probably after the Malay _tangkai_, the name for an "ear of corn." The
Meztitlan name of the day is _Xilotl_, "an ear of corn," or "a young
maize shoot." These facts seem to show that the symbol has some
reference to maize, and tend to confirm the view expressed above, that
the compound symbol shown in plate LXIV, 9, denotes "maize bread." The
presence of the _kan_ character in the symbol of the month _Cumhu_ or
_Cumku_ or _Humku_ (plate LXV, 7) is difficult to explain on the theory
that it retains here the signification given it as the symbol of the day
_Kan_, whether considered ideographic or phonetic, unless we suppose
the name is incomplete and should have _kan_ added to it. I am somewhat
disposed to believe that it is sometimes used alone to denote bread, and
is then to be interpreted by _uah_. Take, for example, the figure in
Tro. 30d. Here we see a dog seated on a _kan_ symbol, with the same
symbol taking the place of the eye. As _pek_ is dog in Maya and _pecuah_
the tortilla or bread of maize, and the compound glyph in plate LXIV, 9,
is in the text, this may be an instance of the true rebus method of
representing a word. Another instance of a similar character will be
given under the day _Caban_. Possibly the _kan_ glyph in the month
symbol may have there the signification _uah_.
The fact must be borne in mind that this character, as before stated, is
often, and perhaps most frequently, used, except where it indicates the
day, merely as the symbol of corn or maize. As an example, take the
compound character shown in plate LXV, 8, from Tro. 33c. In the picture
under the text is the Corn god represented with the dead eye and bound
with cords; above his head is a dog-like animal bearing burning torches.
This representation, taken in connection with what is seen in the other
divisions of the plate, appears, as heretofore stated, to denote the
burning drought of summer, which is destroying the maize crop. As the
right portion of the compound character is the _cimi_ symbol, probably
representing death, the whole character very likely indicates the dying
corn. I have not found any combination where the rendering of the symbol
by _kan_ proves satisfactory. In fact, with the exception of the
_kan-imix_ combination heretofore mentioned, _kan_ is very seldom
combined with other glyphs, there being only some two or three in the
Tro. Cod., and three or four in the Cortesian Codex. It appears,
however, a number of times in combination in the Dresden Codex, but as
yet I am unable to interpret any of them satisfactorily.
THE FIFTH DAY
Maya, _chicchan_; Tzental, _abagh_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _can_; Zapotec,
_ci_, _ziie_ or _guii_; Nahuatl, _cohuatl_.
The forms in which the symbol of this day appears are various and
sometimes widely divergent. The principal ones are shown in plates LXV,
9 to 20. The form given by Landa is seen at 9; that most common in the
Codex Tro. at 10. Other forms which frequently occur are shown at 11-13;
those shown at 14-16 are from the Troano Codex. Some unusual forms which
vary widely from the typical glyph are given at 17-20.
The change of a symbol to the face form, as seen in this instance at
LXV, 15-16, does not appear to have any significance. The chief element
of this character is the circular spot in the right portion, usually
bordered by a double line and little square blocks, with the interior
generally crosshatched. As the crosshatching is also found in the symbol
for the month _Pax_ (plate LXV, 22), it is probable, if phonetic, that
this characteristic denotes the _x_ (sh) or _ch_ sound. As a similar
marking is frequently present on the serpent figures in the codices
(plate LXV, 23), it is possible that its signification is _chan_,
"serpent," or it may refer to some real or mythological characteristic.
The signification of the names of this day, except that of the Nahuatl
calendar--_cohuatl_, "serpent"--appears to be uncertain. Perez says the
word _chicchan_ can be explained only by considering it to be
incorrectly written for _chichan_, "little." Henderson in his lexicon
writes it _chichan_, and gives as the meaning of the word, "new, young,
as _chichan u_, the new moon." Dr Seler first suggested that the first
part of the name might be derived from the root _chi_, _chii_, "mouth,
to bite," and hence that the signification might be "the biting
serpent." However, he subsequently concluded that the proper
interpretation is "a sign marked or taken," from _chich_, "a sign or
mark," and _ch'aan_, "something taken or carried away." Dr Brinton
thinks there is much less difficulty in construing it as _chich_, strong
or great, and _chan_, the generic Tzental term for serpent. The generic
term for serpent in the Zoztzil is _cham_.
Dr Seler does not attempt an explanation of the Tzental term, but Dr
Brinton says that it means in that dialect and in Cakchiquel, "luck,
fate, fortune." This, he says, is identical with the Zapotec _ci_,
_zii_, and _guii_, and, as he finds evidence that the serpent is
mentioned as an animal whence portents were derived by the Zapotecs,
thinks this furnishes the connecting link with the signification in
other calendars. This explanation is so circuitous, and in fact
strained, as to render it unsatisfactory.
A study of the symbol with reference to its origin may perhaps furnish
some aid in arriving at the true signification of the name. As will be
seen by reference to the various forms of the symbol, the bordering of
the circular inclosed space appears to be more permanent than the inner
markings. This is apparent from the fact that the little squares or
blocks are retained in all the types except the anomalous forms shown in
plate LXV, 16-18, and even in one of these (LXV, 18) they appear. On the
other hand, the markings in the inclosed space are varied, and in some
instances, as LXV, 11, are omitted altogether. It would seem, therefore,
from this that the bordering was considered the essential element of the
glyph. From what, then, is the symbol taken? If we turn to Dresden 25c,
we see in the priest's robe, in all probability, that from which the
symbol was derived. Here we have the inner crosshatching and the little
dark blocks or squares around the border. The same pattern is seen also
on Tro. 16*b and c, and on the female dresses, same codex, 20*c and d.
On the latter, in some cases, is the waved line seen in the unusual
forms of the day symbol shown in plate LXV, 17, 18, and 19. Other
examples could be referred to, but attention is called only to one more,
viz, the curtain-like articles exhibited on Tro. 29*b, where we see not
only the inner crosshatching and bordering blocks, but on the side
borders the precise marking of the day symbol shown in plate LXV, 17.
As _chi_, _chii_, signifies not only mouth, but also "limit, border,
margin, shore," and especially the "skirt or loose edge of a garment,"
the relation of the symbol to the name of the day is obvious. It is used
here for its phonetic value--_chi_. As _chii_ signifies "to bite, prick,
to sting as a serpent," and _chan_ denotes "serpent," the true
explanation of the name of the day would seem to be "the biting or
stinging serpent." This will perhaps justify us in supposing that where
the symbol is found on a serpent it must have reference to this
characteristic.
I had not observed when the above was written that Brasseur had
expressed substantially the same view in regard to the origin of this
symbol.
THE SIXTH DAY
Maya, _cimi_; Tzental, _tox_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _camey_; Zapotec,
_lana_; Nahuatl, _miquiztli_.
Landa's symbol for this day is shown in plate LXV, 24. The usual form in
the Codex Tro. and Cortesian Codex is given in LXV, 25; it is varied
frequently by an extension of the line from the mouth, somewhat as in
symbol 28 of the same plate, which is the usual form in the Dresden
Codex. A variation of this is seen at 29, which seems to have given rise
to the unusual form shown in 31. A radical variation is that given at
27. The symbol of the Death god, 26 and 30, is sometimes, though rarely,
substituted as the symbol of this day. The closed or dead eye and
prominent teeth, as seen in the usual forms, show very clearly that the
symbol is simply a conventional representation of the naked skull. The
form shown at 27, however, is more difficult to account for; reference
to it will be made farther on.
The Maya, Quiche Cakchiquel,[TN-2] and Nahuatl terms signify "death." The
Tzental name _tox_, however, presents a difficulty not readily overcome
in order to bring its signification into harmony with that of the
others. Dr Seler does not attempt an explanation in his paper on the
meaning of the day names, and in his subsequent article fails to reach
any settled conclusion. Dr Brinton thinks it means something (as a human
head) separated, sundered, cut off; "hence _tox-oghbil_, the ax or
hatchet; _q-tox_, to split, divide, cut off." In this, he holds, it
agrees precisely with the Zapotec _lana_, which, he says, the Zapotec
vocabulary renders "a separated thing, like a single syllable, word, or
letter." Dr Seler's interpretation of the Zapotec name is wholly
different, as he says that the most natural of the various
significations given is, in his opinion, "hare;" _pela-pillaana_,
"liebre animal;" _too-quixe-pillaana_, or _pella-pillaana_, "red para
liebres." I observe, however, that in Fuller's vocabulary _gu-lana_ is
"to steal." Other significations are "name," "flesh," "secretly," etc.
The proper interpretation of the Zapotec name therefore appears to be
very doubtful. In Cordova's vocabulary, as given by Ternaux-Compans,
"fleche" is given as the meaning of _quii-lana_. In Tzotzil _gtox_
signifies "to split, break off, break open, to chop." In Maya we have
_tok_; which, as a substantive, Perez explains by "pedernal, la
sangria;" as a verb it signifies "to bleed, let blood." In this dialect
_tox_ denotes "to drain, draw off liquor, spill, shed."
The usual form of the Mexican symbol for this day is shown in plate LXV,
32. It is also a naked skull.
Like Dr Seler, I am compelled to admit that I can give no satisfactory
suggestion as to the origin of the form shown in plate LXV, 27.
According to Colonel Mallery,[232-1] one sign among the Indians for
knife is to "cut past the mouth with the raised right hand," which, if
figured, would probably bear some resemblance to the marks on this
symbol.[232-2]
THE SEVENTH DAY
Maya, _manik_; Tzental, _moxic_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _queh_; Zapotec,
_china_; Nahuatl, _mazatl_.
The symbol for this day, shown in plate LXVIII, 31, is without any
change worthy of notice, the only difference observable being a greater
or less degree of perfection with which it has been drawn by the
aboriginal artist. It is found, however, in various combinations where
it is subject to variation in form, if these in truth be intended for
this symbol. As Brasseur de Bourbourg has suggested, this appears to
have been taken from the partially closed hand, where the points of the
fingers are brought round close to the tip of the thumb. Whether
intended to show the palm or back outward is uncertain, though
apparently the latter. The nearest approach I find among the Indian
signs figured by Colonel Mallery is that denoting "little, diminutive,
small." But the position of the hand in the symbol appears to indicate
the act of grasping; either signification gives _ch_ as the chief
phonetic element of the Maya word _chan_ and _chichan_, signifying
"little," and _chuc_, _chucah_, "to grasp, to seize" ("alcanzar, asir,
prender," Perez); or _chuuc_, "to take, grasp, catch, seize,"
Henderson.[232-3] It would seem from this that if the symbol is phonetic
in any sense, the chief element of the word indicated is _ch_. The
supposition by Drs Schellhas and Seler that this symbol sometimes
contains the elements of the sign of the four winds or wind cross,
appears to be without any real foundation. The partial cross-shape
figure in it is merely the conventional method of drawing the opening
between the fingers, and would be just as correctly given as an oval as
an inverted _tau_.
As this interpretation of the symbol is quite different from that given
by other writers, some evidence to justify it is presented here.
Attention is called first to the symbol for "west," shown in plate LXIV,
53. The lower portion is the recognized symbol for _kin_, "day" or
"sun," and the upper portion is beyond question the _manik_ character.
As _chikin_ is the Maya name for "west," we are justified in assuming
that here at least this _manik_ symbol is to be interpreted by _chi_,
and is in some sense phonetic. As _china_ is the Zapotec name of the
day, and signifies "deer," and _chigh_ is the Zotzil name for "deer," it
is probable that the symbol preserves the old name, while in Maya this
old name has been supplanted for some reason, or through some linguistic
process, by _manik_.
Dr Seler calls attention to the character shown in plate LXVIII, 32,
from Dres. 13c, which is repeated in the form LXVIII, 33, on plate 21b.
That this refers to the deer figured below must be admitted, as this is
clearly shown by the relation of the characters in the adjoining section
to the animals figured below the text. Henderson (MS. Lexicon) gives
_xolke_ as "the male deer." If this could be considered substantially
equivalent to _cholceh_ in sound, our _manik_ symbol would retain its
value. The objection to this supposition is that the figure is probably
intended for a doe instead of the male. Brasseur gives _chacyuc_ as the
name applied to a small species of deer. It is true these
interpretations leave out the numeral prefix; nevertheless they serve to
show that it is probable the true name is a word which retains the
phonetic value of the _manik_ symbol as we have given it. Be the word
what it may, two conclusions maybe relied on: First, that it alludes to
the deer, and, second, that one of its chief phonetic elements is _ch_.
The character shown in plate LXVIII, 34, from Tro. 11*b, has probably
the same element in its phonetic equivalent, for the Maya verb _hax_
(_haxnahi_), "to twist or turn by rolling the thing between the palms of
the hand; make cord used for muslin or cloth," etc, gives substantially
this phonetic equivalent.
The character shown, in plate LXVIII, 35, from Dres. 10b, is referred to
by Seler as indicating an offering to the gods. In this he is possibly
correct. As _tich_, in Maya, signifies an "offering," "a sacrifice," and
_tich_ (_tichah_) "to offer, present," etc, it is probable that in this
instance also the _manik_ symbol retains _ch_, as its chief phonetic
element. However, I am inclined to believe it refers to the collecting
or gathering of the ripened fruit. In this case the prefix must be
understood as a determinative indicating piling or heaping up, putting
together or in a heap, or storing away. Of the Maya words indicating
this operation, we note the following: _C[=h]ic[=h]_ (_c[=h]ic[=h]ah_),
_hich_, and _hoch_, each of which has _ch_ or _c[=h]_ as its chief
consonant element. This interpretation agrees very well with the fact
that here, as elsewhere, a date is to be taken into consideration. On
such a date, at such a time, the cacao is to be gathered, is to be
harvested and stored away. Students of these codices, in their attempts
at interpretation, appear, as a general thing, to overlook the fact that
almost every paragraph or group of glyphs in the script is accompanied
by a date which must be taken into consideration in the interpretation.
The symbol which follows immediately to the right, shown in plate
LXVIII, 36, may be rendered _cacau_, the "cacao," as the duplicated
comb-like character is Landa's _ca_.
As the Quiche-Cakchiquel, Zapotec, and Nahuatl names all signify "deer,"
the difficulty in bringing all into harmony lies in the Maya and Tzental
names. Dr Seler's explanation is substantially as follows: That the word
_manik_ is from the root _man_ or _mal_, which signifies "to pass
quickly;" _manik_ may therefore mean "that which passes by," "that which
is fleeting." Dr Brinton gives the same explanation, and concludes that
the deer is referred to metaphorically. In regard to the Tzental name
_moxic_, Dr Seler suggests that it may be founded on the root _max_,
from which is derived _maxan_, "swift." Dr Brinton objects to this
derivation, as _maxan_ with the signification "swift" is from _ma_,
"not," and _xan_, "slow, tardy," and suggests that the name is probably
a corruption of the Nahuatl _mazatl_. However, it may be stated in favor
of Seler's explanation, that Henderson gives _moxan_, "quickly, shortly,
without hindrance," which is apparently another form of _maxan_. Dr
Seler, however, concludes, from a study of the relations in which the
character is found in the codices, that it is the symbol of offering, of
sacrifice, the deer being esteemed the animal most appropriate for this
purpose. Henderson says _manik_ signifies "calm," evidently considering
it to be formed of _ma_, negative, and _ik_, "wind."
It is evident, therefore, that the authorities are at sea in regard to
the signification of the Maya and Tzental names. If the symbol is used,
as Seler claims, to indicate offerings or sacrifices, this may be
readily explained on the supposition that it is used ikonomatically
because of the phonetic value I have assigned it; but otherwise it is
difficult, if not impossible, to see any relation between the symbol and
the name given it. So far I have found it used in no place, in
combination, where the value _manik_ will give a satisfactory
interpretation.
The following additional renderings are added here as tending to confirm
the phonetic value assigned the _manik_ character.
The character shown in plate LXVIII, 37, is from Tro. 20*c, where it is
repeated four times. The figures below the text show women in the act of
sprinkling or pouring water on children. Whether this be considered a
religious ceremony or not, it is probably intended to denote purifying
or cleansing, and not baptism in the modern acceptation of the term. As
_choah_, according to Perez, signifies "to cleanse, purify, scour," and
_choich_ "to clean, scour, or wash the face," we have therein a quite
appropriate interpretation of the symbol. The presence of the
cardinal-point symbols renders it probable that the scene refers to a
religious ceremony of some kind. The strict regard paid to the position
relative to the cardinal points by savage and semicivilized people is
too well known to require any proof here.
On Tro. 34*c two individuals are engaged in some work which we might
suppose to be weaving but for the fact that there is no cord or thread
to be seen. Over each is the character shown in plate LXVIII, 38. This
is evidently an incomplete _manik_ symbol. As the supposed aspirate sign
is present, it is probable that _hooch_, "to pare off, to scrape," or
_hoochci_, "to pare off, or scrape the hennequin," will furnish an
appropriate rendering.
THE EIGHTH DAY.
Maya, _lamat_; Tzental, _lambat_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _canel_ or _kanel_;
Zapotec, _lapa_ or _laba_; Nahuatl, _tochtli_.
The various forms of the symbol of this day are shown in plates LXV, 33
to 37, and LXVIII, 39-40. That given by Landa is seen in LXV, 33; it is
also found very frequently in the codices as LXV, 34. The three other
forms found in the codices are shown in LXV, 35, 36, 37. The form on the
Palenque Tablet is given in LXVIII, 40; that of the Tikal inscription is
similar to Landa's figure, if we are correct in our determination, of
which there is some doubt, as the dots are effaced.
A comparison of plate LXV, 36, with the symbol of the day _Ahau_, shown
in LXVIII, 5, leads at once to the impression that the former was
derived from the latter, and that, if in any sense phonetic, the
equivalents of the two are closely related. As will be shown hereafter,
the _Ahau_ symbol has _l_ as its chief phonetic element, if it be
considered in any sense phonetic. We should therefore expect to find, in
the verbal equivalent of this _Lamat_ symbol, _l_ as a prominent
element. In the form shown at LXV, 33, it would seem that we see an
effort to intimate by the character itself the presence of the _b_
element. That the symbol shown in plate LXV, 38, has _b_ as its chief
element is shown elsewhere. It is possible, therefore, that this _Lamat_
symbol had no original signification purely its own, but that it is a
composite derived from the _Ahau_, and what I have termed the _b_
symbol. Without anticipating the proof that the _Ahau_ symbol has _l_ as
its chief phonetic element, I call attention to the fact that it is the
upper character in the symbol for _likin_, "east" (plate LXVIII, 12). As
the lower character is the well-known symbol for _kin_, "day" or "sun,"
we must assume that the value of our _Ahau_, in this case at least, is
_li_. As another suggestion, I would add that it may have been derived
from a figure used in some game. As the figure is usually divided into
apartments or cells, most of which inclose a dot, the Maya word _lem_,
_lemah_, "meter, encajar, poner dentro, introducir" (Perez), would not
inappropriately express the idea. Its use as a day symbol would then be
simply for its phonetic value. This is based, of course, on the
derivation. I suggest below. Nevertheless it must be admitted that these
are but mere guesses.
In his article so frequently referred to Dr Seler has little to say in
regard to the signification of the names of this day. He remarks that
"the word _kanel_ is given by Ximenes--with what authority I know
not--with the signification 'rabbit,' thus corresponding to the Mexican
name for this character (Tochtli)." He says he is unable to interpret
the words _lambat_ and _lamat_. In his subsequent article he interprets
the Zapotec word by "to divide, to break into pieces," and remarks "that
the concept of something divided, broken in pieces, lies at the
foundation of the delineation of this day character is also proved by
the Maya hieroglyph for the same [see plate LXV, 33 and 36], in which
something divided or broken up is undoubtedly indicated." He adds that
"perhaps also the terms _lambat_ and _lamat_, used in Tzental-Zoztzil
and in Maya for the day character, and which are hardly explainable from
the well-known Maya, are derived from the Zapotec word _lapa_." Dr
Brinton's explanation is as follows:
The Maya _lamat_ is evidently a shortened form of the Tzental
_lambat_, which is composed of _lam_, to sink into something soft
("hundirse in cosa blanda," like light loam), and _bat_, the grain,
the seed, and the name refers to the planting of the crops. The
Quiche-Cakchiquel _kanel_ is the name of the Guardian of the Sown
Seed, probably from _kan_, yellow, referring to the yellow grains
or maize. The Zapotec _lapa_ or _laba_ means a drop, and a crown or
garland; here probably the latter, in reference to the products of
the fields. The rabbit, in Nahuatl, is the symbol of ease and
intoxication.
Thus, while Dr Brinton explains the name by "sinking in the mud or
soil," Brasseur explains it by "sinking in the water."
It is much more likely that the Maya name is but a modification of
_lemba_, which, as a verb, according to Henderson, signifies "to flash,
to shine, etc;" and as a noun, according to Perez, "resplendor, brillo,
relampago." I have no Tzental vocabulary at hand, but observe that in
the closely allied Zoztzil, "relampagear" is given as the equivalent of
_lemlaghet_.
It is a coincidence worthy of a passing notice that in Hawaiian _lama_
and _pu-lama_ signify "a torch;" _au-lama_, "to give light;" _malama_,
"light from the sun or moon;" in Samoan, _lama_, "the candle-nut tree,
and a torch made of the nuts;" in Tonga, _mama_, "light, a flambeau;"
New Zealand, _rama_, "candle, light;" Tahaitan, _rama_, "a torch."
It is somewhat singular that Dr Brinton, after his interpretation of the
Maya name of the fourth day heretofore given, should in this instance
derive _kanel_--the Quiche-Cakchiquel name of this day--from lean,
"yellow," referring to the yellow grains of maize. However, it is quite
probable that the reference to the color in this explanation is correct.