Part 4
In plate LXV, 5, is presented a copy of one of these corn offerings as found on Tro. 9*b. As the vessel containing the offering appears to be a vase, pot, or olla, it seems improbable that the offering it contains should consist of maize stalks. It is true, however, that instances occur, as on plates 21-23, Troano, where the stalk rises from the _kan_ symbols contained in a vessel, but these are evidently given in a figurative sense, as the vessel rests on a serpent. But even here there is evidence that the symbol denotes the grain or ear, and not the stalk, as in the lower right-hand corner of plate 21 a human figure is represented as feeding a bird with the symbol, which can not be construed in this instance as representing the stalk.[227-1]
Ximenes, who gives the Cakchiquel name as _cat_, says it refers to a net used for carrying maize, but means "lizard." Dr Seler, referring to this statement, says he strongly suspects that "the Mexican equivalent of this character has furnished him with this interpretation." He adds further that, in his opinion, "it has no connection with the Maya root _kan_, _kaan_, 'rope,' 'cord,' 'mat-cord,' and _kan_--Quiche-Cakchiquel, _k'an_ (_gan_)--'yellow.'" He believes the Maya term is derived from _kaanan_, _kanan_, which signifies "to be superfluous," "overflow," "to abound."
Dr Brinton thinks that the Zapotec _guache_, translated by Seler "frog or toad," is more likely a variant of _gurache_ or _gorache_, "iguana."
It is apparent from these widely different opinions that the signification of none of the names, save that of the Mexican calendar--_cuetzpallin_, "lizard"--has been satisfactorily determined.
In attempting to ascertain the signification of the names of the day, exclusive of the Mexican calendar, it is best to exclude from consideration at first the signification of the latter, and allow it to have no influence in arriving at a conclusion. The attempt by Dr Brinton to force agreement with the latter appears to be unsatisfactory.
I am inclined to agree with Dr Seler that the Maya symbol for the day _kan_ and the Mexican symbol for _tecpatl_, "flint," are based on the same fundamental concept, if the flint-like symbols on plate 12 of the Borgian Codex, one of which is shown in plate LXV, 6, are _tecpatl_ figures; of this, however, there is considerable doubt. Seler's opinion is based on those of this type. There can be no doubt that here this spindle-shape figure represents the shooting plant, the central stock or stem, or, what is far more likely, the seed which gives birth to the plant. Although they occupy the position of the stock or stem, yet from the form, the fact that some of them have the eye, and that from them the roots stretch downward, I am inclined to believe they are intended to denote the seed. The _kan_ symbol, as above stated, is also represented in the codices as that which gives birth to the plant, as that from which the sprouting plant springs. It is probable, therefore, that it was originally taken from the grain of maize, which it fairly represents.
Now it is well known that "yellow" is one of the primary meanings of _kan_, and that the word is closely associated with fruit, the "yellow" referring in a large degree to the ripening fruit, especially of the maize plant. According to Henderson one signification of _kan_ is "ripe, as fruit, timber," and, according to Perez, _kankanil_ is "sazon en [que] las frutas, aunque no esten maduras por estar las mas tomando el color amarillo." In Cakchiquel _kan_ (_gan_) signifies "yellow, ripe, rich." According to Otto Stoll, _vuich_ (or _vuach_), which is almost identical with the Zapotec name of the day, is the word for "fruit" in several of the Maya dialects. According to the vocabulary of Cordova, as given by Ternaux-Compans, "yellow" in Zapotec is _nagache_, and in Fuller's MS. Vocabulary it is _na-gutchi_, the _na_ being a prefix signifying "thing." The anonymous author, however, writes it _brechii_. We also notice that "gold" in this language is _yache_, probably referring to the color. It is likely, therefore, that the Zapotec name of this day signifies "yellow, ripe, mature," referring to fruits, especially maize.
When maize was introduced into New Zealand it was named _kanga_, 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.