The mask turned up about 15 years ago. Its extensive number of symbols means it is an important addition to the tiny canon of writings in the script. In a private collection, the mask was brought to the attention of Houston and Coe by a colleague of theirs.

"It's one of the very few well-preserved examples that's ever come to light of this writing system," Houston said.

The find allowed scientists to check the supposed meaning of hieroglyphs as published by Justeson and Kaufman.

Coe has outlined factors that need to be in place before a persuasive decipherment can be made of an ancient written language. Some sort of parallel script should be available from a language that has been deciphered. The unknown script should represent a language that is well-understood, with cross-ties to imagery that allow scientists to check the meanings.

"The fact of the matter is, that none of these were in place for this proposed decipherment," Houston said.

A huge problem, as he sees it, is that few examples of this writing system are known. Writings by the Maya may number 10,000 examples. With this script, however, the number may be just over 10, he said.

When the mask became available, it presented a new opportunity to evaluate Kaufman and Justeson's claims.

"Mike and I diligently plugged in the values" that were cited for the hieroglyphs in the earlier research, he said.

The results? The message would be an odd series of words like "Blood . . . mouth . . . take he take . . . "

Houston and Coe write in their paper that the "decipherment" carried out on the mask's symbols "tells us nothing new, unexpected or even expected about this Isthmian text and the mask that displays it.

"Instead, the inserted values yield a semantic mishmash."

Justeson's and Kaufman's purported decipherment "is, in our view, unlikely to be valid," they concluded.

Despite repeated attempts to reach them by telephone and e-mail, Justeson and Kaufman did not agree to an interview.

But Justeson sent a one-sentence comment by e-mail concerning Houston and Coe's study: "Their arguments against our methods and results are easily answered, and we will answer them in an appropriate scientific outlet." The statement is signed by both Justeson and Kaufman.

Houston said the definite way in which the original findings were posted hampered scientific discussion. It "has made it more difficult to discuss, because now it has become an uglier issue, disagreeing with these two fellows," he said.

"I really believe, on our present evidence, it's impossible to decipher this writing system," Houston said. "We just don't have the elements in place to make it happen."

---

E-mail: bau@desnews.com