

History Series 2016a). These videos are helpful to help learners of the language understand not only the characters in the syllabary but also some cultural context by using the theory of Calling

Badger’s creation of the writing system and the importance of direction within the culture of Cree looking at the creation of the spirit markers in the star chart. The use of Calling Badger’s theory of development also shows a shift from the colonial lens of using James Evans as the creator and 59 using a person of Cree descent. This understanding is a form of reclamation by removing any colonial influence on the writing system and establishing the innate Cree nature of the system.

6.3 Inuktitut Syllabary

While the syllabary can be stated as more of a cultural piece in some instances than a way of using the language, Inuktitut’s revitalization efforts are solely educational and legislative. Over the years that Canada has been a country, there have been deals and treaties made with its indigenous populations to work with and against their people and their language. With the Inuit peoples, there have been four major land claims agreements that have taken place since 1975, with the most recent one being in 2005 to return the land of the Inuit communities that were once taken from them (“Indigenous Peoples and Communities” 2019). And one of them being the

Nunavut Act giving the territory of Nunavut to the Inuit people and letting them form their governance (Nunavut Act 1993). The policies surrounding the language tend to favor English and

French instead of these indigenous languages. The Official Language Act, enacted in 1982, favors

English and French and tries to create a balance of the two languages, even in places where

Inuktitut is the dominant language (“National Inuit Positions…” 2017, 6).

There are some fully developed resources for revitalization efforts in the standard dialect of Inuktitut and some dialects with fewer speakers. The website Inuktut

Tusaalanga was developed to provide online education for anyone interested in learning a Figure 29: Example of Dialogue on the Tusaalanga learning website (“Lesson Index” n.d.). 60 dialect of Inuktitut. There are five current dialects offered: Inuinnaqtun, Nattilingmiutut,

Paallirmiutut, South Qikiqtaaluk, and North Qikiqtaaluk (Lesson Index n.d.). These lessons

include 24 lessons for each dialect with subtle shifts in spelling and speaking due to the dialect

chosen. The website contains a grammar section and a dialogue section with over 50 sections in both with recordings to go along with them (Grammar n.d.). This website is available in both

English and French, depending on the dominant language of the area. The creation of a website like this creates an opportunity for it to be accessed by more people interested in the language itself.

Throughout Canada, there are programs at the sociopolitical level to help give opportunities to the Inuktitut language and the Inuit people as a whole. One of these such programs is the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, whose work includes educational opportunity programs and the research surrounding their people (Who We Are n.d.). The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami also has a magazine titled Inuktitut, which has over 100 issues currently and is published in Inuktitut

(roman orthography and Qaniujaaqpait) and also English and French depending on what the reader feels most comfortable with (Who We Are n.d.). While looking at the good that this organization does, it does seem that the Canadian government still strongly supports English and

French as their official languages.

Places in the territory of Nunavut are also trying to provide Cultural and Heritage opportunities for Inuit people to keep both of these items strong throughout their communities.

The Cultural and Heritage department of Nunavut hopes to guide people by the Inuit Societal

Values, which are unique to each community (Mission/Vision/Values n.d.). They also hold Inuit

Language Awards for helping with revitalization efforts for Inuktitut and other Inuit languages. 61

Conclusion

Fully understanding the complexities of writing systems that were once used or are

currently being used can help create a fuller picture of these societies and show the history of the

linguistic landscape of the Americas and how the current day landscape came to be. While they

may have had similarities with the other systems, each of the eleven writing systems discussed

are whole entities that developed out of their society's culture and created innovations to make the

system work within their spoken language. Understanding this cultural component involved with

many of these systems displays how the people themselves felt about their system and usage.

Cree’s development into the spirit markers, Inkan Khipukamayuqs usage of weaving techniques,

and Maya and Zapotec’s usage of date markers all create ideations of what these cultures valued

and saw as essential parts of their societies.

In some instances, a writing system had to be reutilized for a different language family.

The importance of this shift is one way of looking at the differences between them. The Mixtec

system had to account for tones that were not seen in Maya or Zapotec, so this may be why they

lessened the use of syllabics and focused more on logographic writing. Inuktitut adopted certain

parts of writing onto phonemes that the original system (Cree) did not have but had to account for

their differing phonemic structures within the languages themselves. These intricacies of writing

continue the notion of cultural involvement by showing that the language is a core component of

that culture. When writing is introduced, it has to find its way to fit within the culture. This may

be why romanization is often used. Many cultures already use the Roman alphabet and can translate it using the International Phonetic Alphabet to transcribe certain letters onto sounds in languages that may not have a writing system of their own.

The impact of colonization on each writing system can be divided into two distinct areas of pre-and post-contact with European colonists. The impact of the pre-contact writing systems 62 when colonists arrived is better visually explained with the aid of the app added to this paper.

Showing the current locations of many of the written documents and codices from pre-contact helps highlight the removal of these artifacts from their original locations into colonial spaces rather than being kept in their original locations.

Specific topics arise that can create a fuller look into this topic. These include looking at expanding this paper to thoroughly look at different areas of the world and writing systems that are there and their development and the social and political reasons for their uses. This expansion would create a complete look at the world’s linguistic landscape and how each writing system connects to others around it and has developed out of other specific systems that may also be in use today. Other topics to consider or to take a closer look at different types of systems that may not readily be considered writing to understand why specific systems are called writing while others are not seen as writing in certain spheres of academia. A final question could be how the advancement of technology influenced these writing systems toward a push for digital utilization and representation. 63

Appendix A: Code for Map of Writing Systems

################################################## # MAP OF WRITING SYSTEMS # # BY: JAYCOB NOLTE # ################################################## # The function of this code is to create a map of the world with interactive # points that show different writings that have been found in Central/South # America and their current locations

# the libraries used are: # shiny, shinyWidgets, leaflet, tidyverse, ggmap

#TIPS: # 1. Make sure the working directory is linked to the folder used to run this code # 2. Make sure all files are unzipped # 3. Make sure all libraries are installed using the install.packages() command library(shiny)#allows to create an interactive map that can be hosted as HTML library(shinyWidgets)#expands functions of shiny library(leaflet)#helps test map/create functions library(tidyverse)#helps with functions library(ggmap)#helps with maps

Writing_csv <- read.csv("Data on Writing Systems.csv")#reading .csv file into r popup_text = paste("

", #Setting up popup info to read from csv file "
", Writing_csv$System, "", "
Title: ", Writing_csv$Title, "
Current Location: ", Writing_csv$Current.Location, "
Source: ", Writing_csv$Source)

Writing_df <- mutate(Writing_csv, popup_text) # Combining the csv file and the popup text into a data frame writingIcon <- makeIcon( iconUrl = case_when( Writing_df$System == "Maya" ~ "Writing_images/Maya.png", Writing_df$System == "Aztec" ~ "Writing_images/Aztec.png", Writing_df$System == "Olmec" ~ "Writing_images/Olmec.png", Writing_df$System == "Epi-Olmec" ~ "Writing_images/Epi-Olmec.png", Writing_df$System == "Khipu" ~ "Writing_images/Khipu.png", Writing_df$System == "Zapotec" ~ "Writing_images/Zapotec.png", Writing_df$System == "Teotihuacan" ~ "Writing_images/Teotihuacan.png" ), iconWidth = 25, iconHeight = 25, shadowWidth = 10, shadowHeight = 10 ) ###To Test map before using shiny use following code 64

#Should appear as plain map with no possibility to interact

#leaflet(Writing_df) %>% #addProviderTiles(providers$Esri.WorldTopoMap) %>% #addMarkers(~Long, ~Lat, #icon = writingIcon, #label = ~Title, #labelOptions = labelOptions(textsize = "12px"), #popup = ~popup_text)

#create the app using Shiny ui <- bootstrapPage( tags$style(type = "text/css", "html, body {width:100%;height:100%}"),

leafletOutput("map", width = "100%", height = "100%"),

absolutePanel(top = 10, right = 10, #Creating drop down menu with Writing Systems pickerInput("system", label = "Select a Writing System:", choices = list("All Systems", `Central/South America` = c("Aztec", "Epi-Olmec", "Khipu", "Maya", "Mixtec", "Olmec", "Teotihuacan", "Zapotec"),

options = list() )))) server <- function(input, output, session) {

filteredData <- reactive({ if (input$system == "All Systems") { Writing_df } else { filter(Writing_df, System == input$system) } }) filteredIcon <- reactive({ if (input$system == "All Systems") { writingIcon } else { writingIcon$iconUrl <- rep(paste0("Writing_images/", str_replace_all(input$system, " ", "_"), ".png"), 23) } writingIcon }) output$map <- renderLeaflet({ leaflet(filteredData()) %>% addProviderTiles(providers$Esri.WorldTopoMap) %>% addMarkers(~Long, ~Lat, icon = filteredIcon(), label = ~Title, labelOptions = labelOptions(textsize = "12px"), 65

popup = ~popup_text) }) observe({ leafletProxy("map", data = filteredData()) %>% clearShapes() %>% addMarkers(~Long, ~Lat, icon = filteredIcon(), label = ~Title, labelOptions = labelOptions(textsize = "12px"), popup = ~popup_text) }) } shinyApp(server = server, ui = ui)

Figure 30: Example of code, World Map with All Systems 66

Figure 31: Example of code, World Map with Epi-Olmec Selected 67

References

Amiskwaciy History Series (2016a). History of the Cree Language Part 1. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpvuED_hJTM

Amiskwaciy History Series (2016b). History of the Cree Language Part 2. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuHofizOjiY&t=1002s

Anderson, L. (2012) Understanding Discourse: Beyond Couplets and Calendrics First. In Parallel Worlds: Genre, Discourse, and Poetics in Contemporary, Colonial, and Classic Period Maya Literature, edited by Hull, K M. and Carrasco, M D., pp. 161–179. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Augenstein, S. (2016). Oracle ox bone with oldest chinese writing 3-D printed. D F I News

Bender, M. (2002) Signs of Cherokee Culture : Sequoyah's Syllabary in Eastern Cherokee Life, The University of North Carolina Press. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Bennett, J. and J. W. Berry. (1991). Cree Literacy in the Syllabic Script. In Literacy and Orality, Olson, D. and N. Torrance, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 90-104.

Besner, L. (2016). In Their Own Words. The Walrus. Retrieved from https://thewalrus.ca/in-their- own-words/

Blair, H. (2019) Revitalization of Inuktitut: Using government funding to implement technology to strengthen an endangered language. The Henry M Jackson School of International Studies. University of Washington.

Boltz, W.G. (1996). Early Chinese Writing. The World’s Writing Systems, edited by Daniels, P. T., & Bright, W., New York, NY: Oxford U Press, inc. p 191-199

Bonesteel, S. (2008) Canada’s Relationship with Inuit: A History of Policy and Program Development. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Boone, E. H. (2000). Stories in red and black: Pictorial histories of the aztecs and mixtecs. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Boudreault, L. (2018). A Grammar of Sierra Popoluca. Boston, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.

Browder, J. K. (2005). Place of the high painted walls: The tepantitla murals and the teotihuacan writing system (Order No. 3168233). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (305001089).

Buford-Manson, R. (1996) Travels in the Shining Island: The Story of James Evans and the Invention of the Cree Syllabary Alphabet. Toronto: Dundurn Press.

Carlin, E. B., & van, D. K. S. (Eds.). (2010). Linguistics and archaeology in the Americas: The historization of language and society. ProQuest Ebook Central 68

Carrasco, M., & Englehardt, J. (2015). Diphrastic Kennings on the Cascajal Block and the Emergence of Mesoamerican Writing. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 25(3), 635-656.

Carroll, B., Cressler, A., Belt, T., Reed, J., & Simek, J. (2019). Talking stones: Cherokee syllabary in Manitou Cave, Alabama. Antiquity, 93(368), p519-536.

CBC News. (2018) Why language is vital for this Inuk residential school survivor. YouTube video, 6:12. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvuUZfDPSpQ&t=28s

Census Profile, 2016 Census (2017). Statistics Canada.

Chacón, G. E. (2018). Indigenous cosmolectics: Kab'awil and the making of maya and zapotec literatures. ProQuest Ebook Central

Cherokee Nation Cherokee Language. (n.d.). Cherokee Nation Cherokee Language. Retrieved from https://language.cherokee.org/technology-localization/

Cherokee Nation Remember the Removal. (n.d.). Cherokee Nation Remember the Removal. Retrieved from https://rtr.cherokee.org/our-journey/

Coe, M. and M. Van Stone. (2005). Reading the Maya graphemes. Thames and Hudson Ltd, London.

Coe, M. D. (1968). America's First Civilization: Discovering the Olmec. New York: The Smithsonian Library.

Colas, P. (2011). Writing in Space: Glottographic and Semaisographic Notation at Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica, 22(1), p13-25.

Consolidation of Official Languages Act, S.Nu. 2008, c.10. (2008).

Coulmas, Florian, (1999). The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems. Oxford: Blackwell. p560

Cree language, scripts and pronunciation. (n.d.). from https://www.omniglot.com/writing/cree.htm

Cushman, E. (2011). The Cherokee Syllabary: A Writing System In Its Own Right. Written Communication, 28(3), p255–281.

Daniels, P.T. (1996). Methods of Decipherment. The World’s Writing Systems, edited by Daniels, P. T., & Bright, W., New York, NY: Oxford U press, inc. p141-159

Davletshin, A. (2014). A Sign for Twenty in Epi-Olmec Script. Mexicon, 36(3), p76-80. de Rojas, J. L. (2012). Tenochtitlan: Capital of the aztec empire. ProQuest Ebook Central

Dedovic, Boban. (2019). “Inanna's Descent to the Netherworld": A centennial survey of scholarship, artifacts, and translations. 69

Delmas, A and N. Penn (eds). (2012). Written Culture in a Colonial Context. Leiden: Brill.

Diehl, R. A. (2004). The Rise of The Olmecs. Calliope, 14(5), p8–11.

Eberhard, D., G. Simons, and C. Fennig (eds). (2020). Size and Variety of Inuit Sign Language. Ethnologue: Languages of the World.

Family: Eskimo-Aleut. Glottolog. (2018). from https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/eski1264

Fish, G. (2017). Wildlife: ᐄᓃᐤ (ÎNÎW) River Lot 11∞ Indigenous Art Park transforms the valley. Edmonton Journal. Retrieved from https://edmontonjournal.com/business/wildlife- %E1%90%84%E1%93%83%E1%90%A4-iniw-river-lot-11%E2%88%9E-indigenous-art- park-transforms-the-valley

Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies. (n.d.), from http://www.famsi.org/

Freeland, B. (2019). The Case for Cree Syllabics—The Amiskuan (ᐊᒥᐢᑯ ᐃᔨᓂ)—Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/the-amiskuan- %E1%90%8A%E1%92%A5%E1%90%A2%E1%91%AF- %E1%90%83%E1%94%A8%E1%93%82/the-case-for-cree-syllabics-e2dad86e0172

Frizzell, S. Keepers of the Language: Nunavut’s newsreader has done it all, from garbage to mayor CBC. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/kowisa- arlooktoo-keepers-of-language-1.5237964

Gilsdorf, T. E. (2008). Ethnomathematics of the Inkas. Encyclopedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, edited by Selin H. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Ginzberg, E. (2018). The Destruction of the Indigenous Peoples of Hispano America : A Genocidal Encounter. Sussex Academic Press.

Government of Nunavut. YouTube channel, Joined Jun 12, 2012. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/c/GovofNunavut/featured

Grammar (n.d.) Inuktut Tusaalanga. Retrieved From https://tusaalanga.ca/grammar

Hammond, N., & Taube, K. (2019). The Aberdeen Celt: An early twentieth-century Olmec find. Antiquity, 93(368), p488-501.

Harper, K. (1985). The Early Development of Inuktitut Syllabic Orthography. Études/Inuit/Studies, 9(1), p141-162.

Houston, S. (2019). Ingenio y ambivalencia en la escritura maya. Revista Española De Antropología Americana, 49, p225-240. 70

Hudson, K. and J. Henderson. (2018). Writing Pictures and Painting Words: The Inherent Hybridity of Maya Writing. Signata. 9, p253-290.

Hyland, S. (2014). Ply, Markedness, and Redundancy: New Evidence for How Andean Khipus Encoded Information. American Anthropologist, 116(3), p643–648.

Indigenous Canada (n.d.). Residential Schooling Part 1—University of Alberta. Coursera, Retrieved from https://www.coursera.org/learn/indigenous- canada/lecture/R8gUl/residential-schooling-part-1

Indigenous Canada (n.d.). Residential Schooling Part 2—University of Alberta. Coursera. Retrieved from https://www.coursera.org/learn/indigenous- canada/lecture/nip2F/residential-schooling-part-2

Indigenous Peoples and Communities: Inuit Government of Canada. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/services/indigenous-peoples.html

Inuktitut (ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ) (n.d.). Omniglot. https://omniglot.com/writing/inuktitut.htm

Jansen, M. and Pérez Jiménez, G. A. (2010). The Mixtec Pictorial Manuscripts: Time, Agency and Memory in Ancient Mexico. Belgium: Brill.

Jardine, K. (2019). Spring/Summer 2020 Catwalk Luxx Ready to Wear. Retrieved from https://luxxreadytowear.com/ss2020.html

Jiménez, R., T., & Smith, P. H. (2008). Mesoamerican literacies: Indigenous writing systems and contemporary possibilities. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(1), p28-46.

Justeson, J. S., & Kaufman, T. (1997). A newly discovered column in the hieroglyphic text on la mojarra stela 1: A test of the epi-olmec decipherment. Science, 277(5323), p207-210.

Justeson, J., & Kaufman, T. (1993). A Decipherment of Epi-Olmec Hieroglyphic Writing. Science, 259(5102), p1703-1711.

Justeson, John & Kaufman, T. (2019). The Epi-Olmec Text on a Teotihuacan-Style Mask with Special Reference to Ritual Practices Referred to in Epi-Olmec Hieroglyphic Texts.

Khipu Database Project. (2005). Retrieved from https://Khipukamayuq.fas.harvard.edu/The- Database-Project.html

Kielburger, C. (2020) Inuit students use social media to battle language loss. The London Free Press.

Klein, M. B. (2019). Cherokee writing reexamined: A linguistic analysis of the cherokee syllabary (Order No. 22584956). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2283364481). 71

Krutak, L. (2018). Marked for Life: An Idigenous Tattoo Reawakening. Lars Krutak Tattoo Anthropologist. Retrieved from https://www.larskrutak.com/marked-for-life-an- indigenous-tattoo-reawakening/

Lamb, W. (2017). The maya calendar: A book of months, 400-2000 ce. ProQuest Ebook Central

Lesson Index (n.d.). Inuktut Tusaalanga. Retrieved from https://tusaalanga.ca/lessons

Lifestyle, H. C. M. (2017). LUXX-Everyone Deserves A Piece of Luxury. HCM - Share Stories That Inspire Others.

Marcus, J. (1980). Zapotec Writing. Scientific American, 242(2), 50-67. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24966257

Marcus, J. (1992). Mesoamerican writing systems: Propaganda, Myth, and History in Four Ancient Civilizations. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Martínez, M., et al. (2006). Oldest Writing in the New World. Science, 313(5793), p1610-1614.

Mignolo, W, Hill Boone, E. Eds. (1994) Writing Without Words: Alternative Literacies in Mesoamerica and the Andes. Duke University Press.

Millon, C. (1973). Painting, Writing, and Polity in Teotihuacan, Mexico. American Antiquity, 38(3), 294-314. doi:10.2307/279716

Mission/Vision/Values (n.d.). Nunavut. Retrieved from https://www.gov.nu.ca/culture-and- heritage/information/missionvisionvalues

Mixtec (n.d.). Retrieved from https://omniglot.com/writing/mixtec.htm

Mora-Marín, D. (2009). Early Olmec writing: Reading Format and Reading Order. Latin American Antiquity 20(3) p395-412.

Mora-Marín, D. (2020). The Cascajal Block: New Line Drawing, Distributional Analysis, and Orthographic Patterns. Ancient Mesoamerica, 31(2), p210-229.

Muehlbauer, J. (2016). A “Presence” Paradigm in Plains Cree: Context, Form, and Content. Anthropological Linguistics, 57(3), 275–313.

Nahuatl (n.d.). Retrieved from https://omniglot.com/writing/nahuatl.htm

National Inuit Positions on Federal Legislation in Relation to the Inuktitut Language. (2017). Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. Retrieved from https://www.itk.ca/wp- content/uploads/2019/02/Inuktut-position-paper.pdf

Nichols, D. (2016). Teotihuacan. Journal of Archaeological Research, 24(1), 1-74.

Nunavut Act, S.C. 1993, c. 28. (1993). 72

Okimasis, J. L., & Wolvengrey, A. (2008). How to spell it in Cree: The standard Roman orthography. Miywâsin Ink.

Pool, C., Loughlin, M., & Ortiz Ceballos, P. (2018). Transisthmian Ties: Epi-Olmec and Izapan Interaction. Ancient Mesoamerica, 29(2), p413-437.

Pronunciation (n.d.) Inuktut Tusaalanga. Retrieved from https://tusaalanga.ca/node/2504

Radsken, J. (2017, August 25). A student mines voices from the Incan past. Harvard Gazette.

Rogers, H. (2005). Writing Systems: A Linguistic Approach. Wiley-Blackwell.

Saez-Rodriguez, A. (2013). Knot numbers used as labels for identifying subject matter of a Khipu/Identificación del tema del contenido de un quipu considerando a los valores numéricos de los nudos como etiquetas. Revista Latinoamericana de Etnomatemática; San Juan de Pasto, 6(1), p1–19.

Salomon, F. (2004) The Cord Keepers: Khipus and Cultural life in a Peruvian Village. Duke University Press.

Scancarelli, J. (1996). Cherokee writing. The World’s Writing Systems, edited by Daniels, P. T., & Bright, W., New York, NY: Oxford U press, inc. p587-592

Serrano, J. (2001). Zapotec Hieroglyphic Writing. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, (34), pI-487.

Simek, J., Carroll, B., Reed, J., Cressler, A., Belt, T., Adams, W., & White, M. (2019). The Red Bird River Shelter (15CY52) Revisited: The Archaeology of the Cherokee Syllabary and of Sequoyah in Kentucky. American Antiquity, 84(2), p302-316.

Stevenson, W. (1999). Calling Badger and the Symbols of the Spirit Langauges: The Cree Origins of the Syllabic System | Oral History Forum d’histoire orale. Indigenous voices from the Great Plains, p19–20.

Strauss, S. (2018). Negotiating Narrative Domains: Izapa’s Place in the Discourse on the Early Hieroglyphic Writing. Ancient Mesoamerica, 29(2), p347-359.

Syllabic alphabets / Alphasyllabaries / Abugidas. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.omniglot.com/writing/syllabic.htm

Taube, K. A. (2000). The Writing System of Ancient Teotihuacán. United States: Center for Ancient American Studies.

Tavárez, D, (2010) Zapotec Time, Alphabetic Writing, and the Public Sphere. Ethnohistory; 57 (1): p73–85.

Taylor, R. (2003), A brief history of inuktitut writing culture. Inuktitut, p68-70. 73

UNESCO Interactive Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger (2006). UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/languages-atlas/index.php?hl=en&page=atlasmap&cc2=CA

University nuhelot’įne thaiyots’į nistameyimâkanak Blue Quills. (n.d.). Syllabics chart with sounds Retrieved from https://www.bluequills.ca/elders-2/syllabics-chart-with-sounds/

Urcid, J. (2005). Knowledge, Power, and Memory in Ancient Oaxaca. Department of Anthropology, Brandeis University.

Urton, G. (2003). Signs of the Inka Khipu: Binary Coding in the Andean Knotted-String Records. University of Texas Press.

Urton, G. (2014). Gary Urton —"The Social Life of Khipus". Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaNmMUW4OGI

Urton, G. (2017). Inka History in Knots: Reading Khipus as Primary Sources. University of Texas Press.

Wapachee, C (2016). James Bay students learn Cree syllabics in virtual reality | CBC News. CBC.

Who We Are (n.d.). Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. Retrieved from https://www.itk.ca/

World Digital Library (n.d.) Library of Congress. Retrieved from https://www.wdl.org/en/

Yale University Library (n.d.) Digital Collections. Yale University. Retrieved from https://findit.library.yale.edu/

Yucatec Maya (n.d.). Retrieved from https://omniglot.com/writing/yucatec.htm

Zapotec. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://omniglot.com/writing/zapotec.php