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 of _Zacatla_ ("Nombres Geograficos"
by Penafiel; plate LXVI, 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 in LXVI, 14, is
essentially different and has joined with the green blades the skeleton
underjaw. In some instances, as at _Malinaltepec_ ("Nombres
Geograficos"), the entire skull is added. A more elaborate form of the
symbol, from the Borgian Codex plate 26, is given in LXVI, 15. Here the
skeleton jaw is replaced 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 name _itlan_,
from _tlantli_, "tooth?" Dr Seler remarks that "it seems to me quite
possible that the point surrounded by dots in the character _eb_ is an
abbreviation of figure 326" (the prefix to our plate LXIV, 48).[245-1]
THE THIRTEENTH DAY
Maya, _ben_ or _been_; Tzental, _ben_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _ah_; Zapotec,
_quii_, _ii_, or _laa_; 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 at
LXVI, 16, those usual in the codices in LXVI, 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 considered _ben_ symbols.
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 name _acatl_ signifies "reed," "cane," or "stalk;" and,
according to Ximenes and Brasseur, the Quiche-Cakchiquel _ah_ also
signifies "reed," especially the "cornstalk" or "sugar cane." The
Zapotec _quii_ has also the same signification, "reed," and Dr Brinton
says _laa_ has 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 Tzental _ben_, 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
have _been_ or _ben_ as 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 (cana de mais seco) is called _cagh-ben_,
and from this I doubt not this day-name in that dialect and the Maya was
taken and syncopated. The verb _ben_ or _been_ in Tzental means 'to
walk, to go,' but in the above compound the _ben_ is from the Maya stem
_benel_, '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 on
the representation of the mat both in symbols and figures in the Mexican
and Maya codices. Some of these are shown in our plate LXVI, 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 in LXVI, 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 in LXVI, 23, from Tro. 10*a.
The symbol which, it is presumed, refers to the mat as seen in Tro.
21*d, is given in LXVI, 24; that representing the house in Tro. 10*c is
seen in LXVI, 25; another of a slightly different form, from Tro. 7*c,
in LXVI, 20; and another, referring also to a house or to the roof, as
Dr Seler supposes, is given in LXVI, 27.
There can be no question that plate LXVI, 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 character _ben_ may be distinctly
traced."
That the upper part of plate LXVI, 25 and 26, and of other similar
figures in the codices which might be shown, do make a close approach in
form to the _ben_ symbol, 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 the _ben_ glyph, 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 of LXVI, 25, 26,
are intended to signify the thatching, roof matting, or roof, and are
simple ideograms drawn from the 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 of LXVI, 25,
the crosshatching and the double _ben_ lines. 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 plate LXVI, 26, has the
phonetic value of _ch_ usually combined with _o_ or _u_ (see remarks
above on LXV, 44), we may find in this glyph _otoch_, "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, of LXVI, 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 the _p_ sound (see explanation of LXIV, 11), and also of
the guttural, it is probable that the signification, where a structure
is referred to, is _pak_ (_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 by _pacoc_ (_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, _cuch_ signifies "to bear, to carry," and
also "a load, a burden," and _cuch-pach_, "a carrier, a porter"
(literally "to carry on the back," _pach_ denoting "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 to LXVI, 3, which, as we have stated, probably represents the
sound _ah_, _ha_, or _hal_, and indicates that the word is a verb. There
are several words containing the phonetic value assigned the character,
which are applicable, as _pokchetah_, 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
mere conventional 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_, and _bel_ in Maya, and _beel_ in Zotzil--we
might assume it to be phonetic.
The combinations shown in plate LXVI, 28, 29, 30, and 55, in which the
symbol of this day appears, have as yet received no satisfactory
explanation. Those shown in LXVI, 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 be _pekokalil_, given by
Henderson. This, however, does not agree with the interpretation
_Kinichkakmo_, given by Seler to LXVI, 29, above referred to. Seler
gives to LXVI, 30, the apparently strained interpretation, "he who is
conquered in war and brought home prisoner." I have no interpretation to
offer.[248-1]
THE FOURTEENTH DAY
Maya, _ix_ or _hix_; Tzental, _hix_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _balam_, _yiz_,
or _hix_; 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 plate LXVI, 31. The usual forms found in the
Tro. Codex are LXVI, 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 in LXVI, 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 the
_ocelot_. Dr Brinton says that the Zapotec _eche_, or in the full form
_be-eche-guia_, has the same signification. Dr Seler, however, derives
it from the term _peche-tao_, "the great animal"--the tiger, or
ferocious animal. But the other names, _ix_, _hix_, _hiix_ or _gix_, 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 term _yiz_, i. e., the Maya _h-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-Zotzil _x_ corresponding to the Maya _z_.
Dr Brinton says that the Maya, Tzental, and Cakchiquel word _hix_ or
_ix_ means "sorcerer," though he does not furnish the evidence.
Moreover, he adds immediately after that "it is probable _ix_ is a
variant of _ik_ or _igh_ '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 name _yiz_ denotes the
"sorcerer;" and it is probable that the signification of _ix_ or _hix_
is the same, as the codices appear to give support to this conclusion.
On Dres. 8a the character shown in plate LXVI, 43, stands in the text
over the figure of a tiger, and evidently refers to it. The close
resemblance of this to the _ix_ symbol from Tro. 12c shown in LXVI, 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
Leon de Rosny is justified in rendering LXVI, 43, by _ek-balam_. This
supposition will be strengthened by any evidence tending to show that
the prefix is properly interpreted by _ek_.
The symbol for the month _Ceh_, as given in Dres. 49c, is shown in LXVI,
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 for _Yax_
(LXIV, 12) and _Zac_ (LXVI, 48), that the word _Ceh_, if the writing is
phonetic or ikonomatic, does not give the entire phonetic equivalent
unless the _x_ or _c_ of the other names is here softened to _h_. It may
be added, however, that Henderson gives both _Ceh_ and _Kez_ as the name
of the month and the Maya name for "deer." In the Zotzil vocabulary
"ciervo" is _chig_ and "venado" _chigh_. There is, however, a difficulty
in harmonizing this with the symbol for the month _Zip_--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 have _z_ or _dz_
as its chief phonetic element, that it is possible the name had
sometimes _ek_ or _ke_ prefixed. Running through the lower division of
plates 46-50 of the Dresden Codex is a line consisting of repetitions of
the character shown in LXVI, 45. Here we have again our _k'_, _ke_, or
_ek_ glyph as a prefix. The right portion of the symbol bears a somewhat
close resemblance to some forms of the symbol of the day _Lamat_ (but
not to _kin_, as has been suggested), and is so interpreted by Brasseur
and Leon de Rosny. As _ek_ signifies "star," and _lemba_ "resplendent,
bright, shining, sparkling," the phonetic value of the glyph may be "the
bright, shining star," alluding to Venus. According to Henderson,
_eekil_, _ekil_, or _yekil_ was used to designate this star, _zaztal_
being added to name it as a "morning star." According to the "Report on
the city of Valladolid,"[250-1] the name given the "morning star" was
_noch eke_ (or _eque_). It is possible, therefore, that Dr Foerstemann 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 plate LXVI, 46, followed by
47. In the former we see our _ek_ or _ke_ symbol as the upper character
and the supposed _cimi_ (LXV, 28) glyph as the lower character, and to
the left a prefix. This prefix is precisely that in the symbol for the
month _Zac_ (LXVI, 48), and has presumably the same value in one glyph
as the other. This will give, as the proper rendering of the symbol
LXVI, 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 in LXVI, 47,
has one of the elements of LXVI, 27, and, as suggested under "the
Thirteenth Day," should probably be interpreted _cuchpach_, "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
months _Yax_ and _Zac_. The character which follows--the lower left-hand
of the group of four--seen at LXVI, 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 to LXVI, 43, is to be interpreted by _ek_, 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 at LXVI, 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 in LXVIII, 41, appear to favor Seler's idea.[250-2]
THE FIFTEENTH DAY
Maya, _men_; Tzental, _tziquin_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _tziquin_; Zapotec,
_naa_ or _naa_; Nahuatl, _quauhtli_.
Landa's figure is so imperfect in this case that it is not given. The
usual forms and variations are shown in plate LXVI, 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 from _na_, "to know, to
understand, to be able through knowledge." This, he says, "exactly
corresponds to the Maya _men_, which means to understand, to be able to
do ...; hence in this latter tongue, _ah-men_ means 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 term _naa_ or _naa_ signifies "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 find
_mani-biici_, "ave agorera." In the Dresden Codex (17b) one of the birds
introduced as playing this role 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 plate LXVIII, 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 glyph LXVIII, 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 and _men_-like glyph associated. Whether these are in
fact _men_ glyphs is a question not yet determined. I am as yet unable
to interpret satisfactorily any of the compound characters of which
these supposed _men_ glyphs form a part. If the form shown in LXVI, 28,
the lower portion of which is substantially the same as Landa's first
_l_, is to be accepted as equivalent to LXVI, 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 name _men_ is 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,
_guilloo_ or _loo_; Nahuatl, _cozcaquauhtli_. In addition to these the
following are also given: Pipil, _tecolotl_; Meztitlan, _teotl itonal_
or _temetlatl_.
The forms of this symbol shown in plates LXVI, 56 to 59, and LXVII, 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 to LXVII, 1. The variants in LXVII,
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.