A Classic Maya Mystery of a Medicinal Plant and Maya Hieroglyphs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the introduction clarify if Is the glyph is always depicted the same way or are there are small variations?

 

In lines 108 and 109 If the editor allows it, the website information would be better on a foot note

 

Fig. 2 - Although mentioned in the text a scale would be useful in the photos to understand the real size of the plants.

Author Response

1. In the introduction clarify if Is the glyph is always depicted the same way or are there are small variations?

Au. There are many variation and we have made note of these in the revised text and figure 1. We have greatly expanded the introduction to clarify use of the glyph.

2. In lines 108 and 109 If the editor allows it, the website information would be better on a foot note

 Au.These were changed to footnotes as suggested.

3. Fig. 2 - Although mentioned in the text a scale would be useful in the photos to understand the real size of the plants.

Au. Scale is now in the revised figure legend.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The abstract virtually repeats a section of abstract available online from 2014 PhD thesis by the lead author. It is good to bring botanists and Mayan healers insights to the hieroglyph literature but recommend adding a Mayan hieroglyph /epigraphy expert to the paper so this paper more carefully explores the importance of this new information and gets the respect that it merits. There are many other different interpretations of this k´an cross shape, aside from that of it being the cross section of a particular medicinal plant used by Maya .  

Mayan glyphs can be interpreted as representing sounds and/or as the images themselves - The k´an glyph can also be read in several ways. The sound K´an means yellow in many Mayan languages. And can refer to anything tha is yellow as well as things/gods/histories associated with yellow things (e.g., Maize god, Zea Mays).    

Hence, the authors question is better framed as “what was the original inspiration for this particular shape of a cross interpreted as k´an glyph?” , rather than just asserting that the kán cross is derived from this particular plant.

Crosses are ubiquitous shapes- the horizontal and vertical meeting. The wider ends of the cross in the cross-section of this plant´s xylem are not seen in the glyph illustration provided with this ms - though one could always argue that is artistic license to make the cross straight instead of flared..

Weiss-Krejci summarizes this context well in her 2012 article when she concludes carefully :

“I strongly feel that the K’AN sign and the readings “precious,” “yellow,” and “ripe” are all based on the properties of the allspice tree (i.e., yellowish bark and yellowish cross in the cuttings, berries which ripen after the harvest, precious wood, good smell, etc.). K’an probably also de- nominates the branches and the tree’s aromatic berries, oils, and leaves, which are used to season drinks and food. “

The authors refer to Weiss-Krejci paper as recent, and it may have been recent at the time of the lead author´s PhD, but her paper is now 8 years old. Suggest the authors read and reference a more recent article - by Nicholas Carter and Lauren Santini, “The Lord of the Yellow Tree” in The PARI Journal XIX (4) Spring 2019 , which refers to Weiss-Krejci hypothesis and notes:

“Estella Weiss-Krejci (2012) raised the possibility that k’ante’ was a term for the allspice tree (Pimenta dioica) in Classic Mayan, based in part on the resemblance between cut sections of that tree’s trunk and the Maya logogram K´ AN , yellow, precious, ripe. “   The few scattered references to k’ante’ in the hieroglyphic corpus do not clarify the species of tree indicated, while a Postclassic depiction of a k’ante’, on page 31 of the Dresden Codex, lacks details that might aid in species identification. “

The conclusion of the authors of this article should likewise be more cautious - the authors have provided evidence that raises the possibility that the glyph is derived from the reference to a plant having wood anatomy rather similar to the kán cross , and other yellow elements - but there is no certainty that the cross definitely refers to wood anatomy,  or to a particular plant.                                   Archeologists tend to propose intuitive interpretations , realizing there is no certainty in reading the minds of people who lived centuries ago.  Relying on present-day Maya people´s interpretations is not definitive -  their knowledge can be valid today but not necessarily the same as their ancestors interpreted their world/knowledge.

 

Author Response

1.The abstract virtually repeats a section of abstract available online from 2014 PhD thesis by the lead author.

Au The abstract has been extensively revised and is now  different from the thesis version.

 2. It is good to bring botanists and Mayan healers insights to the hieroglyph literature but recommend adding a Mayan hieroglyph /epigraphy expert to the paper so this paper more carefully explores the importance of this new information and gets the respect that it merits. There are many other different interpretations of this k´an cross shape, aside from that of it being the cross section of a particular medicinal plant used by Maya .

Au. We approached a Mayan hieroglyph / epigraphy expert, Phil Wanyerka, of Cleveland State university who has rewritten and greatly  expanded the introduction describing the broader context of the glyph and spoken word in Maya culture. We rephrased the introduction to indicate that k’an is a general term for “precious”, and “yellow” that has application in many concepts and is not simply a botanical template.  

3. Mayan glyphs can be interpreted as representing sounds and/or as the images themselves - The k´an glyph can also be read in several ways. The sound K´an means yellow in many Mayan languages. And can refer to anything that is yellow as well as things/gods/histories associated with yellow things (e.g., Maize god, Zea Mays).    

Au. Noted in the revised ms with additions by PW. with added references 

4. Hence, the authors question is better framed as “what was the original inspiration for this particular shape of a cross interpreted as k´an glyph?” , rather than just asserting that the kán cross is derived from this particular plant.

Au. We provided a clearer objective in the revised paper

5. Crosses are ubiquitous shapes- the horizontal and vertical meeting. The wider ends of the cross in the cross-section of this plant´s xylem are not seen in the glyph illustration provided with this ms - though one could always argue that is artistic license to make the cross straight instead of flared..

Weiss-Krejci summarizes this context well in her 2012 article when she concludes carefully :

“I strongly feel that the K’AN sign and the readings “precious,” “yellow,” and “ripe” are all based on the properties of the allspice tree (i.e., yellowish bark and yellowish cross in the cuttings, berries which ripen after the harvest, precious wood, good smell, etc.). K’an probably also de- nominates the branches and the tree’s aromatic berries, oils, and leaves, which are used to season drinks and food. “

Au. We have added some additional text including this description

6. The authors refer to Weiss-Krejci paper as recent, and it may have been recent at the time of the lead author´s PhD, but her paper is now 8 years old. Suggest the authors read and reference a more recent article - by Nicholas Carter and Lauren Santini, “The Lord of the Yellow Tree” in The PARI Journal XIX (4) Spring 2019 , which refers to Weiss-Krejci hypothesis and notes:

 

Au. We deleted recent and added text and reference to Carter and Santini article which is highly relevant

7. “Estella Weiss-Krejci (2012) raised the possibility that k’ante’ was a term for the allspice tree (Pimenta dioica) in Classic Mayan, based in part on the resemblance between cut sections of that tree’s trunk and the Maya logogram K´ AN , yellow, precious, ripe. “   The few scattered references to k’ante’ in the hieroglyphic corpus do not clarify the species of tree indicated, while a Postclassic depiction of a k’ante’, on page 31 of the Dresden Codex, lacks details that might aid in species identification. “

The conclusion of the authors of this article should likewise be more cautious - the authors have provided evidence that raises the possibility that the glyph is derived from the reference to a plant having wood anatomy rather similar to the kán cross , and other yellow elements - but there is no certainty that the cross definitely refers to wood anatomy,  or to a particular plant.                             Archeologists tend to propose intuitive interpretations , realizing there is no certainty in reading the minds of people who lived centuries ago.  Relying on present-day Maya people´s interpretations is not definitive -  their knowledge can be valid today but not necessarily the same as their ancestors interpreted their world/knowledge.

Au. We have toned down the text, especially the idea that the k’an glyph is only a botanical template, but rather both an adjective and symbol that best describes T. guatemalensis as well as the conclusion about Maya medicine. 

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting and worthy of publishing paper, however, it needs to be amended to provide the reader with the full understanding of the conclusions reached.

• The introduction needs amending, informing the reader about the significance of this paper, beyond correcting a minor error, just stating in the last sentence: ‘This minor botanical error, and our correction, has led to greater understanding of traditional Maya medicine and language’: it is very descriptive and does not present the paper’s contribution to a number of fields of research including Mayan studies, ethno- medicine and archaeobotany. If left as it is in the introduction the paper will only be seen as contributing via ‘correcting a minor error’.
• I suggest that also the paper needs to introduce the text concerning its structure, so the authors should amend it with a higher stress on interpretation. This will I hope allow the authors to change the balance of text from descriptive aspects of knowledge production to interpretation as knowledge use and communication. While it is important to show the scientific rigor applied in establishing the fact of the use of one plant over the other, the consequence of such needs to be fully explored.
• My reading of the paper shows areas of the text that I propose to enhance and possibly restructure: i) Contemporary use of the plant in the healing practices; ii) possible use of the same plant in Maya Culture; iii) link to Maya material culture; iv) the possible or tangible link between the contemporary healing practices and Classic Maya medical heritage, with the Material and Methods section as part of the current text to be put between the points i and ii. 

Author Response

• The introduction needs amending, informing the reader about the significance of this paper, beyond correcting a minor error, just stating in the last sentence: ‘This minor botanical error, and our correction, has led to greater understanding of traditional Maya medicine and language’: it is very descriptive and does not present the paper’s contribution to a number of fields of research including Mayan studies, ethno- medicine and archaeobotany. If left as it is in the introduction the paper will only be seen as contributing via ‘correcting a minor error’.

Au. This section was extensively revised as suggested by Phil Wanyerka, Cleveland State University. We added   a clearer objective about  the ancient and modern  Maya medicine with this evidence.

• I suggest that also the paper needs to introduce the text concerning its structure, so the authors should amend it with a higher stress on interpretation. This will I hope allow the authors to change the balance of text from descriptive aspects of knowledge production to interpretation as knowledge use and communication. While it is important to show the scientific rigor applied in establishing the fact of the use of one plant over the other, the consequence of such needs to be fully explored.

Au. We have expanded the discussion to incorporate interpretative  ideas, especially concerning ancient and modern Maya medicine..

• My reading of the paper shows areas of the text that I propose to enhance and possibly restructure: i) Contemporary use of the plant in the healing practices; ii) possible use of the same plant in Maya Culture; iii) link to Maya material culture; iv) the possible or tangible link between the contemporary healing practices and Classic Maya medical heritage, with the Material and Methods section as part of the current text to be put between the points i and ii. 

Au. Many of these ideas have been expanded as suggested and provide a new focus  in the revised discussion that is on the discovery of a plant with exceptional activity used in both classic and modern times. There are other examples. Although we cant be certain,  contemporary Maya medicine may have retained some of the knowledge of the classic period especially in the case of pharmacologically active plants.