We find the precise Maya o a circle in a circle, or a dot within a circle, repeated in the Phoenician forms for o, thus, ### and ### , and by exactly the same forms in the Egyptian hieroglyphics; in the Runic we have the circle in the circle; in one form of the Greek o the dot was placed along-side of the circle instead of below it, as in the Maya.

Are these another set of coincidences?

Take another letter: 

The letter n of the Maya alphabet is represented by this sign, itself probably a simplification of some more ornate form, ### .  This is something like our letter S, but quite unlike our N. But let us examine into the pedigree of our n.  We find in the archaic Ethiopian, a language as old as the Egyptian, and which represents the Cushite branch of the Atlantean stock, the sign for n (na) is ### ; in archaic Phoenician it comes still closer to the S shape, thus, ### , or in this form, ### ; we have but to curve these angles to approximate it very closely to the Maya n; in Troy this form was found, ### .  The Samaritan makes it ### ; the old Hebrew ### ; the Moab stone inscription gives it ### ; the later Phoenicians simplified the archaic form still further, until it became ### ; then it passed into ### :  the archaic Greek form is ### ; the later Greeks made ### , from which it passed into the present form, N. All these forms seem to be representations of a serpent; we turn to the valley of the Nile, and we find that the Egyptian hieroglyphic for n was the serpent, ### ; the Pelasgian n was ### ; the Arcadian, ### ; the Etruscan, ### .

Can anything be more significant than to find the serpent the sign for n in Central America, and in all these Old World languages?

Now turn to the letter k.  The Maya sign for k is ### .  This does not look much like our letter K; but let us examine it.  Following the precedent established for us by the Mayas in the case of the letter m, let us see what is the distinguishing feature here; it is clearly the figure of a serpent standing erect, with its tail doubled around its middle, forming a circle.  It has already been remarked by Savolini that this erect serpent is very much like the Egyptian Uraeus, an erect serpent with an enlarged body—­a sacred emblem found in the hair of their deities.  We turn again to the valley of the Nile, and we find that the Egyptian hieroglyphic for k was a serpent with a convolution or protuberance in the middle, precisely as in the Maya, thus, ### ; this was transformed into the Egyptian letter ### ; the serpent and the protuberance reappear in one of the Phoenician forms of k, to wit, ### ; while in the Punic we have these forms, ### and ### .  Now suppose a busy people trying to give this sign:  instead of drawing the serpent in all its details they would abbreviate it into something like this, ### ; now we turn to the ancient Ethiopian sign for k (ka), and we have ### , or the Himyaritic Arabian ### ; while in the Phoenician it becomes ### ; in the archaic Greek, ### ; and in the later Greek, when they changed the writing from left to right, ### .  So that the two lines projecting from the upright stroke of our English K are a reminiscence of the convolution of the serpent in the Maya original and the Egyptian copy.