PL. LXVI COPIES OF GLYPHS FROM THE CODICESPL. LXVI COPIES OF GLYPHS FROM THE CODICES
The Nahuatl, Tzental, and Quiche-Cakchiquel names of this day are the ordinary terms in these languages for “monkey.” Dr Brinton thinks the Maya name, which does not appear to have any signification in this language as a separate word (thoughchuencheis “aborao, tuble,” “a certain tree”), is derived from a Tzental term,chiu, which is applied to a particular species of monkey. He and Dr Seler refer to thechouenin a legend of the Popol Vuh, which undoubtedly stands in close relation tobatzor “monkey,” there spoken of ashunbatz. As these words in the Quiche myth appear unquestionably to refer to a species of the monkey tribe, or mythical persons under the symbolism of monkeys, the conclusion they reach is probably correct, and justifies the belief that the Maya name should be interpreted “monkey.”
The origin of the symbol is uncertain, and Dr Seler makes no attempt to explain it. The difference between the simple form with the three teeth only (plateLXVI, 2) and the typicalChuensymbol indicates a difference in the word equivalents, or in the signification if ideographic. It is possible that Brasseur is right in rendering the former byco, which signifies “tooth;” in which case we may be justified in assuming that the additions in theChuensymbol give the additional phonetic elements in the word. It may be, as supposed by some authors, that it was intended to represent the front view of an open mouth of some animal, aschiis the Maya word for mouth.
THE TWELFTH DAY
Maya,eb; Tzental,euob; Quiche-Cakchiquel,eoree; Zapotec,pija; Nahuatl,mallinallioritlan.
There are comparatively few variations in the symbol of this day; some, however, are of sufficient importance to render recognition doubtful but for their presence in the day series. That given by Landa is seen in plateLXVI, 4; the form most usual in the Tro. and Cort. codices is that shown inLXVI, 5; the variations seen inLXVI, 6, 7, 8, are from the Dresden Codex, and that inLXVI, 9, is from the Peresianus.
This character occurs very seldom, if ever, except as a day symbol, hence it is presumed to be purely ideographic or pictorial. There is, however, a deity symbol found in the Tro. Codex (plateLXVI, 10) in which we see apparently the chief characteristic of theebsymbol. Here, however, instead of a dot-bordered tooth, there is a dot-bordered dark stripe which runs downward entirely across the face. This is accompanied usually by the numeral prefix 11. The symbol of the same deity as found in the Dresden Codex is shown in plateLXVI, 11. Here the stripe is reduced to a single broken line. Dr Schellhas contends that he is a Death god and the equivalent of the Mexican Xipe. That he is a god of the underworld in the Tro. Codex is apparent from his ornaments and the dotted lines on his body or limbs; yet in two instances—plates 5a and b—he is represented as a traveling merchant. Whether the deity in the Dresden Codex is the same as that of the Tro. Codexis not positively certain, but the presence of the numeral 11 with the symbol, and in some instances the dotted lines on the body of the deity, indicate that the two are identical. Whether this deity glyph bears any relation to the day symbol is, however, doubtful. The only names of Maya deities I find withbuluc(“eleven”) as a prefix are Ahbuluc-Balam and Buluc-Ahau (?). The first, which signifies “He of the Eleven Tigers,” was one of the idols made at the festival of the new year Cauac. On one of the four plates of the Dresden Codex representing the festivals of the new year (26a) we observe that the image carried by the chac is a tiger-like animal marked with dotted lines. Whether this is to be connected with the deity above mentioned is doubtful. The other name, Buluc-Ahau, mentioned by Landa, is the name of one of the signs of the Katun given in his figure of the cycle, and, although he uses the word “idol,” does not appear to refer to any particular deity.
In regard to the names of the first three calendars, Dr Seler remarks as follows:
E,yesignifies “the edge,” “sharpness,” “the notch;”eb,ebil,ebal,yebal, “a row of notches,” “flight of steps,” “stairs.” In Quiche-Cakchiquelesignifies “the tooth,” “the edge;”eeis the plural form in Cakchiquel of the word, aseebof the Quiche;euobis also a plural form in the Tzental, as I think, from a singulareu-ee. The name must denote the same thing in all the languages, i. e., “a row of teeth,” “flight of steps”—a signification which harmonizes excellently with many Mexican forms of the character [plateLXVI, 12] as well as with the Meztitlan name of it (itlan, “his tooth”).
E,yesignifies “the edge,” “sharpness,” “the notch;”eb,ebil,ebal,yebal, “a row of notches,” “flight of steps,” “stairs.” In Quiche-Cakchiquelesignifies “the tooth,” “the edge;”eeis the plural form in Cakchiquel of the word, aseebof the Quiche;euobis also a plural form in the Tzental, as I think, from a singulareu-ee. The name must denote the same thing in all the languages, i. e., “a row of teeth,” “flight of steps”—a signification which harmonizes excellently with many Mexican forms of the character [plateLXVI, 12] as well as with the Meztitlan name of it (itlan, “his tooth”).
Dr Brinton says that “in Mayaebis the plural ofe, which means ‘points’ or ‘ends,’ like those of pins or thorns, and plainly was intended to designate the broom by reference to its numerous points. From the same idea, rows of teeth received the same name. The Tzental and Quiche nameseandeuob—the latter a plural—were from the same radical and had the same signification.” He says the Nahuatl and Zapotec names both signify the brush or broom of twisted twigs, or stiff grass used for cleaning and dusting, and also this grass itself. Thus he brings the names of the five calendars into harmony. This explanation corresponds with that given by Clavigero of the Mexican term, which he says is the name of a certain plant of which brooms were made.
I am inclined to believe the symbol in this instance is a mere pictograph intended to represent the tip of some lanceolate leaf, the dots denoting the hairs along the edge. The tips of the “reed grass,” as shown in the symbolic representation ofZacatla(“Nombres Geográficos” by Peñafiel; plateLXVI, 13), would give precisely the dot-bordered tooth in the symbol. It is to be observed, however, that the Mexican symbol for this day, the usual form of which is shown inLXVI, 14, is essentially different and has joined with the green blades the skeleton underjaw. In some instances, as atMalinaltepec(“Nombres Geográficos”), the entire skull is added. A more elaborate form of the symbol, from the Borgian Codex plate 26, is given inLXVI, 15. Here the skeleton jaw isreplaced by the roots of the plant; observe, however, the brush-like projections above. Are we to see in this associated death’s-head a reference to death, or rather to the earth, a symbolism undoubtedly found in the Tro. Codex? Or must we suppose that behind the name is to be found the signification of the Meztitlan nameitlan, fromtlantli, “tooth?” Dr Seler remarks that “it seems to me quite possible that the point surrounded by dots in the characterebis an abbreviation of figure 326” (the prefix to our plateLXIV,48).245-1
THE THIRTEENTH DAY
Maya,benorbeen; Tzental,ben; Quiche-Cakchiquel,ah; Zapotec,quii,ii, orlaa; Nahuatl,acatl.
The symbol of this day is subject to but few and, with one or two exceptions, but slight variations. Landa’s figure is represented atLXVI, 16, those usual in the codices inLXVI, 17, 18, 19, and an irregular form found in Dres. 10c in symbol 20 of the same plate. When used in combination with other glyphs and otherwise than as a day symbol, the form, though usually typical, is subject occasionally to wide variations, though there is considerable doubt whether the latter are to be consideredbensymbols.
Dr Seler contends that the figure originated from the plaited reed or mat, which, if correct, enables us to trace it by gradations to a wholly different figure. But before referring further to these, it is best that the signification of the names should be given, as determined by linguistic evidence.
The Nahuatl nameacatlsignifies “reed,” “cane,” or “stalk;” and, according to Ximenes and Brasseur, the Quiche-Cakchiquelahalso signifies “reed,” especially the “cornstalk” or “sugar cane.” The Zapotecquiihas also the same signification, “reed,” and Dr Brinton sayslaahas the same meaning, but Dr Seler says he can not find it with this signification in the lexicons, nor do I find it in any to which I have access. The Maya and Tzentalben, however, presents a more serious difficulty in the attempt to bring it into harmony with the others. Dr Seler contents himself with reference to certain words which havebeenorbenas their root. This root, he says, signifies “consumed,” and the words to which he refers mean “to be consumed,” “to waste away,” “to fail, be lacking, go away.” This is also the signification to which Dr Brinton refers. “I find,” he says, “that in Tzental the dried cornstalk (caña de mais seco) is calledcagh-ben, and from this I doubt not this day-name in that dialect and the Maya was taken and syncopated. The verbbenorbeenin Tzental means ‘to walk, to go,’ but in the above compound thebenis from the Maya stembenel, ‘to be used up, to be dead.’”
The opinion of Dr Seler, above stated, that the symbol of this day originated from the delineation of the plaited reed or mat, is based onthe representation of the mat both in symbols and figures in the Mexican and Maya codices. Some of these are shown in our plateLXVI, 21 to 24. The first, 21, is from the Mendoza Codex, and is found also in Tro. 20*d. These are undoubtedly intended to denote mats or something of a kindred nature. The same figure is seen on the roofs of temples and houses, one of which is shown inLXVI, 22, from Tro. 10*c. In these instances they appear to indicate the thatching with which the roof is covered. The form is sometimes varied, as inLXVI, 23, from Tro. 10*a. The symbol which, it is presumed, refers to the mat as seen in Tro. 21*d, is given inLXVI, 24; that representing the house in Tro. 10*c is seen inLXVI, 25; another of a slightly different form, from Tro. 7*c, inLXVI, 20; and another, referring also to a house or to the roof, as Dr Seler supposes, is given inLXVI, 27.
There can be no question that plateLXVI, 21, is intended to represent a mat or something of that nature, nor that the character shown at 24 is the symbol used to represent this mat, straw, or plaited fabric; nor can it be doubted that the figures shown at 22 and 23 are conventional figures for houses of some kind. It must also be admitted that the characters shown at 25, 26, and 27 are symbols denoting these houses. According to Dr Seler’s interpretation, figures 24 and 27 are, in some cases, used “to denote a seat on a mat [24]; sometimes the mat roof of the temple or the temple itself” (27). In his opinion these characters, especially 27, contain “the element of the mat and a symbol of carrying—the hand or elements which have been borrowed from the figure of the hand—and in these hieroglyphs the transition of the realistically delineated mat into the characterbenmay be distinctly traced.”
That the upper part of plateLXVI, 25 and 26, and of other similar figures in the codices which might be shown, do make a close approach in form to thebensymbol, must be admitted. But there is one break in the chain which needs to be closed before the evidence is entirely satisfactory. Does the upper part of these house symbols (25-26) indicate roof mats or thatching? An examination of the house figures shows these supposed mat figures to be something standing on the top of the roof—something rising, as it were, perpendicularly along and above the comb or crest. Now, precisely such battlements or elevated crests appear to have been common on the roofs of the temples or structures which have been preserved to modern times. We see them in the figures given by Charnay, Stevens, and other explorers; and what is worthy of special notice in this connection is, that they sometimes consist of openwork or trellis-like figures. Therefore, if we connect the upper part of the house symbols with thebenglyph, it is still by no means certain that it is derived from, or bears any relation to, the mat character. We notice further that in the figures of houses this supposed mat figure is not used to indicate the thatching, but is clearly distinguished from it. Again, if the upper characters ofLXVI, 25, 26, are intended to signify the thatching, roof matting, or roof, and are simple ideograms drawn fromthe thing represented, then the lower characters in these symbols might well be supposed to represent the wall or framework of the house. But the widely different relations in which we find this lower character forbid this conclusion. That the wall may be indicated is true, but if so it must be ikonomatically or by the phonetic value of the symbol. I have therefore found it very difficult to reach any entirely satisfactory conclusion in regard to these house symbols. That the lower character is phonetic in the true or rebus sense can, I think, be shown, but, notwithstanding the objections I have presented, the most satisfactory interpretation of the upper part is that it represents the roof, as we see in the upper figure ofLXVI, 25, the crosshatching and the doublebenlines. Hence it would seem satisfactory to consider it merely an ideogram or picture but for the prefix, which can not be readily accounted for on the idea of a pictorial representation.
As we have found that the lower character of plateLXVI, 26, has the phonetic value ofchusually combined withooru(see remarks above onLXV, 44), we may find in this glyphotoch, “house,” though the full signification of the entire compound symbol appears to embrace more than this. Possibly the upper part is a determinative. The lower part, however, ofLXVI, 25 and 27, is found, as before remarked, where it can have no reference to a building. As it has the two heavy lines indicative of thepsound (see explanation ofLXIV, 11), and also of the guttural, it is probable that the signification, where a structure is referred to, ispak(pakal), “a building, wall, fortification.” But when it is found in an entirely different relation, as in Tro. 17b, where it is over an individual tying a deer, it must have an entirely different signification. It is possible that it may be consistently rendered bypacoc(paccah), “to cord, fasten, bind” (Henderson), or some derivative thereof. We find it again on Tro. 19*d and 20*d, and Dres. 18c, 19c, and 20c, where females are represented as bearing burdens on their backs. Now,cuchsignifies “to bear, to carry,” and also “a load, a burden,” andcuch-pach, “a carrier, a porter” (literally “to carry on the back,”pachdenoting “back”).
In this instance also the phonetic value assigned it holds good. On Tro. 17b the same glyph stands above an individual who is in the act of striking a snake which is biting his foot. In this case it has a suffix like that toLXVI, 3, which, as we have stated, probably represents the soundah,ha, orhal, and indicates that the word is a verb. There are several words containing the phonetic value assigned the character, which are applicable, aspokchetah, which Perez interprets “pisar, poner el pie sobre algo;”puchah, “despachurran, machucar;”pachah, “to scatter, break” (H.);pech, “to crush” (H.);pacez(paczah), “to squeeze, press, crush” (H.).
It seems, therefore, quite probable that the lower part of these compound symbols is phonetic.
If Dr Seler is correct in his supposition that the symbol is derived from the plaited mat, then it is most likely simply ideographic or a mereconventional pictograph. Possibly this is the correct conclusion, as I can find no evidence tending to show that it is phonetic. If we could suppose the form was intended to represent a “road” or “pathway”—be,beil, andbelin Maya, andbeelin Zotzil—we might assume it to be phonetic.
The combinations shown in plateLXVI, 28, 29, 30, and 55, in which the symbol of this day appears, have as yet received no satisfactory explanation. Those shown inLXVI, 28, and 55, are of very frequent occurrence and probably indicate some common ceremony, order, or direction in the religious ceremonies. I have a strong suspicion that the first indicates exorcism or driving away the evil spirits, but I find no appropriate Maya word unless it bepekokalil, given by Henderson. This, however, does not agree with the interpretationKinichkakmo, given by Seler toLXVI, 29, above referred to. Seler gives toLXVI, 30, the apparently strained interpretation, “he who is conquered in war and brought home prisoner.” I have no interpretation tooffer.248-1
THE FOURTEENTH DAY
Maya,ixorhix; Tzental,hix; Quiche-Cakchiquel,balam,yiz, orhix; Zapotec,eche; Nahuatl,ocelotl.
The symbol of this day is found in quite a number of different forms, some of which are wide variations from the prevailing type.
Landa’s figure is shown in plateLXVI, 31. The usual forms found in the Tro. Codex areLXVI, 32 to 37; 36 is somewhat rare. That shown at 38 is found only on plate 30*c, and that showing the animal head (39) on plate 12c. No essential variations from these are found in either the Codex Peresianus or Cortesianus. Those shown inLXVI, 40-42, are from the Dresden Codex.
The Nahuatl name and the Quiche-Cakchiquel,balam, denote the “tiger,” possibly the jaguar, though the Mexican name certainly refers to theocelot. Dr Brinton says that the Zapoteceche, or in the full formbe-eche-guia, has the same signification. Dr Seler, however, derives it from the termpeche-tao, “the great animal”—the tiger, or ferocious animal. But the other names,ix,hix,hiixorgix, as they are variously written (though really one word), present a more serious difficulty to the attempt to bring them into harmony with the others.
Dr Seler says:
The Cakchiquel termyiz, i. e., the Mayah-ez, “the sorcerer,” may well be considered as giving an explanation of the Maya name of this day character (ix). My conception, after one more link in the chain of evidence pointing toward it, is that the day-character system has become known to the Mayas through the medium of the cognate branches of Chiapas, for we frequently find the Tzental-Zotzilxcorresponding to the Mayaz.
The Cakchiquel termyiz, i. e., the Mayah-ez, “the sorcerer,” may well be considered as giving an explanation of the Maya name of this day character (ix). My conception, after one more link in the chain of evidence pointing toward it, is that the day-character system has become known to the Mayas through the medium of the cognate branches of Chiapas, for we frequently find the Tzental-Zotzilxcorresponding to the Mayaz.
Dr Brinton says that the Maya, Tzental, and Cakchiquel wordhixorixmeans “sorcerer,” though he does not furnish the evidence. Moreover, he adds immediately after that “it is probableixis a variant ofikorigh‘wind, breath, life,’” and makes the connection by referring to the fact that blowing was practiced in medicine rites. It would have been more satisfactory, however, had he given the evidence on which he based his assertion that the Maya and Tzental name means “sorcerer.” According to Ximenes the Cakchiquel nameyizdenotes the “sorcerer;” and it is probable that the signification ofixorhixis the same, as the codices appear to give support to this conclusion.
On Dres. 8a the character shown in plateLXVI, 43, stands in the text over the figure of a tiger, and evidently refers to it. The close resemblance of this to theixsymbol from Tro. 12c shown inLXVI, 39, is too manifest to be overlooked. The same symbol is found in Tro. 17c, but here the prefix is changed to the numeral 4; below is a tiger-like animal with a feathered tongue protruding from its mouth. I have taken for granted, from the indicated action and my interpretation of one of the accompanying symbols, that this figure was intended to indicate the sorcerer or diviner. This supposition I admit is not supported by sufficient evidence to demand acceptance. However, it is probable that Léon de Rosny is justified in renderingLXVI, 43, byek-balam. This supposition will be strengthened by any evidence tending to show that the prefix is properly interpreted byek.
The symbol for the monthCeh, as given in Dres. 49c, is shown inLXVI, 44, and is the same as Landa’s figure minus the suffix or month determinative. It would seem from the fact that the lower character of this symbol is the same as the lower portion of the symbols forYax(LXIV, 12) andZac(LXVI, 48), that the wordCeh, if the writing is phonetic or ikonomatic, does not give the entire phonetic equivalent unless thexorcof the other names is here softened toh. It may be added, however, that Henderson gives bothCehandKezas the name of the month and the Maya name for “deer.” In the Zotzil vocabulary “ciervo” ischigand “venado”chigh. There is, however, a difficulty in harmonizing this with the symbol for the monthZip—in which the same character appears—that I have not been able to explain. Nevertheless, it may be said, as the lower character appears (from evidence that will not be introduced at this point) to havezordzas its chief phonetic element, that it is possible the name had sometimesekorkeprefixed. Running through the lower division of plates 46-50 of the Dresden Codex is a line consisting of repetitions of the character shown inLXVI, 45. Here we have again ourk’,ke, orekglyph as a prefix. The right portion of the symbol bears a somewhat close resemblance to some forms of the symbol of the dayLamat(but not tokin, as has been suggested), and is so interpreted by Brasseur and Léon de Rosny. Aseksignifies “star,” andlemba“resplendent, bright, shining, sparkling,” the phonetic value of the glyph may be “the bright, shining star,” alluding to Venus. According to Henderson,eekil,ekil, oryekilwas used to designate this star,zaztalbeing added to name it as a “morning star.” According to the “Report on the city ofValladolid,”250-1the name given the “morning star” wasnoch eke(oreque). It is possible, therefore, that Dr Förstemann is right in supposing that the long numeral series running through plates 46-50 of this codex relates to the apparent revolution of the planet Venus.
In Dres. 18c is the compound symbol shown in plateLXVI, 46, followed by 47. In the former we see ourekorkesymbol as the upper character and the supposedcimi(LXV, 28) glyph as the lower character, and to the left a prefix. This prefix is precisely that in the symbol for the monthZac(LXVI, 48), and has presumably the same value in one glyph as the other. This will give, as the proper rendering of the symbolLXVI, 46,zeek-cimil, “the skull of the dead.” By referring to the figure below the text, a woman is seen bearing on her back a skull inclosed in a wrapping of some kind, which in Kingsborough, where the color is retained, appears to be cloth. This certainly agrees with the rendering of the glyph. The symbol which follows it, shown inLXVI, 47, has one of the elements ofLXVI, 27, and, as suggested under “the Thirteenth Day,” should probably be interpretedcuchpach, “a carrier or porter” (or “bear upon the back”). In the corresponding glyph in Tro. 20*d (LXVI, 24) the upper portion, as above stated, refers probably to the hamper or basket-like holder in which the load is carried, and is a simple ideogram; but here (LXVI, 47) the upper character is phonetic, corresponding very closely to the lower part of the symbols for the monthsYaxandZac. The character which follows—the lower left-hand of the group of four—seen atLXVI, 49, is the well-known symbol for woman. As the women were the burden bearers in Yucatan, the interpretation appears to be consistent. It is therefore probable that the prefix toLXVI, 43, is to be interpreted byek, as Rosny has suggested.
Seler, alluding to the symbol, asks, “May not the skin of the tiger, instead of the animal itself, be here indicated?” He further suggests that it represents the round hairy ear and the spotted skin of the tiger, and that the glyph shown atLXVI, 39, represents the entire head of this animal, of which there can be little doubt.
Some of the symbols of this day, found in the Fejervary Codex, one of which is shown inLXVIII, 41, appear to favor Seler’sidea.250-2
THE FIFTEENTH DAY
Maya,men; Tzental,tziquin; Quiche-Cakchiquel,tziquin; Zapotec,naaorñaa; Nahuatl,quauhtli.
Landa’s figure is so imperfect in this case that it is not given. The usual forms and variations are shown in plateLXVI, 50 to 54. The last two, which show the widest variation, are from the Dresden Codex.
The Tzental and Quiche-Cakchiquel,tziquin, signifies “bird” in general, and the Nahuatl,quauhtli, “eagle.” The Maya and Zapotec names are more difficult to bring into harmony with the others. Dr Brinton thinks that the Zapotec name is derived fromna, “to know, to understand, to be able through knowledge.” This, he says, “exactly corresponds to the Mayamen, which means to understand, to be able to do ...; hence in this latter tongue,ah-menmeans the man of knowledge, the wise one, the master of wisdom.” “The bird,” he adds, “was the symbol of wisdom and knowledge.”
Dr Seler says it is difficult to determine the Yucatan name. However, from the form of the symbol he concludes it is intended to represent an aged face, by which he connects it with an aged goddess, Ixchel, the companion of Itzamna, and with certain Mexican deities. In his subsequent paper he says the Zapotec name furnishes linguistic proof of the above conclusion. “I had concluded,” he says, “that the Maya hieroglyph represented the image of the old earth mother, the universally worshipped goddess called Tonantzin, ‘our mother,’ who is connected in the Codex Vienensis with the eagle symbol.” He then adds that the Zapotec termnaaorñaasignifies “mother,” and thus finds the connection between the calendar names.
It is probable we will not be far wrong if we assume that reference to the bird as used in this connection is not so much to it as an animal as an augury, sign, or portent. The birds introduced in the Dresden and Troano codices, especially those on pages 16, 17, and 18 of the former and 18* and 19* of the latter, are supposed to have reference to auguries. In the “Vocabulario Castellano Zapoteco,” under “Ave,” we findmani-biici, “ave agorera.” In the Dresden Codex (17b) one of the birds introduced as playing this rôle is an eagle, or some rapacious species resembling an eagle or vulture. Although Seler believes the symbol to have been derived from the aged wrinkled female face, yet he closes his observations on this day in his first article as follows:
I think the reference to the eagle is very distinctly indicated [referring to a number of glyphs accompanying or indicating an eagle-like bird]. We can understand that these hieroglyphs were annexed as attributes of the deities. But how is it that figures 687-689 [same as our plateLXVIII, 42] serve as a seat for the Chac? Now Chac [he refers to the long-nose god] is not really a god of water, but of rain; the rain-producing storm cloud is his vehicle; the storm bird is his beast of burden on which he rides.
I think the reference to the eagle is very distinctly indicated [referring to a number of glyphs accompanying or indicating an eagle-like bird]. We can understand that these hieroglyphs were annexed as attributes of the deities. But how is it that figures 687-689 [same as our plateLXVIII, 42] serve as a seat for the Chac? Now Chac [he refers to the long-nose god] is not really a god of water, but of rain; the rain-producing storm cloud is his vehicle; the storm bird is his beast of burden on which he rides.
It follows from this, notwithstanding his supposition in regard to the origin of the symbol, that he looks upon it as signifying the eagle, or bird. However, the explanations given by Drs Brinton and Seler of the Maya name fail to make a satisfactory connection between the names in the different calendars.
Not only do we find birds introduced on the pages of the Troano and Dresden codices above referred to, apparently for the purpose of indicating augury, but on Dres. 69b we see the long-nose god (probably Itzamna) sitting on the glyphLXVIII, 42, holding a bird in his arms.
Also on Dres. 73b, where the groups are composed of short columns, each apparently relating to storms, winds, etc, we see in the right-hand group the bird andmen-like glyph associated. Whether these are in factmenglyphs is a question not yet determined. I am as yet unable to interpret satisfactorily any of the compound characters of which these supposedmenglyphs form a part. If the form shown inLXVI, 28, the lower portion of which is substantially the same as Landa’s firstl, is to be accepted as equivalent toLXVI, 55, then it is probable that the symbol of the day does not indicate the phonetic value of the name. This would lead to the supposition that the namemenis not the original one applied to the day, or that the symbol has been changed. I am inclined to believe one or the other of these suppositions to be correct. If the symbol could be identified in the inscriptions, I would adopt the first supposition until substantial evidence of its erroneousness could be produced.
I am unable to offer any suggestions as to the origin of the symbol. I do not think the suggestion that it is intended to represent an aged face of woman or man of any force or worthy of serious consideration. The symbol would be just as complete so far as its signification is concerned without the eye as with it.
THE SIXTEENTH DAY
Maya,cib; Tzental,chabin; Quiche-Cakchiquel,ahmak; Zapotec,guillooorloo; Nahuatl,cozcaquauhtli. In addition to these the following are also given: Pipil,tecolotl; Meztitlan,teotl itonalortemetlatl.
The forms of this symbol shown in platesLXVI, 56 to 59, andLXVII, 1 to 3, are those usually found in the codices, the slight differences being due to the greater or less degree of perfection with which they have been made. Landa’s figure is similar toLXVII, 1. The variants inLXVII, 4 and 5, are from Dres. 46 and 49; but the symbols found in the day columns of Dres. 46 to 50 must not be taken as evidence of peculiar types, as they are to a large extent dashed off without care, one or two of a column being sufficiently exact for determination and the rest mere blotches. I have referred to them here and under other days simply because Dr Seler has noticed them; hence had I failed to allude to them it might be thought an oversight. However, I do not think any of the variations in the day columns of these five plates should be taken into consideration as types.
The Nahuatl namecozcaquauhtliis the “royal zopilote” (Sarcoramphus papaof ornithologists). Drs Seler and Brinton agree in the supposition that the Zapotec name is derived fromballoo, “the raven or crow.” Dr Seler says that the Quiche-Cakchiquel wordahmakseems to signify the vulture, “who pecks out the eyes,” “who makes deep holes;” while Dr Brinton maintains that the Quicheahmakmeans “the master of evil,” referring to the owl, which is esteemed a bird of evil omen and bad fortune. The Pipiltecolotlalso denotes “the night bird or owl.”
PL. LXVII COPIES OF GLYPHS FROM THE CODICESPL. LXVII COPIES OF GLYPHS FROM THE CODICES
The Maya and Tzental names, however, present a difficulty not so easily explained. The signification of the former is “wax, gum, or copal gum,” and also, according to Henderson, “root.” According to Brinton the Tzental radicalchabmeans “honey, was, bee, a late meal.” He refers, however, to the Cakchiquel, where he finds thatch’abmeans “mud, clay, mire,” and suggests that “as red and black clays were the primitive pigments this may connect the Tzental day name with the Maya.” Seler, however, derives the Maya name fromciorcii, “to taste good,” “to smell good;” and asciis also the name of the maguey plant, and likewise refers to the pulque or intoxicating drink from this plant, he concludes thatcibmust have been formed by the addition of the instrumental suffix, and hence refers to that which is used for wine, “either the honey, or, more correctly, the narcotic root.”
This conclusion he thinks is strengthened by the fact that the corkscrew figure, which is the chief element of thecibsymbol, is found several times on vases or earthen vessels (seeLXVII, 6). Attention is called in this connection to the fact thatlooin Zapotec signifies “root,” which is also one of the meanings given by Henderson to the Mayacib, which would seem to strengthen Dr Seler’s conclusion.
The glyph is seldom if ever found in combination with other characters or used otherwise than as a day symbol. This, together with the fact that it is not found except as a day symbol in the beekeeper’s calendar in the Troano Codex, would seem to indicate that there has been a change in the name of the day since the origin of the symbol; or, on the other hand, the symbol has been modified from some older form. Nevertheless, there are some indications that it is phonetic and that the corkscrew figure hasbas its chief element, whethercibbe the word indicated or not.
In the symbol for the dayCaban(LXVII, 9) we see the same corkscrew figure, and observe thatbis the chief consonant element of the word. In the well-known symbol for woman (LXVI, 49) there appears the same character, usually double, one at the front of the face, the other on the back part of the head. I have usually considered this a mere conventional symbol, taken from the female head, these corkscrew figures indicating the rolls of hair. Nevertheless it is possible that it is phonetic, as we see on the cheek thec,ch, orkcharacter heretofore referred to. Aschup,chupal, andchuplalare names for “woman, female, or girl,” thepmay replace theband represent the corkscrew figure. I am unable, however, to explain the prefix, which should have theborpsound, or be a determinative. Possibly it may denotepal, signifying a young person, though this appears to refer generally to the male sex. Henderson, however, prefixesxto give it the signification “daughter, or girl.”
That the symbol on vessels as shown inLXVII, 6, indicates liquid, or drink of some kind, is more than probable. It may refer tobalche(orbaleze), the ceremonial drink, the symbol indicating the phonetic elementb.
The upper portion of the figure shown inLXVII, 7, from Tro. 3*b and 4*b (in the space) I was at first inclined to regard as a reptile of some kind, but the fact of its presence in the section relating to bees and honey, and the corkscrew markings, render it probable that it is beeswax. To this evidence may be added the fact that the symbol over which it is placed contains some of the elements of thecibglyph. There are a number of places where quite similar markings appear on seats and other things, but these are distinguished by the added line of dots, showing it, as will be seen hereafter, to be in these cases thecaborcabansymbol.
The facts which have been mentioned, together with the form of the symbol, may possibly lead to a correct understanding of its origin. It seems probable that the corkscrew figure, which is the chief, and apparently only, essential element, is taken from the root of a plant and was the conventional method of representing that object. As it appears from Henderson’s Lexicon that “root” was one signification ofcib(probably fromcibah, “to follow, succeed,” which also signifies “born, manifested, root,” alluding to origin), and also that in Zotzilyiboryibelis “root” (raiz de arbol,yibel-te), we find the reason why this was selected as the symbol to express the soundcib. The fact that in the Zapotecloosignifies “root” strengthens this conclusion and indicates that the symbol is not used simply for the sound indicated—that is, phonetically or ikonomatically—but also with reference to the signification.
THE SEVENTEENTH DAY
Maya,caban; Tzental,chic; Quiche-Cakchiquel,noh; Zapotec,xoo; Nahuatl,ollin. In addition to these, the following are also sometimes given: In Meztitlan,nahui olli; Pipil,tecpila nahuatl.
This character, as is apparent from plateLXVII, 8-13, is subject to no material variation; in fact, to no variation which would prevent us from at once identifying it. That shown inLXVII, 8, is Landa’s figure. The change in position of the black spot and lines with reference to one another does not appear to have any significance. In the Troano and Cortesian codices the black dot is sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other. In the Dresden Codex, however, it is nearly always on the left. The one shown inLXVII, 13, in which there is introduced a new element, is found several times in the last part of the Dresden Codex.
This character is used very frequently otherwise than as a day symbol, being found separate and in combination, also as a mark on a number of articles. As it is possible to determine with reasonable, and in fact satisfactory, certainty its signification in a number of instances where used otherwise than as a day symbol, some of these will be noticed, as they seem to furnish strong evidence of phoneticism. But I repeat here the statement made at the commencement of this paper, that in using this term “phoneticism,” I include that whichmay, in a strict classification, be called ikonomatic. However, before referring to these, it is best to give the interpretations of the names which have been suggested, as the bearing of our interpretations of the symbols will then be better understood.
The Mexican nameollinorolinis generally interpreted “motion or movement,” with special reference to the earthquake. Dr Seler, however, adds “caoutchouc ball.” In his first paper, heretofore referred to, he remarks in regard to the Maya, Tzental, and Quiche-Cakchiquel names: “There is not much to be drawn from these words.” In his subsequent paper he apparently relies upon the usual signification of the Mexican term, and from this and the signification of the Zapotecxoo, “powerful, strong, violent,” concludes that the Tzental name may be consistently rendered by “large, powerful,” and the Maya name by “that which is brought down, which is above,” reference being made to ascending and descending. Dr Brinton derives the Maya term fromcab, “might or strength,” on the authority of theMotul Dicc., and says that in this sense it corresponds precisely with the Tzentalchic(equal Mayachich, “cosa fuerta y dura”), the Quiche-Cakchiquelnoh, “strong, great,” and the Zapotecxoo, “force, power, or might.” Dr Seler, however, concludes that the Zapotec name is here to be interpreted “earth,” or to be understood as referring to the earth. He thinks that the day symbol is an abbreviated form of, or derived from,LXVI, 49, which he takes to be a symbol of the goddess Chiribias or Ixchebelyax, whom he identifies with Zaczuy, “the white maiden.” As will be observed, we have expressed the opinion that this glyph is a symbol for woman in the general sense, which conclusion appears to be confirmed by its connection with different female figures. There are, however, certain prefixes and suffixes which may serve to give it a specific application; for example, inLXVII, 14, from Dres. 16c, the prefix, according to my interpretation, contains thezsound as its chief phonetic element. It is possible that in this case a particular person may be referred to by the prefix, the woman symbol being here simply a determinative. Dr Brinton, in his explanation of the month nameZip, remarks: “This wasZuhuy Zip, the virginZip, her name being properlyDzip, ‘to skin, to dress slain animals.’” I prefer, however, to interpret the symbol by “maiden,” or “young woman,” the prefix signifyingzuhuy. Nevertheless, the suffix in some instances, asLXVII, 15, from Dres. 18b, may indicate that a sacred or mythological personage is referred to, as it is added as a suffix in some cases to deity symbols; however, as it is often found in other relations, where it can have no such signification, I am not inclined to give it this interpretation, as the evident female deities are denoted by quite different glyphs.
The evidence that the Caban symbol is in some sense phonetic appears to me to be too strong to be rejected. In the first place, one of its chief elements is the corkscrew figure, which, as shown under the preceding day, appears to havebas its consonant element, this soundbeing a prominent element of bothcibandcaban. It also has been shown that it is not out of place in the woman glyph, under the supposition that this is also phonetic, aschuporchupalis the Maya name for woman, and the change frombtopis not uncommon. It is found in several places as that out of which plants are growing, asLXVII, 16, from Tro. 32b, which appears to represent some leguminous plant supported by a stake driven into the ground. It is that on which persons are sitting Indian fashion, and on which others are lying; again, it is that out of which a serpent is arising. As “earth,” “ground,” will furnish an entirely satisfactory explanation in all these cases, there is no apparent reason why it should not be accepted. Ascabhas “earth” as one of its leading significations, we not only find therein a connection with the day name, but also an indication of phoneticism.
In Cort. 30a is the figure shown atLXVII, 17. The animal represented, notwithstanding the quadruped head, is conceded to be intended for the serpent. The shading around the vessel, a blotch of which is on the serpent’s nose, I take for the clay or paste out of which the vessel is being formed, or to be formed. In the division immediately below is a representation of what appears to be some step in the manufacture of vessels. May this not be correctly interpreted bykancab, “la terra roja o amarilla,” or “red clay?” Henderson givescancanas an equivalent term ofkankan. As I have not seen a copy of the colored edition of this codex, I can not say whether this interpretation is borne out by the color of the shading. If this interpretation be correct, the serpent figure must be used symbolically or as a true rebus.
In Tro. 9*c an individual is represented lifting what is supposed to be honey or honeycomb out of a box-shape object on which is thecabansymbol. This symbol is presumed to indicate the contents—“honey.” If this supposition be correct, then, ascabis the Maya name for “honey,” we have in this coincidence in sound and glyph another indication of pboneticism. Support is given to this interpretation by the fact that this is found in what is known as the “bee section,” and that on the upper division of the same plate the same figure, with thecabansymbol upon it, is seen in the hands of an individual who holds it to a bee.
As the character when used otherwise than a day symbol is frequently, perhaps most generally, drawn with a suffix, as shown inLXVII, 18, I suggest that it is possible it is a conventional method of representing earth or soil. By reference to the Borgian Codex, plate 11, also 19a and 61b, it will be seen that where earth is introduced into the picture it is indicated by heavy and wavy lines, as shown inLXVII, 19. This bears a very strong resemblance to the suffix ofLXVII, 18. The corkscrew or root figure is added as appropriate, as an element, in forming an earth figure. Such, I am inclined to believe, is the origin of the symbol which, when used to indicate anything else than earth, is used phonetically or ikonomatically. The figure shown inLXVII, 20, from Dres. 30a, which Seler calls a serpent, is merely the representation of a clay image andthe seat or oratorio in which it is placed. It is probably from something of comparatively small size, burnt in one piece. The mark of the earth symbol, to distinguish the substance of which it is made, is certainly appropriate. In Tro. 6b we see another on which is quite a different symbol, indicating, as will hereafter be shown, that the material is wood.
The compound character inLXVII, 21, is found in Tro. 9*b and 10*c. It occurs in the latter twice, the parts, however, reversed in the parallel groups, while in that of 9*b one is above the other. These variants do not necessarily indicate a difference in the signification, as can readily be ascertained by comparing characters in the numerous parallel groups. Omitting the prefix, this maybe renderedmak-cab, “to eat honey without chewing (that is, by sucking); to break into a hive and steal the honey.” By reference to the plates on which the symbols are found the appropriateness of this rendering will be apparent, if I rightly interpret the figures below the text. There we see the twisted red symbols denoting the fire kindled beneath the hives, or beehouses, by which to drive out or destroy the busy little workers. In one of the fires we observe bone symbols, probably denoting a method of giving to the smoke an unpleasant odor, as rags were formerly used in some sections of our country for the same purpose.
The characters shown inLXVII, 22 and 23, are from the upper part of Cort. 22, which is supposed to be the right half of the so-called “title page” of the Tro. Codex. These are interpreted by Seler, and probably correctly, as indicating “above” and “below” (LXVII, 22, the former, andLXVII, 23, the latter). By following the line in which these characters are found, through the two pages, beginning at the left of the plate of the Tro. Codex, the result appears to be as follows, giving the signification of the characters so far as known: First, the four cardinal points in one direction, then two characters apparently corresponding with the two we have figured, one of which is partly obliterated; next the cardinal points in an opposite direction, after which follow the two characters shown inLXVII, 22 and 23. As the right half of the first (22) is thecaborcabansymbol, it is presumable that it has here substantially the same phonetic value. It is probable, therefore, that the whole compound character maybe renderedyokcabil(orokcabil), “above the earth,” or as Henderson, who gives two words of this form, interprets the first, “over, above the earth, above.” The second (LXVII, 23) has also as its chief part thecabsymbol, and the upper right-hand portion appears to havex’mas its chief phonetic elements. It is possible thatcabnix; “a stair,” “downward,” given by Henderson, furnishes the phonetic equivalent of the compound character. These six directions, according to Dr J. W.Fewkes,257-1were noted by the Tusayan Indians in some of their religious ceremonies. Mr Cushing says the same thing is true in regard to some of the Zuñi ceremonies.
PlateLXVII, 24, is a compound character from Dres. 39b, below which the long-nose deity holds in his hand a peculiar article (LXVII, 25), “as if,” says Seler, “pouring out of a bottle.” That the prefix has the interior cross-hatched when complete appears from a number of other places, as, for example, in the upper division of the same plate. This, as heretofore stated, gives thexorchsound. It is possible, therefore, that the symbol, omitting the right portion, should be interpretedxachcab, “abrir de par en par,” orhechcab, “to open little by little, to develop, discover it” (Henderson). As the right portion has a character resembling theMulucsymbol as its chief element, and below it theuglyph, we may translate itmuyal, “cloud.” This would give as the meaning of the entire symbol “open the cloud”—that is, “to pour out the rain.” As this is connected with a rain series, and we see a similar glyph (though with different prefix) on plate 38b, where the same deity is in the midst of a rain storm and holding in his hand a similar object, the rendering appears to be, at least, appropriate. It is to be further observed that this combinedCabanandMulucsymbol is found frequently in connection with rain storms and cloud symbols.
According to the interpretation givenLXVII, 22 and 24, the compound symbol shown at 26, from Dres. 35b and 34b, should be renderedYokcabil muyal, “the cloud above.” As we see in both places, in the picture under the text, the looped serpent inclosing water, which Dr Seler considers the “water sack” or cloud, this interpretation is appropriate. As further confirmation of the interpretation givenLXVII, 22, attention is called to the picture in Tro. 32*c over which the same symbol is found. Here the allusion is doubtless to the basket-like covering over, or “above,” the black deity lying on a mat.
THE EIGHTEENTH DAY
Maya,edznaborezanab; Tzental,chinax; Quiche-Cakchiquel,tihax; Zapotec,gopaa; Nahuatl,tecpatl.
The form of the symbol of this day varies but little in the codices, as shown by plateLXVII, 28-31. It is seldom found in this form in combination. If its equivalent is given in these, it is of the form shown in 33. It is, however, occasionally seen on articles of stone, as the spearpoint (32) and stone hatchet (34) and sacrificial knife. It also appears in the symbol for the stone mortar (36) from Tro. 19c. Before discussing its signification and probable origin we will give the significations which have been suggested of the different names of the day.
The signification of the Nahuatl name—tecpatl—is “flint.” Dr Brinton says, “especially the flint-stone knife used in sacrificing, to cut the victim.” Dr Seler finds agreement in the Tzental name from a statement, by Nuñez de la Vega, that the symbolchinax, or rather the tutelary god of the same, was a great warrior, who was always represented in the calendars with a banner in his hand, and that he was slain and burned by the nagual of another heathen symbol. Dr Brinton statesthat the name “is an old or sacred form of the usualzni-nax, ‘knife.’” The literal meaning of the Cakchiqueltihaxis, according to Ximenes, “it bites, scraping” (muerde rasgando). Dr Seler, however, affirms that Ximenes (with what authority he knows not) gives “obsidian” as the meaning. He thinks the word is related to the rootteuh, “cold”—tih-ih, “to be cold”—with which may be compared the wordstic, “to stick in, prick;”tiz, “to stitch,” andtiztic, “pointed.”
In regard to the Zapotec name,gopa,gopaa, oropa, the authors named differ quite widely, Dr Seler deriving it fromrogopa, “cold,” and Dr Brinton suggesting that it is more likely “a variant ofguipa, a sharp point or edge, whence the word for stone knife,gueza-guipa, fromguia, stone.”
The Maya name, however, does not appear to be readily brought into harmony with the others. Dr Seler simply remarks that it may be related to the roote, “firm, rigid, hard.” Pio Perez offers no explanation. Dr Brinton suggests that it is a figurative expression for the sacrificial knife, fromnab, something anointed, or blood, andedz, to adjust, to point, to sharpen.
There can be no question that the articles in the codices on which the trembling cross is found consists, in most instances, if not all, of stone. Hence it is a reasonable conclusion that the primary signification of the symbol is stone. The Zotzil name for “flint” (pedernal) iszuiton.
I am inclined to believe that the symbol is derived from a conventional form used for indicating stone or flint, probably from the cracks or fissures in it.
I am not prepared yet to discuss the somewhat similar figures which assume the form of the St Anthony cross. Various interpretations, as symbol for “union,” “night sun,” etc, have been given. However, as this form is never used as a day symbol, it has no direct relation to the present discussion.
THE NINETEENTH DAY
Maya,cauac; Tzental,cahogh; Quiche-Cakchiquel,caok,cook; Zapotec,ape,appe,aape; Nahuatl,quiahuitl.
The various forms of the symbol of this day are shown in plate 37-48—that by Landa at 37; those of the Troano and Cortesian codices at 38-43, and those from the Dresden Codex at 45-47. The irregular form given at 44 is from Tro. 28d, and that at 48 from the Peresianus.
This symbol is found quite frequently in combination with other characters, in some of which its phonetic value can be ascertained with reasonable certainty. For example, it forms the lower half of the symbol for the monthYax, as seen atLXIV, 12; also in the symbol for the monthZac(LXVI, 48). In both these instances its chief phonetic element appears to be the guttural soundk, orks. The essential elements are also found frequently on objects which are undoubtedly of wood and where no reasonable explanation can be given except that it signifies “wood” in these places. For example, it is found on what appear tobe boards carried in the hands of individuals, on Tro. 32*b (LXVII, 49); and it also is seen on what appear to be wooden boxes or gums from which the honeycomb is being removed, as Tro. 5*c and 9*a. Dr Seler, who gives quite a different interpretation of the character from that presented here, admits that these are boards. It is also found on trees, as Tro. 15*a (shown inLXVIII, 1) and 17*a, and Dres. 26c, 27c, and 28c. It is marked on the walls of houses or canopied seats, as Tro. 6b, 29*c, and 18*b. Under the last mentioned we observe thecabsymbol, showing that it is a building placed on the ground and not on a stone foundation. It also appears on the ends of beams, as at Tro. 9a and 22*a. True, Dr Seler contends that these are stones instead of weight poles, but I think all trappers will decide against him. Again, it appears on seats (Tro. 13a and 14*a) and also marked on heads, one of which is shown inLXVIII, 2. That the symbol is not intended to indicate the different articles on which it is found is evident; hence it must be given to denote the substance of which these things are formed, which I maintain can only be wood. That the trees and boards must be wood is admitted; that the walls of many of the houses and of some of the other buildings of Yucatan were of wood must be admitted; that seats were often of wood is well known. The heads with this mark are in all probability representations of wooden masks. Masks are represented in the hands of individuals at several places in the codices, as Dres. 42(1)a and in Peresianus. I therefore conclude that in all these cases the symbol is to be interpreted byche,cheil, “wood, tree, timber, stick.” In order to show the difference between the explanation given here and that by Dr Seler, I copy the latter: