The days below the second group, with the white and red striped
individual, are 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, indicating the north, and those below
the third, with the green individual, 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, denoting the
west.
So far the agreement with our theory of the other plate is perfect, but
in this case we have taken the figures from the left to the right, this
being, as we have seen in the _Tonalamatl_, or table of days, copied
from this Codex, the direction in which they are to be read when in a
line.
We notice also that the bird over the first tree, although differing in
some respects from it, is the same as that in the top or red loop of the
other plate, and that over the third tree the same as that in the blue
or bottom loop, agreeing also in this respect.
From these facts we understand that the black figure is sometimes at
least assigned to the south.
I am fully aware of the difficulties to be met with in attempting to
carry out this assignment of colors, in explanation of other plates of
this and other Codices, nor do I believe colors can be relied upon. They
form some aid in the few plates of general application to the calendar,
and where there are reasons, as in the cases given, to suppose the
cardinal points will be indicated in some regular order. The same thing
is true also in regard to the Manuscript Troano. For example, if we
suppose character _a_ of Fig. 7 to denote the east, _b_ north, _c_ west,
and _d_ south, we shall find them arranged in the following different
ways:
______ ______
| | abcd cdab | |
| c b | | c a |
| | | |
| d a | | d b |
|______| |______|
______ ______
| | | |
| a d | | c d |
| | | |
| c b | | a b |
|______| |______|
Combine with these colors and other distinctive marks, then vary them in
proportion, and we should have an endless variety, just as we see in the
Mexican Codices. We can only hope to solve the problem, therefore, by
selecting, after careful study, those plates which appear to have the
symbols arranged in their normal order.
Turning to plate 43 of the Borgian Codex, we find it impossible to make
it agree, either with the plate of the Fejervary Codex or the Vatican
Codex. Here we find the days 1, 5, 9, 13, 17 associated with the green
figure in the lower left-hand square; 2, 6, 10, 14, 18 with the yellow
figure in the lower right-hand square; 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19 with the
black figure in the upper right-hand square, and 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 with
the red figure in the upper left-hand square. What adds to the
difficulty is the fact that the symbol of the _Cane_ accompanies the
black figure, thus apparently indicating that this denotes the year
Acatl. That these groups are to be taken in the same order as those of
Plate 44 of the Fejervary Codex, that is around to the left, opposite
the sun's course, is evident from the days and also from Plate 9 of this
(Borgian) Codex, where the twenty days of the month are placed in a
circle.
In this latter the order of the four years is indicated by the first
days of the years, viz, _Cipactli_, _Miquiztli_, _Ozomatli_, and
_Cozcaquauhtli_ placed in blue circles at the corners in the following
order:
--------------------------------
|Ozomatli. Miquiztli.|
| |
|Cozcaquauhtli. Cipactli. |
--------------------------------
In the lower right-hand corner of Plate 4, same Codex, is a square with
the four quadrants very distinctly colored and arranged thus:
-------------------
|Yellow. Green.|
| |
| Blue. Red. |
-------------------
and a large red circle in the center, on the body of what is evidently
intended as a symbol of _Cipactli_. As this appears to be a figure of
general application, we presume that it commences with _Cipactli_, the
day on which the cycles began. As the four names of the days with which
the years began probably show, as arranged in the above square, their
respective positions in the calendar wheel, I infer that, in their
normal arrangement, _Cipactli_ corresponded with the red, _Miquiztli_
with the green, _Ozomatli_ with the yellow, and _Cozcaquauhtli_ with the
blue. This brings the colors in precise accordance with those on the
cross in the lower right-hand square of Plate 43; and if we suppose the
black figure to correspond with the blue it brings the colors in the
same order, but the day groups are shifted around one point to the left.
It is probable therefore that this plate, like a number of others in the
same Codex, is intended to denote the relation of colors and day groups
to each other in some other than the first or normal year, or possibly
to the seasons or the four Indications of the cycle.
But be this as it may, I do not think the difficulty in reconciling the
arrangement of the colors and days in this Codex will warrant the
rejection of our explanation of the plates of the other codices. That
Plate 44 of the Fejervary Codex is one of general application must be
admitted, as is also the "Table of the Bacabs" from the Cortesian Codex;
and if the true assignment to the cardinal points is made anywhere it
will certainly be in these. Turning now to the latter, as shown in our
Plate II, where the erased characters are restored, we note the
following facts, and then with some general remarks conclude our paper,
as we have no intention of entering upon a general discussion of the
Mexican Calendar, which would be necessary if we undertook to explain
fully even the plates of the codices we have referred to.
As before remarked, the Cortesian plate is arranged upon the same plan
as that of the Fejervary Codex, evidently based upon the same theory and
intended for the same purpose. In the latter the four year symbols are
placed in the outer looped line at the four corners, and so
distinguished as to justify us in believing they mark their respective
quadrants. In the former we find the four Maya year-bearers, Cauac, Kan,
Muluc, Ix, in corresponding positions, each distinguished by the numeral
character for 1 (see 31, 1, 11, and 21 in our scheme, Fig. 2), the
first, or the right, corresponding with the green loop and the year
Tochtli; the second, at the top, corresponding with the red loop and the
year Acatl; the third, at the left, corresponding with the yellow loop
and the year Tecpatl, and the fourth, at the bottom, corresponding with
the blue loop and the year Calli. This brings Cauac to the south, Kan to
the east, Muluc to the north, and Ix to the west, and the correspondence
is complete, except as to the colors, which, as we have seen, cannot
possibly be brought into harmony. This view is further sustained by the
fact that the god of death is found on the right of each plate, not for
the purpose of indicating the supposed abode of the dead, but to mark
the point at which the cycles close, which is more fully expressed in
the Cortesian plate by piercing or dividing the body of a victim with a
flint knife[49] marked with the symbol of Ezanab (the last day of the Ix
years) and the symbol of Ymix, with which, in some way not yet
understood, the counting of the cycles began.
In the quotation already made from Sahagun we find the following
statement: "Tecpatl, which is the figure of a flint, was dedicated to
_Mictlampa_, nearly towards hell, because they believed that the dead
went towards the north. For which reason, in the superstition which
represented the dead as covered with mantas (cloths) and their bodies
bound, they made them sit with their faces turned toward the north or
_Mictlampa_."
Although he is referring to Mexican customs, yet it is worthy of note
that in this Cortesian plate there is a sitting mummied figure, bound
with cords, in the left space, which, according to my interpretation, is
at the north side.
Since the foregoing was written I have received from Dr. D. G. Brinton
a photo lithograph of the "wheel of the Ah-cuch-haab" found in the book
of Chilan Balam, which he has kindly allowed me to use. This is shown in
Fig. 9.
[Illustration: FIG. 9.--Calendar wheel from book of Chilan Balam.]
In this (smaller circle) we see that Kan is placed at the top of the
cross, denominated _Lakin_, or east; Cauac at the right, _Nohol_, or
south; Muluc at the left, _Xaman_, or north; and Hiix at the bottom,
_Chikin_, or west.
Although this shows the marks of Spanish or foreign influence, yet it
affords corroborative evidence of the correctness of the view advanced.
The upper and larger circle is retained only to show that the reading
was around to the left, as in the Cortesian plate.
This result of our investigations, I repeat, forces us to the conclusion
that _a_, Fig. 7, is the symbol for east, as stated in my former work,
_b_ of north, _c_ of west, and _d_ of south.
Among the important results growing out of, and deductions to be drawn
from, my discovery in regard to these two plates, I may mention the
following:
_First._ That the order in which the groups and characters are to be
taken is around to the left, opposite the course of the sun, which
tallies with most of the authorities, and in reference to the Maya
calendar confirms Perez's statement, heretofore mentioned.
_Second._ That the cross, as has been generally supposed, was used among
these nations as a symbol of the cardinal points.
_Third._ It tends to confirm the belief that the bird figures were used
to denote the winds. This fact also enables us to give a signification
to the birds' heads on the engraved shells found in the mounds of the
United States, a full and interesting account of which is given by Mr.
Holmes in a paper published in the Second Annual Report of the Bureau of
Ethnology.[50] Take for example the three shells figured on Plate
LIX--reproduced in our Fig. 10--Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Here is in each case
the four-looped circle corresponding with the four loops of the
Cortesian and Fejervary plates, also with the looped serpent of the
Mexican calendar stone, and the four serpents of Plate 43 of the Borgian
Codex. The four bird heads on each shell are pointed toward the left,
just as on Plate 44 of the Fejervary Codex, and Plates 65 and 66 of the
Vatican Codex B, and doubtless have the same signification in the former
as in the latter--the _four winds_, or winds of the four cardinal
points. If this supposition be correct, of which there is scarcely room
for a doubt, it not only confirms Mr. Holmes's suggestions, but also
indicates that the mound builders followed the same custom in this
respect as the Nahua nations, and renders it quite probable that there
was more or less intercourse between the two peoples, which will enable
us to account for the presence in the mounds of certain articles, which
otherwise appear as anomalies.
_Fourth._ Another and more important result is the proof it furnishes of
an intimate relation of the Maya with the Nahua nations. That all the
Central American nations had calendars substantially the same in
principle as the Mexican, is well known. This of itself would indicate a
common origin not so very remote; but when we see two contiguous or
neighboring peoples making use of the same conventional signs of a
complicated nature, down even to the most minute details, and those of a
character not comprehensible by the commonalty, we have proof at least
of a very intimate relation. I cannot attempt in this place to discuss
the question of the identity or non-identity of the Maya, Toltec and
Aztec nations, nor the relations of one to the other, but follow the
usual method, and speak of the three as distinct.
[Illustration: FIG. 10.--Engraved shells from mounds.]
If Leon y Gama is correct in is statement,[51] "No todos comenzaban á
contar el circlo por un mismo año; los Toltecos lo empezaban desde
_Tecpatl_; los de Teotihuacan desde _Calli_; los Mexicanos desde
_Tochtli_; y los Tezcocanos desde _Acatl_," and the years began with
_Cipactli_, we are probably justified in concluding that the Fejervary
Codex is a Tezcucan manuscript.
Be this as it may, we have in these two plates the evidence of an
intimate relation between the Maya and Nahua nations, as that of the
Cortesian Codex certainly appertains to the former and the Fejervary as
certainly to the latter.
Which was the original and which the copy is a question of still greater
importance, as its proper determination may have the effect to overturn
certain opinions which have been long entertained and generally conceded
as correct. If an examination should prove that the Mayas have borrowed
from the Nahuas it would result in proving the calendar and sculptures
of the former to be much more recent than has been generally supposed.
It must be admitted that the Mexican or Nahua manuscripts have little or
nothing in them that could have been borrowed from the Maya manuscripts
or inscriptions; hence, if we find in the latter anything belonging to
or found in the former it will indicate that they are borrowed and that
the Mexican are the older.
In addition to the close resemblance of these two plates, the following
facts bearing upon this question are worthy of notice. In the lower part
of Plate 52 of the Dresden Codex we see precisely the same figure as
that used by the Mexicans as the symbol of _Cipactli_.
The chief character of the hieroglyphic, 15 R. (Rau's scheme), of the
Palenque Tablet is a serpent's head (shown correctly only on the stone
in the Smithsonian Museum and in Dr. Rau's photograph), and nearly the
same as the symbol for the same Mexican day. The method of representing
a house in the Maya manuscripts is substantially the same as the Mexican
symbol for _Calli_ (House). The cross on the Palenque Tablet has so many
features in common with those in the blue and red loops of the Fejervary
Codex as to induce the belief that they were derived from the same type.
We see in that of the Tablet the reptile head as at the base of the
cross in the blue loop, the nodes, and probably the bird of that in the
red loop, and the two human figures.
What is perhaps still more significant, is the fact that in this plate
of the Fejervery[TN-19] Codex, and elsewhere in the same Codex, we see
evidences of a transition from pictorial symbols to conventional
characters; for example, the yellow heart-shaped symbol in the lower
left-hand corner of the Fejervary plate which is there used to denote
the day _Ocelotl_ (Tiger). On the other hand we find in the manuscript
Troano for example, on plate III, one of the symbols used in the
_Tonalamatl_ of the Vatican Codex B and in other Mexican codices to
signify water. On Plate XXV* of the same manuscript, under the four
symbols of the cardinal points, we see four figures, one a sitting
figure similar to the middle one with black head, on the left side of
the Cortesian plate; one a spotted dog sitting on what is apparently
part of the carapace of a tortoise; one a monkey, and the other a bird
with a hooked bill. Is it not possible that we have here an indication
of the four days--Dragon, Death, Monkey, Vulture, with which the Mexican
years began?
In all the Maya manuscripts we find the custom of using heads as
symbols, almost, if not quite, as often as in the Mexican codices. Not
only so, but in the former, even in the purely conventional characters,
we see evidences of a desire to turn every one possible into the figure
of a head, a fact still more apparent in the monumental inscriptions.
Turning to the ruins of Copan as represented by Stephens and others, we
find on the altars and elsewhere the same death's-head with huge
incisors so common in Mexico, and on the statues the snake-skin so often
repeated on those of Mexico. Here we find the _Cipactli_ as a huge
crocodile head,[52] also the monkey's head used as a hieroglyphic.[53]
The pendant lip or lolling tongue, which ever it be, of the central
figure of the Mexican calendar stone is found also in the central figure
of the sun tablet of Palenque[54] and a dozen times over in the
inscriptions.
The long, elephantine, Tlaloc nose, so often repeated in the Mexican
codices, is even more common and more elaborate in the Maya manuscripts
and sculptures, and, as we learn from a MS. paper by Mr. Gustav Eisen,
lately received by the Smithsonian Institution, has also been found at
Copan.
Many more points or items of agreement might be pointed out, but these
will suffice to show that one must have borrowed from the other, for it
is impossible that isolated civilizations should have produced such
identical results in details even down to conventional figures. Again we
ask the question, Which was the borrower? We hesitate to accept what
seems to be the legitimate conclusion to be drawn from these facts, as
it compels us to take issue with the view almost universally held. One
thing is apparent, viz, that the Mexican symbols could never have grown
out of the Maya hieroglyphics. That the latter might have grown out of
the former is not impossible.
If we accept the theory that there was a Toltec nation preceding the
advent of the Aztec, which, when broken up and driven out of Mexico,
proceeded southward, where probably colonies from the main stock had
already been planted, we may be able to solve the enigma.
If this people were, as is generally supposed, the leaders in Mexican
and Central American civilization, it is possible that the Aztecs, a
more savage and barbarous people, borrowed their civilization from the
former, and, having less tendency toward development, retained the
original symbols and figures of the former, adding only ornamentation
and details, but not advancing to any great extent toward a written
language.
Some such supposition as this, I believe, is absolutely necessary to
explain the facts mentioned. But even this will compel us to admit that
the monuments of Yucatan and Copan are of much more recent date than has
generally been supposed, and such I am inclined to believe is the fact.
At any rate, I think I may fairly claim, without rendering myself
chargeable with egotism, that my discovery in regard to the two plates
so frequently mentioned will throw some additional light on this vexed
question.
NOTE.--Since the foregoing was printed, my attention has been
called by Dr. Brinton to the fact that the passage quoted from
Sahagun (see pages 41 and 54), as given in Bustamente's edition,
from which it was taken, is incorrect in combining _Cetochtli_ and
_Acatl_ into one word, when in fact the first is the end of one
sentence and the second the commencement of another. I find, by
reference to the passage as given in Kingsborough, the evidence of
this erroneous reading. The argument on page 54, so far as based
upon this incorrect reading, must fall.