We find, for instance, on the one hand the undoubted application which is connected with the idea of cloud or rain. Thus, in the hieroglyph, figure 80, the accompanying hieroglyph of figure 46, i. e., the bird Moan. So also the one in figure 28 (p. 107) the accompanying hieroglyph of the name Kinchahau, which, besides cauac, contains further the element of fire and that of the hatchet, which may remind us of the ray [or flash] darting from the cloud. The hieroglyph cauac is, however, used far more commonly in the sense of “stone” or “heaviness.” This is most clearly shown in the case of the animal figures pictured in Cod. Tro. 9a and 22*a, where the stone laid upon and weighing down the horizontal beam is represented by the element cauac. But this explanation must be accepted also, because we find the pyramidal foundation of the temple covered with the element cauac. And where, in Cod. Tro. 15*a, to the Chac who is felling a tree is opposed the death god, also felling a tree, covered by the element cauac, it is clear that here there is substituted with the death god a rigid stone in place of what with the Chac is a sprouting tree. The numerous cases in which the hieroglyph cauac serves as a seat or footstool of the gods are sometimes easily interpreted as signifying clouds, but in the majority of cases it undoubtedly represents “stone,” homologous to the hieroglyph caban and the elementtun, “stone,” itself (figure 85), both of which are found equally often denoting the seat and footstool of the gods. It is equally evident that in the hieroglyph figure 84, in which there is indicated the bearing of a burden on the back, the element cauac is to be understood simply as the expression of the weight, the burden. In the peculiar cases where we see the gods holding a board provided with the elements of the character cauac, or where a board is placed before the gods, furnished with a plaited handle whose side bears the element cauac, the latter seems to relate to a sounding board, for the accompanying hieroglyphs seem to signify music. Finally, there can befound a direct homology between the element cauac and the element tun. This is seen in the hieroglyph of the hunting god of figure 83, whose distinguishing mark is usually an eye or the element tun (i. e., a precious stone), which he hears in the front of the headdress. The hieroglyph of this god is written sometimes as in figure 81, sometimes as figure 82. And that the element here, which in figure 82 replaces the element cauac, is to be understood in fact as tun or “stone, precious stone,” is evident, on the one hand from the application of the precious stone in the headdress (tun, “piedra, piedra preciosa”), and, on the other hand, from its use as the base of the pole on which Mam, the Uayeyab demon, is set up during the xma kaba kin (Cod. Dres. 25c). Now, it is true that a connection of ideas can be established with considerable certainty between clouds, rain, and stone, for in that region every rain was a thunderstorm. But at the same time it will be found comprehensible that a barrier of doubt was removed when I discovered in the course of my Zapotec studies that in Zapotec the same word was used for “rain” and “stone,” namely,quia,quie.
We find, for instance, on the one hand the undoubted application which is connected with the idea of cloud or rain. Thus, in the hieroglyph, figure 80, the accompanying hieroglyph of figure 46, i. e., the bird Moan. So also the one in figure 28 (p. 107) the accompanying hieroglyph of the name Kinchahau, which, besides cauac, contains further the element of fire and that of the hatchet, which may remind us of the ray [or flash] darting from the cloud. The hieroglyph cauac is, however, used far more commonly in the sense of “stone” or “heaviness.” This is most clearly shown in the case of the animal figures pictured in Cod. Tro. 9a and 22*a, where the stone laid upon and weighing down the horizontal beam is represented by the element cauac. But this explanation must be accepted also, because we find the pyramidal foundation of the temple covered with the element cauac. And where, in Cod. Tro. 15*a, to the Chac who is felling a tree is opposed the death god, also felling a tree, covered by the element cauac, it is clear that here there is substituted with the death god a rigid stone in place of what with the Chac is a sprouting tree. The numerous cases in which the hieroglyph cauac serves as a seat or footstool of the gods are sometimes easily interpreted as signifying clouds, but in the majority of cases it undoubtedly represents “stone,” homologous to the hieroglyph caban and the elementtun, “stone,” itself (figure 85), both of which are found equally often denoting the seat and footstool of the gods. It is equally evident that in the hieroglyph figure 84, in which there is indicated the bearing of a burden on the back, the element cauac is to be understood simply as the expression of the weight, the burden. In the peculiar cases where we see the gods holding a board provided with the elements of the character cauac, or where a board is placed before the gods, furnished with a plaited handle whose side bears the element cauac, the latter seems to relate to a sounding board, for the accompanying hieroglyphs seem to signify music. Finally, there can befound a direct homology between the element cauac and the element tun. This is seen in the hieroglyph of the hunting god of figure 83, whose distinguishing mark is usually an eye or the element tun (i. e., a precious stone), which he hears in the front of the headdress. The hieroglyph of this god is written sometimes as in figure 81, sometimes as figure 82. And that the element here, which in figure 82 replaces the element cauac, is to be understood in fact as tun or “stone, precious stone,” is evident, on the one hand from the application of the precious stone in the headdress (tun, “piedra, piedra preciosa”), and, on the other hand, from its use as the base of the pole on which Mam, the Uayeyab demon, is set up during the xma kaba kin (Cod. Dres. 25c). Now, it is true that a connection of ideas can be established with considerable certainty between clouds, rain, and stone, for in that region every rain was a thunderstorm. But at the same time it will be found comprehensible that a barrier of doubt was removed when I discovered in the course of my Zapotec studies that in Zapotec the same word was used for “rain” and “stone,” namely,quia,quie.
PL. LXVIII COPIES OF GLYPHS FROM THE CODICESPL. LXVIII COPIES OF GLYPHS FROM THE CODICES
According to the explanation I have given above, the chief phonetic element of the character is the guttural soundk,ks(orx), andch. As additional evidence tending to confirm this conclusion, the following examples are given:
Symbols 61,LXV, from Tro. 22*a, and 62, from Dres. 1 (42), have already been explained, the first as signifyingkutzorcutz, “the turkey,” and the secondtzac, the name of a certain fish found in the senotes. In the first (61) the first or left-hand character is ourCauacsymbol and has theksound, and the same symbol forms the right portion in the second (62) and also has theksound. InLXVI, 47, from Dres. 18c, theCauacsymbol forms the first or upper portion. The whole compound symbol, as above shown, may be consistently interpretedcuchpach, “a porter or carrier;” literally, “one who bears on the back.” Again we see theksound given the character is consistent. The symbol for the monthCeh, as found in the Dresden Codex, is shown atLXVI, 44. In this the last or lower portion is also theCauaccharacter, and, according to the value assigned it, should have a harder sound than the simple aspirate. That such is the case is rendered probable by the fact that Henderson givescehandkezboth as names of the month and as Maya words for “deer.” In the Zotzilchighis the name for “deer.” It is therefore apparent that the symbol has here the guttural sound.
The glyphs inLXVII, 50 and 51 (Cort. 21), probably signify “night” and “evening”; the first (50),akab, “night,” and the second (51),kankin, one signification of which, according to Henderson, is “evening.” The wing-like appendage is probably a time determinative. These last interpretations are of course given with some doubt. However, this may be said in their favor, that wing-like appendages are usually attached to time symbols, and that the figures below the text represent persons, each of whom carries what appears to be a wheel, possibly like those used in keeping time, and the main character of the preceding symbol in both cases is theManikglyph, havingchas its chief phonetic element andchackinil, signifying “hours, wheel.” Precisely the same symbol asLXVII, 51, preceded by theManikglyph, and a wheel in the hand of the person figured below the text, is seen in Troano 35d.
The character shown inLXVII, 52, from Tro. 35c, may possibly be correctly rendered bybakah(baakal), “to roll round about, to go round about,” alluding to the flight of the vulture figured below the text. This supposition appears to be strengthened by the probable interpretation of the symbol immediately below it (LXVII, 53),malaalahah, “without repeated buffetings.” The character given inLXVIII, 3, from Tro. 31a, may be interpretedpak, “to sow seed, to plant,” and that shown inLXVIII, 4, from the second division of the same plate, indicates the same word, as the transposition of the parts of a symbol does not always indicate a change of signification. Possibly, however, its equivalent may becapak, “to reseed or sow seed the second time,” orkapak, “to place in a trench or hole.” As the persons figured below the text appear to be planting seed by dibbling them in with a stick, this would seem to be an appropriate rendering. Dr Seler appears to have entirely misunderstood these figures, as he thinks they represent the deities pouring out water. I have in a previous part of this paper given some reasons for believing that these plates refer to the planting and cultivation of corn.
These examples will suffice at this point.
It is difficult to decide as to the origin of the glyph. However, I am inclined to believe it has grown out of a conventional symbol for wood, possibly drawn from the little knots and marks seen on the inside surface of split wood. This may be wide of the true explanation, but all the indications I can find point in this direction. As “wood” (leña) in Zotzil (I do not know what it is in Tzental) isci—equal tokiorqi—we obtain the guttural sound which appears to be the chief element of the symbol. In its use it appears to shade off from the hard to the soft sound.
The Zapotec nameape, which, according to Dr Brinton, may properly be translated by “lightning,” or “the lightning flash,” is much like the name for “fire” which prevails throughout Oceanica. Commencing with the Malayapi, we trace it through the Oceanic islands in such forms asapi, lap, yap, nap, yaf; to New Zealandkapura; Tonga and Samoanafi, and Hawaiianahi.
In the Zapotec wordslaari-api-nizaandri-api-laha, translated “relampage, relampaguear,” we find precisely the original form of the Oceanic word for “five.”
THE TWENTIETH DAY
Maya,ahau; Tzental,aghual; Quiche-Cakchiquel,hunahpu; Zapotec,laoorloo; Nahuatl,xochitl.
The symbol for this day, except where evidently imperfectly drawn, is subject to but few and slight changes, that given by Landa corresponding to the form found in the codices.
The usual and correct form is shown inLXVIII, 5-7; slight variations are seen inLXVIII, 8 and 9. Dr Seler figures several other varieties, butas these are from plates of the Dresden Codex, where the symbol is in columns, where they are evidently hastily made, without any attempt to have more than one or two in a column complete, they are not given here. The character represented inLXVIII, 10, is from the Tikal inscription, and that inLXVIII, 11, from the Palenque Tablet.
PL. LXIX SHELL BEARING MAYA GLYPHS This shell, on which are engraved seven Maya hieroglyphs, was found in Belize and courteously sent to the Bureau of American Ethnology by Sir Alfred Moloney, Governor of British Honduras. The shell is here figured for the purpose of placing it before students of Central American paleography.PL. LXIX SHELL BEARING MAYA GLYPHSThis shell, on which are engraved seven Maya hieroglyphs, was found in Belize and courteously sent to the Bureau of American Ethnology by Sir Alfred Moloney, Governor of British Honduras. The shell is here figured for the purpose of placing it before students of Central Americanpaleography
PL. LXIX SHELL BEARING MAYA GLYPHSThis shell, on which are engraved seven Maya hieroglyphs, was found in Belize and courteously sent to the Bureau of American Ethnology by Sir Alfred Moloney, Governor of British Honduras. The shell is here figured for the purpose of placing it before students of Central Americanpaleography
The Maya and Tzental names signify “king, lord, sovereign.” The derivation of the word has been explained in various ways. Brasseur explains it by “the lord of the collar,”ah-au, as does Dr Brinton; Stoll gives “lord of the cultivated lands,” from the Ixil,avuan, “to sow.” Dr Seler, however, is disposed to derive the name from the masculine prefixahanduinicorvinak, “man.” His method of reaching this conclusion is as follows:
For the Tzental wordaghual, standing parallel with the Mayaahau, which doubtless corresponds to the abstract formahaualof the wordahau, is to be referred rather to a primitive formavu,a’ku,ahu, than toahau. In the Tzental Pater Noster which Pimental gives, we find the phrase “to us come Thy kingdom (Thy dominion)” expressed by the wordsaca taluc te aguajuale. The primitive meaning ofahauis certainly “man,” “lord,” and the two roots of similar significance,ahandvu(seeuinic,vinak, “man”) seem to concur in this word.
For the Tzental wordaghual, standing parallel with the Mayaahau, which doubtless corresponds to the abstract formahaualof the wordahau, is to be referred rather to a primitive formavu,a’ku,ahu, than toahau. In the Tzental Pater Noster which Pimental gives, we find the phrase “to us come Thy kingdom (Thy dominion)” expressed by the wordsaca taluc te aguajuale. The primitive meaning ofahauis certainly “man,” “lord,” and the two roots of similar significance,ahandvu(seeuinic,vinak, “man”) seem to concur in this word.
He explains the Quiche-Cakchiquelhunahpubyhun, “one,” andahpu“lord of the blowpipe,” or “blowpipe shooter.” Dr Brinton translates it the “One Master of Power.” He brings the Mexican name into harmony by rendering it “the flower of the day”—that is, the sun; and the Zapotec by rendering it “eye,” meaning “the eye of the day”—i. e., the sun.
When we attempt to bring the symbol of the day into harmony with the Maya name, we encounter a difficulty which can be overcome only by following a different line from that suggested by Dr Brinton or Dr Seler. That the character shown inLXVIII, 12, is the symbol for the cardinal point “east,” which in Maya islikin, is now generally admitted, and that the lower portion is the symbol forkin, “day” or “sun,” is also admitted. We are therefore justified in concluding that the upper portion, which is theAhausymbol, stands forli, and thatlis its consonant element. If Landa’s secondl(shown inLXVIII, 43) is turned part way round, it will be seen that it is a rough attempt to draw theAhausymbol. If a careful study is made of hisl’s as given in his list, and his example of spellingle, and of the similar characters in the codices, it will be seen that both hislcharacters are derived from the same original. For example, the character shown inLXV, 60, from Tro. 22*a is precisely the combination which this author translatesle, “a snare,” or “to snare.” By referring to the plate it will be seen that it is followed by the character (LXV, 61) which we have interpretedkutz, “turkey,” and that in the picture below the text there is a lassoed turkey. It is apparent, therefore, that both these forms are used sometimes for words of whichlis the chief phonetic element, and that the parallelogram and two interior dots are the essential elements. The day symbol is of less frequency in combination than the other form, but it sometimes occurs. It must, however, be distinguished from the closely alliedpsymbol heretofore alluded to.
From what has been shown in regard to the symbol it would seem, if considered phonetic, that the original day name it was intended to represent containedlas its chief consonant element. If ikonomatic, the name of the thing indicated hadlas its chief element.
I think there can be little doubt that the symbol, as has been suggested by others, was taken from the full face, the central double line representing the nose, the two open dots the eyes, and the circle below the mouth. Now, according to Fuller’s Zapotec Vocabulary, the name for face islu, which is the Zapotec name of the day. As has been stated, Dr Brinton thinks the Nahuatl and Zapotec names refer to the sun, and he is inclined also to believe that the “ruler” or “sovereign” referred to by the names of the Maya dialects is the sun.
I think we may rest assured that the symbol of this day was derived from the full face, and that the word (for face) it was intended to indicate hadlas its chief phonetic element—possibly fromlec, “brow, front, forehead.” If derived from the face, its use as a day symbol, and in numerous combinations, proves beyond question that it is phonetic in the true or in the rebus sense.
205-1Study of the Manuscript Troano, pref., p. viii.205-2American Anthropologist, Washington, July, 1893.207-1The plates are designated by Roman numerals, and the figures by the Arabic numbers 1, 2, 3, etc. HenceLXIV, 1, signifies figure 1 of plateLXIV;LXIV, 2, figure 2 of plateLXIV, etc.208-1American Anthropologist, July, 1893, p. 254.208-2There appears to be much confusion among writers who have referred to this subject in regard to the “Black Deities” of the codices. Dr Brinton’s remarks on this subject in his late work, “A Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics,” does not clear up the confusion. Apparently he has not discovered that quite a number of these are merely black figures of well-recognized deities not thus usually colored. It appears also, judging by his statements, that Dr. Brinton has failed to identify the characteristics by which the different deities of this class are to be distinguished. Dr Schellhas, in his excellent paper “Die Gottergestallen der Maya Handschriften,” fails also to properly distinguish between these deities. Dr Seler, whose profound studies have thrown much light on the Maya hieroglyphs, fixes quite satisfactorily the characteristics of some of these deities, yet he confounds others which should have been separated.209-1Dr Brinton (Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics, p. 93) claims to have discovered that this hitherto supposed “vessel” is, in reality, “a drum.” As the four (Cort. 27a) are without any accompaniments to indicate their use as drums, and as each has above it one of the cardinal point signs, there is nothing, unless it be the form, to lead to the supposition that they are drums. In the same division of the two preceding and three following pages we see vessels of different kinds represented. In the lower divisions pages 29 and 30, are vessels somewhat of the same elongate, cylindrical form, borne on the backs of individuals; and also in the lower division of page 40 are four tall cylindrical vessels, in each of which the arm of a deity figure is thrust. This section is copied in Dr Brinton’s work with the subscript “The beneficent gods draw from their stores.” Additional proof, if any is needed to show that these are vessels, is found in the Tro. Codex. On plates 6* and 7* are tall cylindrical vessels with the same inverted V marks on them; moreover, one of them has the upper portion margined by the same tooth-like projection as those in the Cortesian plate. That these are vessels of some kind is apparent from the use the pictures show is made of them.209-2See Brasseur’s lexicon underbacab, also the mention below, under the dayIk, of four vessels.210-1Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, p. 115.210-2A Study of the Manuscript Troano, pp. 80 and 56.214-1Jour. Anthrop. Inst. G. B. and I., November, 1889, p. 121.214-2Ibid., 1885, p. 199.214-3Polynesian Race, vol I, pp. 75-77.214-4Rev. Richard Taylor, Te-Ika-a-Maui; London, 1870.215-1American Anthropologist, July, 1893, pp. 263-264.216-1Historia de los Mexicanos, as quoted by Brinton.216-2American Anthropologist, July, 1893.217-1Cong. Inter. des Americanistes, Actes de la Cuarta Reunion, Madrid, 1881, tom. 2, pp. 173-174.219-1Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics, p. 115.220-1American Hero Myths, p. 222.220-2Names of the Gods in Kiche Myths, p. 22.223-1Fourth Ann. Rep. Bur. Eth. (1882-83), p. 238.223-2Schoolcraft, “Indian Tribes,” etc, vol. I, pl. 51, No. 10, p. 360.224-1American Anthropologist, July, 1893, pp. 258-259.224-2Dr Brinton (Primer, etc, p. 93) explains it as the symbol of a drum. He remarks that “in a more highly conventionalized form we find them in the Cod. Troano thus [giving plateLXIV, 51], which has been explained by Pousse, Thomas, and others as making fire or as grinding paint. It is obviously thedzacatan, what I have called the ‘pottery decoration’ around the figures, showing that the body of the drum was earthenware.” Yet (p. 130 and fig. 75) Dr. Brinton explains this identical group or paragraph as a representation of the process of making fire from the friction of two pieces of wood. It seems to mo clear that this glyph represents something in the picture, and not the personage, as there is a special glyph for this. A comparison of the groups in the two divisions of this plate (Tro. 19) and plates 5 and 6 b of the Dresden Codex shows that the glyph refers to the work or action indicated by the pictures. That it refers to something in or indicated by the pictures, and that no drum is figured, will, I think, be admitted by most students of these codices.225-1Dr Brinton (Primer, p. 117) errs in regarding the superfix to this glyph as thekinor sun symbol.227-1Dr Brinton (Primer, p. 110) says the object represented by this symbol is “a polished stone, shell pendant, or bead.” This authority considers the dot or eye in the upper part as a perforation by which it was strung on a cord. If this be true, it is strange that we see them nowhere in the codices strung on strings, though necklaces are frequently represented; and that we do see them piled up in vessels, see them putting forth shoots and leaves, and see birds and quadrupeds devouring thorn. Dr Brinton himself (p. 123, E. No. 29) gives one of these sproutingkansymbols, which he says “is a picture of the maize plant from Cod. Tro., p. 29.” That it is not used ikonomatically here is evident, askanin Maya is not a name for maize or grain of maize.232-1First Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn., p. 386.232-2Dr Brinton (Primer, p. 65) says: “Former students have been unable to explain this design” and suggests that it is a maggot.232-3Brinton follows Brasseur in supposing it represents the “grasping hand,” and thinks it is a rebus ofmach, “asir, tomar con los manos.”236-1Page 66.237-1Notwithstanding his definition given above, Dr Brinton suggests in his late work that the symbols of the day bear a close resemblance to some of the sun signs.238-1For explanation of the inclosed comb-like characters, Landa’sca, see Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, page 355.239-1Brinton thinks that in some of the forms it indicates “a trail” or “footprints,” which are meanings ofoc.240-1I was not aware thatochad the signification “dog” in any of the Mayan languages, nor do I find that Seler or Brinton appeal to this fact in their efforts to explain the day name in the Maya calendar. However, Dr Brinton remarks that Brasseur and Seler think that some forms of the symbol “portray the ears of a dog, as in some of the Mayan dialects the dog is calledoc.”240-2Dr Brinton (Primer, p. 95) says that this is called “an article of food, by Thomas.” While this is correct in the sense that I speak of the turkey (kutzorcuitz) as food, it is incorrect in giving the impression that I interpret the symbol by “article of food,” as I have always interpreted it “turkey.”245-1Dr Brinton says it is the face of an old woman with a peculiar pointed earmark.248-1Brinton says thebensymbol looks to him “like a wooden bridge, the two supports of which are shown and which was sometimes covered with a straw mat.” If so, it must be shown in profile, and the hanging marks above (seeLXVI, 16, 17, 19) would seem to be without signification; moreover, inLXVI, 18, the supports hang from above, which would, on this theory, imply a hanging bridge.250-1Cong. Inter. Americanistes, 1881, tom. 2.250-2Dr Brinton says the usual form suggests scattered grain husks, the word for which isxiix.257-1Jour. Am. Eth. and Arch., II, p. 38.
205-1Study of the Manuscript Troano, pref., p. viii.
205-2American Anthropologist, Washington, July, 1893.
207-1The plates are designated by Roman numerals, and the figures by the Arabic numbers 1, 2, 3, etc. HenceLXIV, 1, signifies figure 1 of plateLXIV;LXIV, 2, figure 2 of plateLXIV, etc.
208-1American Anthropologist, July, 1893, p. 254.
208-2There appears to be much confusion among writers who have referred to this subject in regard to the “Black Deities” of the codices. Dr Brinton’s remarks on this subject in his late work, “A Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics,” does not clear up the confusion. Apparently he has not discovered that quite a number of these are merely black figures of well-recognized deities not thus usually colored. It appears also, judging by his statements, that Dr. Brinton has failed to identify the characteristics by which the different deities of this class are to be distinguished. Dr Schellhas, in his excellent paper “Die Gottergestallen der Maya Handschriften,” fails also to properly distinguish between these deities. Dr Seler, whose profound studies have thrown much light on the Maya hieroglyphs, fixes quite satisfactorily the characteristics of some of these deities, yet he confounds others which should have been separated.
209-1Dr Brinton (Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics, p. 93) claims to have discovered that this hitherto supposed “vessel” is, in reality, “a drum.” As the four (Cort. 27a) are without any accompaniments to indicate their use as drums, and as each has above it one of the cardinal point signs, there is nothing, unless it be the form, to lead to the supposition that they are drums. In the same division of the two preceding and three following pages we see vessels of different kinds represented. In the lower divisions pages 29 and 30, are vessels somewhat of the same elongate, cylindrical form, borne on the backs of individuals; and also in the lower division of page 40 are four tall cylindrical vessels, in each of which the arm of a deity figure is thrust. This section is copied in Dr Brinton’s work with the subscript “The beneficent gods draw from their stores.” Additional proof, if any is needed to show that these are vessels, is found in the Tro. Codex. On plates 6* and 7* are tall cylindrical vessels with the same inverted V marks on them; moreover, one of them has the upper portion margined by the same tooth-like projection as those in the Cortesian plate. That these are vessels of some kind is apparent from the use the pictures show is made of them.
209-2See Brasseur’s lexicon underbacab, also the mention below, under the dayIk, of four vessels.
210-1Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, p. 115.
210-2A Study of the Manuscript Troano, pp. 80 and 56.
214-1Jour. Anthrop. Inst. G. B. and I., November, 1889, p. 121.
214-2Ibid., 1885, p. 199.
214-3Polynesian Race, vol I, pp. 75-77.
214-4Rev. Richard Taylor, Te-Ika-a-Maui; London, 1870.
215-1American Anthropologist, July, 1893, pp. 263-264.
216-1Historia de los Mexicanos, as quoted by Brinton.
216-2American Anthropologist, July, 1893.
217-1Cong. Inter. des Americanistes, Actes de la Cuarta Reunion, Madrid, 1881, tom. 2, pp. 173-174.
219-1Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics, p. 115.
220-1American Hero Myths, p. 222.
220-2Names of the Gods in Kiche Myths, p. 22.
223-1Fourth Ann. Rep. Bur. Eth. (1882-83), p. 238.
223-2Schoolcraft, “Indian Tribes,” etc, vol. I, pl. 51, No. 10, p. 360.
224-1American Anthropologist, July, 1893, pp. 258-259.
224-2Dr Brinton (Primer, etc, p. 93) explains it as the symbol of a drum. He remarks that “in a more highly conventionalized form we find them in the Cod. Troano thus [giving plateLXIV, 51], which has been explained by Pousse, Thomas, and others as making fire or as grinding paint. It is obviously thedzacatan, what I have called the ‘pottery decoration’ around the figures, showing that the body of the drum was earthenware.” Yet (p. 130 and fig. 75) Dr. Brinton explains this identical group or paragraph as a representation of the process of making fire from the friction of two pieces of wood. It seems to mo clear that this glyph represents something in the picture, and not the personage, as there is a special glyph for this. A comparison of the groups in the two divisions of this plate (Tro. 19) and plates 5 and 6 b of the Dresden Codex shows that the glyph refers to the work or action indicated by the pictures. That it refers to something in or indicated by the pictures, and that no drum is figured, will, I think, be admitted by most students of these codices.
225-1Dr Brinton (Primer, p. 117) errs in regarding the superfix to this glyph as thekinor sun symbol.
227-1Dr Brinton (Primer, p. 110) says the object represented by this symbol is “a polished stone, shell pendant, or bead.” This authority considers the dot or eye in the upper part as a perforation by which it was strung on a cord. If this be true, it is strange that we see them nowhere in the codices strung on strings, though necklaces are frequently represented; and that we do see them piled up in vessels, see them putting forth shoots and leaves, and see birds and quadrupeds devouring thorn. Dr Brinton himself (p. 123, E. No. 29) gives one of these sproutingkansymbols, which he says “is a picture of the maize plant from Cod. Tro., p. 29.” That it is not used ikonomatically here is evident, askanin Maya is not a name for maize or grain of maize.
232-1First Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn., p. 386.
232-2Dr Brinton (Primer, p. 65) says: “Former students have been unable to explain this design” and suggests that it is a maggot.
232-3Brinton follows Brasseur in supposing it represents the “grasping hand,” and thinks it is a rebus ofmach, “asir, tomar con los manos.”
236-1Page 66.
237-1Notwithstanding his definition given above, Dr Brinton suggests in his late work that the symbols of the day bear a close resemblance to some of the sun signs.
238-1For explanation of the inclosed comb-like characters, Landa’sca, see Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, page 355.
239-1Brinton thinks that in some of the forms it indicates “a trail” or “footprints,” which are meanings ofoc.
240-1I was not aware thatochad the signification “dog” in any of the Mayan languages, nor do I find that Seler or Brinton appeal to this fact in their efforts to explain the day name in the Maya calendar. However, Dr Brinton remarks that Brasseur and Seler think that some forms of the symbol “portray the ears of a dog, as in some of the Mayan dialects the dog is calledoc.”
240-2Dr Brinton (Primer, p. 95) says that this is called “an article of food, by Thomas.” While this is correct in the sense that I speak of the turkey (kutzorcuitz) as food, it is incorrect in giving the impression that I interpret the symbol by “article of food,” as I have always interpreted it “turkey.”
245-1Dr Brinton says it is the face of an old woman with a peculiar pointed earmark.
248-1Brinton says thebensymbol looks to him “like a wooden bridge, the two supports of which are shown and which was sometimes covered with a straw mat.” If so, it must be shown in profile, and the hanging marks above (seeLXVI, 16, 17, 19) would seem to be without signification; moreover, inLXVI, 18, the supports hang from above, which would, on this theory, imply a hanging bridge.
250-1Cong. Inter. Americanistes, 1881, tom. 2.
250-2Dr Brinton says the usual form suggests scattered grain husks, the word for which isxiix.
257-1Jour. Am. Eth. and Arch., II, p. 38.
A LIST OF THE DEITIES OF THE DAYS OF THE MONTH IN THE MAORI CALENDAR (AFTER TAYLOR).
It must be understood that these are not the names of the days, but of the deities which preside over them, and of the things which they created or of which they had special care.