Part 6
The Nahuatl, Tzental, and Quiche-Cakchiquel names of this day are the ordinary terms in these languages for "monkey." Dr Brinton thinks the Maya name, which does not appear to have any signification in this language as a separate word (though _chuenche_ is "aborao, tuble," "a certain tree"), is derived from a Tzental term, _chiu_, which is applied to a particular species of monkey. He and Dr Seler refer to the _chouen_ in a legend of the Popol Vuh, which undoubtedly stands in close relation to _batz_ or "monkey," there spoken of as _hunbatz_. As these words in the Quiche myth appear unquestionably to refer to a species of the monkey tribe, or mythical persons under the symbolism of monkeys, the conclusion they reach is probably correct, and justifies the belief that the Maya name should be interpreted "monkey."
The origin of the symbol is uncertain, and Dr Seler makes no attempt to explain it. The difference between the simple form with the three teeth only (plate LXVI, 2) and the typical _Chuen_ symbol indicates a difference in the word equivalents, or in the signification if ideographic. It is possible that Brasseur is right in rendering the former by _co_, which signifies "tooth;" in which case we may be justified in assuming that the additions in the _Chuen_ symbol give the additional phonetic elements in the word. It may be, as supposed by some authors, that it was intended to represent the front view of an open mouth of some animal, as _chi_ is the Maya word for mouth.
THE TWELFTH DAY
Maya, _eb_; Tzental, _euob_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _e_ or _ee_; Zapotec, _pija_; Nahuatl, _mallinalli_ or _itlan_.
There are comparatively few variations in the symbol of this day; some, however, are of sufficient importance to render recognition doubtful but for their presence in the day series. That given by Landa is seen in plate LXVI, 4; the form most usual in the Tro. and Cort. codices is that shown in LXVI, 5; the variations seen in LXVI, 6, 7, 8, are from the Dresden Codex, and that in LXVI, 9, is from the Peresianus.
This character occurs very seldom, if ever, except as a day symbol, hence it is presumed to be purely ideographic or pictorial. There is, however, a deity symbol found in the Tro. Codex (plate LXVI, 10) in which we see apparently the chief characteristic of the _eb_ symbol. Here, however, instead of a dot-bordered tooth, there is a dot-bordered dark stripe which runs downward entirely across the face. This is accompanied usually by the numeral prefix 11. The symbol of the same deity as found in the Dresden Codex is shown in plate LXVI, 11. Here the stripe is reduced to a single broken line. Dr Schellhas contends that he is a Death god and the equivalent of the Mexican Xipe. That he is a god of the underworld in the Tro. Codex is apparent from his ornaments and the dotted lines on his body or limbs; yet in two instances--plates 5a and b--he is represented as a traveling merchant. Whether the deity in the Dresden Codex is the same as that of the Tro. Codex is not positively certain, but the presence of the numeral 11 with the symbol, and in some instances the dotted lines on the body of the deity, indicate that the two are identical. Whether this deity glyph bears any relation to the day symbol is, however, doubtful. The only names of Maya deities I find with _buluc_ ("eleven") as a prefix are Ahbuluc-Balam and Buluc-Ahau (?). The first, which signifies "He of the Eleven Tigers," was one of the idols made at the festival of the new year Cauac. On one of the four plates of the Dresden Codex representing the festivals of the new year (26a) we observe that the image carried by the chac is a tiger-like animal marked with dotted lines. Whether this is to be connected with the deity above mentioned is doubtful. The other name, Buluc-Ahau, mentioned by Landa, is the name of one of the signs of the Katun given in his figure of the cycle, and, although he uses the word "idol," does not appear to refer to any particular deity.
In regard to the names of the first three calendars, Dr Seler remarks as follows:
_E_, _ye_ signifies "the edge," "sharpness," "the notch;" _eb_, _ebil_, _ebal_, _yebal_, "a row of notches," "flight of steps," "stairs." In Quiche-Cakchiquel _e_ signifies "the tooth," "the edge;" _ee_ is the plural form in Cakchiquel of the word, as _eeb_ of the Quiche; _euob_ is also a plural form in the Tzental, as I think, from a singular _eu-ee_. The name must denote the same thing in all the languages, i. e., "a row of teeth," "flight of steps"--a signification which harmonizes excellently with many Mexican forms of the character [plate LXVI, 12] as well as with the Meztitlan name of it (_itlan_, "his tooth").
Dr Brinton says that "in Maya _eb_ is the plural of _e_, which means 'points' or 'ends,' like those of pins or thorns, and plainly was intended to designate the broom by reference to its numerous points. From the same idea, rows of teeth received the same name. The Tzental and Quiche names _e_ and _euob_--the latter a plural--were from the same radical and had the same signification." He says the Nahuatl and Zapotec names both signify the brush or broom of twisted twigs, or stiff grass used for cleaning and dusting, and also this grass itself. Thus he brings the names of the five calendars into harmony. This explanation corresponds with that given by Clavigero of the Mexican term, which he says is the name of a certain plant of which brooms were made.
I am inclined to believe the symbol in this instance is a mere 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.