The three manuscripts which we possess of the ancient Maya peoples of
Central America, the Dresden (Dr.), the Madrid (Tro.-Cort.) and the Paris
(Per.) manuscripts, all contain a series of pictorial representations of
human figures, which, beyond question, should be regarded as figures of
gods. Together with these are a number of animal figures, some with human
bodies, dress and armor, which likewise have a mythologic significance.
The contents of the three manuscripts, which undoubtedly pertain to the
calendar system and to the computation of time in their relation to the
Maya pantheon and to certain religious and domestic functions, admit of
the conclusion, that these figures of gods embody the essential part of
the religious conceptions of the Maya peoples in a tolerably complete
form. For here we have the entire ritual year, the whole chronology with
its mythological relations and all accessories. In addition to this,
essentially the same figures recur in all three manuscripts. Their number
is not especially large. There are about fifteen figures of gods in human
form and about half as many in animal form. At first we were inclined to
believe that further researches would considerably increase the number of
deities, but this assumption was incorrect. After years of study of the
subject and repeated examination of the results of research, it may be
regarded as positively proved, that the number of deities represented in
the Maya manuscripts does not exceed substantially the limits mentioned
above. The principal deities are determined beyond question.
The way in which this was accomplished is strikingly simple. It amounts
essentially to that which in ordinary life we call "memory of persons" and
follows almost naturally from a careful study of the manuscripts. For, by
frequently looking attentively at the representations, one learns by
degrees to recognize promptly similar and familiar figures of gods, by
the characteristic impression they make as a whole, or by certain details,
even when the pictures are partly obliterated or exhibit variations, and
the same is true of the accompanying hieroglyphs. A purely inductive,
natural science-method has thus been followed, and hence this pamphlet is
devoted simply to descriptions and to the amassing of material. These
figures have been taken separately out of the manuscripts alone,
identified and described with the studious avoidance of all unreliable,
misleading accounts and of all presumptive analogies with supposedly
allied mythologies.
Whatever cannot be derived from the manuscripts themselves has been wholly
ignored. Hypotheses and deductions have been avoided as far as possible.
Only where the interpretation, or the resemblance and the relations to
kindred mythologic domains were obvious, and where the accounts agreed
beyond question, has notice been taken of the fact so that the imposed
limitations of this work should not result in one-sidedness.
Since, for the most part, the accounts of Spanish authors regarding the
mythology of the Mayas correspond only slightly or not at all with these
figures of gods, and all other conjectures respecting their significance
are very dubious, the alphabetic designation of the deities, which was
tentatively introduced in the first edition of this work, has been
preserved. This designation has proved to be practical. For the plate at
the end of this pamphlet, examples as characteristic as possible of the
individual figures of gods have been selected from the manuscripts.
It is a well known fact that we possess no definite knowledge either of
the time of the composition or of the local origin of the Maya
manuscripts. The objection might, therefore, be raised that it is a
hazardous proceeding to treat the material derived from these three
manuscripts in common, as if it were homogeneous. But these researches
themselves have proved beyond a doubt, that the mythologic import of the
manuscripts belongs to one and the same sphere of thought. Essentially
the same deities and the same mythologic ideas are, without question, to
be found in all the manuscripts.
The material of the inscriptions has been set entirely at one side,
because the style of representation contained in them, both of the
mythologic forms and of the hieroglyphs, renders comparison exceedingly
difficult. In this field especial credit is due to Förstemann and Seler,
for the work they have done in furtherance of interpretation, and mention
should not be omitted of the generosity with which the well known
promoter of Americanist investigations, the Duke of Loubat, has presented
to the Berlin Museum of Ethnology costly originals of reliefs and
inscriptions for direct study. The representations on the reliefs from
the Maya region, it is true, give evidence of dealing with kindred
mythologic conceptions. Figures and hieroglyphs of gods, made familiar by
the manuscripts, can also be found here and there. But on the whole so
little appears in support of instituting a comparison with the
manuscripts, that it seems expedient to leave the inscriptions for
independent and special study.