Part 8

According to the interpretation given LXVII, 22 and 24, the compound symbol shown at 26, from Dres. 35b and 34b, should be rendered _Yokcabil muyal_, "the cloud above." As we see in both places, in the picture under the text, the looped serpent inclosing water, which Dr Seler considers the "water sack" or cloud, this interpretation is appropriate. As further confirmation of the interpretation given LXVII, 22, attention is called to the picture in Tro. 32*c over which the same symbol is found. Here the allusion is doubtless to the basket-like covering over, or "above," the black deity lying on a mat.

THE EIGHTEENTH DAY

Maya, _edznab_ or _ezanab_; Tzental, _chinax_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _tihax_; Zapotec, _gopaa_; Nahuatl, _tecpatl_.

The form of the symbol of this day varies but little in the codices, as shown by plate LXVII, 28-31. It is seldom found in this form in combination. If its equivalent is given in these, it is of the form shown in 33. It is, however, occasionally seen on articles of stone, as the spearpoint (32) and stone hatchet (34) and sacrificial knife. It also appears in the symbol for the stone mortar (36) from Tro. 19c. Before discussing its signification and probable origin we will give the significations which have been suggested of the different names of the day.

The signification of the Nahuatl name--_tecpatl_--is "flint." Dr Brinton says, "especially the flint-stone knife used in sacrificing, to cut the victim." Dr Seler finds agreement in the Tzental name from a statement, by Nunez de la Vega, that the symbol _chinax_, or rather the tutelary god of the same, was a great warrior, who was always represented in the calendars with a banner in his hand, and that he was slain and burned by the nagual of another heathen symbol. Dr Brinton states that the name "is an old or sacred form of the usual _zni-nax_, 'knife.'" The literal meaning of the Cakchiquel _tihax_ is, according to Ximenes, "it bites, scraping" (muerde rasgando). Dr Seler, however, affirms that Ximenes (with what authority he knows not) gives "obsidian" as the meaning. He thinks the word is related to the root _teuh_, "cold"--_tih-ih_, "to be cold"--with which may be compared the words _tic_, "to stick in, prick;" _tiz_, "to stitch," and _tiztic_, "pointed."

In regard to the Zapotec name, _gopa_, _gopaa_, or _opa_, the authors named differ quite widely, Dr Seler deriving it from _rogopa_, "cold," and Dr Brinton suggesting that it is more likely "a variant of _guipa_, a sharp point or edge, whence the word for stone knife, _gueza-guipa_, from _guia_, stone."

The Maya name, however, does not appear to be readily brought into harmony with the others. Dr Seler simply remarks that it may be related to the root _e_, "firm, rigid, hard." Pio Perez offers no explanation. Dr Brinton suggests that it is a figurative expression for the sacrificial knife, from _nab_, something anointed, or blood, and _edz_, to adjust, to point, to sharpen.

There can be no question that the articles in the codices on which the trembling cross is found consists, in most instances, if not all, of stone. Hence it is a reasonable conclusion that the primary signification of the symbol is stone. The Zotzil name for "flint" (pedernal) is _zuiton_.

I am inclined to believe that the symbol is derived from a conventional form used for indicating stone or flint, probably from the cracks or fissures in it.

I am not prepared yet to discuss the somewhat similar figures which assume the form of the St Anthony cross. Various interpretations, as symbol for "union," "night sun," etc, have been given. However, as this form is never used as a day symbol, it has no direct relation to the present discussion.

THE NINETEENTH DAY

Maya, _cauac_; Tzental, _cahogh_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _caok_, _cook_; Zapotec, _ape_, _appe_, _aape_; Nahuatl, _quiahuitl_.

The various forms of the symbol of this day are shown in plate 37-48--that by Landa at 37; those of the Troano and Cortesian codices at 38-43, and those from the Dresden Codex at 45-47. The irregular form given at 44 is from Tro. 28d, and that at 48 from the Peresianus.

This symbol is found quite frequently in combination with other characters, in some of which its phonetic value can be ascertained with reasonable certainty. For example, it forms the lower half of the symbol for the month _Yax_, as seen at LXIV, 12; also in the symbol for the month _Zac_ (LXVI, 48). In both these instances its chief phonetic element appears to be the guttural sound _k_, or _ks_. The essential elements are also found frequently on objects which are undoubtedly of wood and where no reasonable explanation can be given except that it signifies "wood" in these places. For example, it is found on what appear to be boards carried in the hands of individuals, on Tro. 32*b (LXVII, 49); and it also is seen on what appear to be wooden boxes or gums from which the honeycomb is being removed, as Tro. 5*c and 9*a. Dr Seler, who gives quite a different interpretation of the character from that presented here, admits that these are boards. It is also found on trees, as Tro. 15*a (shown in LXVIII, 1) and 17*a, and Dres. 26c, 27c, and 28c. It is marked on the walls of houses or canopied seats, as Tro. 6b, 29*c, and 18*b. Under the last mentioned we observe the _cab_ symbol, showing that it is a building placed on the ground and not on a stone foundation. It also appears on the ends of beams, as at Tro. 9a and 22*a. True, Dr Seler contends that these are stones instead of weight poles, but I think all trappers will decide against him. Again, it appears on seats (Tro. 13a and 14*a) and also marked on heads, one of which is shown in LXVIII, 2. That the symbol is not intended to indicate the different articles on which it is found is evident; hence it must be given to denote the substance of which these things are formed, which I maintain can only be wood. That the trees and boards must be wood is admitted; that the walls of many of the houses and of some of the other buildings of Yucatan were of wood must be admitted; that seats were often of wood is well known. The heads with this mark are in all probability representations of wooden masks. Masks are represented in the hands of individuals at several places in the codices, as Dres. 42(1)a and in Peresianus. I therefore conclude that in all these cases the symbol is to be interpreted by _che_, _cheil_, "wood, tree, timber, stick." In order to show the difference between the explanation given here and that by Dr Seler, I copy the latter:

We find, for instance, on the one hand the undoubted application which is connected with the idea of cloud or rain. Thus, in the hieroglyph, figure 80, the accompanying hieroglyph of figure 46, i. e., the bird Moan. So also the one in figure 28 (p. 107) the accompanying hieroglyph of the name Kinchahau, which, besides cauac, contains further the element of fire and that of the hatchet, which may remind us of the ray [or flash] darting from the cloud. The hieroglyph cauac is, however, used far more commonly in the sense of "stone" or "heaviness." This is most clearly shown in the case of the animal figures pictured in Cod. Tro. 9a and 22*a, where the stone laid upon and weighing down the horizontal beam is represented by the element cauac. But this explanation must be accepted also, because we find the pyramidal foundation of the temple covered with the element cauac. And where, in Cod. Tro. 15*a, to the Chac who is felling a tree is opposed the death god, also felling a tree, covered by the element cauac, it is clear that here there is substituted with the death god a rigid stone in place of what with the Chac is a sprouting tree. The numerous cases in which the hieroglyph cauac serves as a seat or footstool of the gods are sometimes easily interpreted as signifying clouds, but in the majority of cases it undoubtedly represents "stone," homologous to the hieroglyph caban and the element _tun_, "stone," itself (figure 85), both of which are found equally often denoting the seat and footstool of the gods. It is equally evident that in the hieroglyph figure 84, in which there is indicated the bearing of a burden on the back, the element cauac is to be understood simply as the expression of the weight, the burden. In the peculiar cases where we see the gods holding a board provided with the elements of the character cauac, or where a board is placed before the gods, furnished with a plaited handle whose side bears the element cauac, the latter seems to relate to a sounding board, for the accompanying hieroglyphs seem to signify music. Finally, there can be found a direct homology between the element cauac and the element tun. This is seen in the hieroglyph of the hunting god of figure 83, whose distinguishing mark is usually an eye or the element tun (i. e., a precious stone), which he hears in the front of the headdress. The hieroglyph of this god is written sometimes as in figure 81, sometimes as figure 82. And that the element here, which in figure 82 replaces the element cauac, is to be understood in fact as tun or "stone, precious stone," is evident, on the one hand from the application of the precious stone in the headdress (tun, "piedra, piedra preciosa"), and, on the other hand, from its use as the base of the pole on which Mam, the Uayeyab demon, is set up during the xma kaba kin (Cod. Dres. 25c). Now, it is true that a connection of ideas can be established with considerable certainty between clouds, rain, and stone, for in that region every rain was a thunderstorm. But at the same time it will be found comprehensible that a barrier of doubt was removed when I discovered in the course of my Zapotec studies that in Zapotec the same word was used for "rain" and "stone," namely, _quia_, _quie_.

According to the explanation I have given above, the chief phonetic element of the character is the guttural sound _k_, _ks_ (or _x_), and _ch_. As additional evidence tending to confirm this conclusion, the following examples are given:

Symbols 61, LXV, from Tro. 22*a, and 62, from Dres. 1 (42), have already been explained, the first as signifying _kutz_ or _cutz_, "the turkey," and the second _tzac_, the name of a certain fish found in the senotes. In the first (61) the first or left-hand character is our _Cauac_ symbol and has the _k_ sound, and the same symbol forms the right portion in the second (62) and also has the _k_ sound. In LXVI, 47, from Dres. 18c, the _Cauac_ symbol forms the first or upper portion. The whole compound symbol, as above shown, may be consistently interpreted _cuchpach_, "a porter or carrier;" literally, "one who bears on the back." Again we see the _k_ sound given the character is consistent. The symbol for the month _Ceh_, as found in the Dresden Codex, is shown at LXVI, 44. In this the last or lower portion is also the _Cauac_ character, and, according to the value assigned it, should have a harder sound than the simple aspirate. That such is the case is rendered probable by the fact that Henderson gives _ceh_ and _kez_ both as names of the month and as Maya words for "deer." In the Zotzil _chigh_ is the name for "deer." It is therefore apparent that the symbol has here the guttural sound.

The glyphs in LXVII, 50 and 51 (Cort. 21), probably signify "night" and "evening"; the first (50), _akab_, "night," and the second (51), _kankin_, one signification of which, according to Henderson, is "evening." The wing-like appendage is probably a time determinative. These last interpretations are of course given with some doubt. However, this may be said in their favor, that wing-like appendages are usually attached to time symbols, and that the figures below the text represent persons, each of whom carries what appears to be a wheel, possibly like those used in keeping time, and the main character of the preceding symbol in both cases is the _Manik_ glyph, having _ch_ as its chief phonetic element and _chackinil_, signifying "hours, wheel." Precisely the same symbol as LXVII, 51, preceded by the _Manik_ glyph, and a wheel in the hand of the person figured below the text, is seen in Troano 35d.

The character shown in LXVII, 52, from Tro. 35c, may possibly be correctly rendered by _bakah_ (_baakal_), "to roll round about, to go round about," alluding to the flight of the vulture figured below the text. This supposition appears to be strengthened by the probable interpretation of the symbol immediately below it (LXVII, 53), _malaalahah_, "without repeated buffetings." The character given in LXVIII, 3, from Tro. 31a, may be interpreted _pak_, "to sow seed, to plant," and that shown in LXVIII, 4, from the second division of the same plate, indicates the same word, as the transposition of the parts of a symbol does not always indicate a change of signification. Possibly, however, its equivalent may be _capak_, "to reseed or sow seed the second time," or _kapak_, "to place in a trench or hole." As the persons figured below the text appear to be planting seed by dibbling them in with a stick, this would seem to be an appropriate rendering. Dr Seler appears to have entirely misunderstood these figures, as he thinks they represent the deities pouring out water. I have in a previous part of this paper given some reasons for believing that these plates refer to the planting and cultivation of corn.

These examples will suffice at this point.

It is difficult to decide as to the origin of the glyph. However, I am inclined to believe it has grown out of a conventional symbol for wood, possibly drawn from the little knots and marks seen on the inside surface of split wood. This may be wide of the true explanation, but all the indications I can find point in this direction. As "wood" (_lena_) in Zotzil (I do not know what it is in Tzental) is _ci_--equal to _ki_ or _qi_--we obtain the guttural sound which appears to be the chief element of the symbol. In its use it appears to shade off from the hard to the soft sound.

The Zapotec name _ape_, which, according to Dr Brinton, may properly be translated by "lightning," or "the lightning flash," is much like the name for "fire" which prevails throughout Oceanica. Commencing with the Malay _api_, we trace it through the Oceanic islands in such forms as _api, lap, yap, nap, yaf_; to New Zealand _kapura_; Tonga and Samoan _afi_, and Hawaiian _ahi_.

In the Zapotec words _laari-api-niza_ and _ri-api-laha_, translated "relampage, relampaguear," we find precisely the original form of the Oceanic word for "five."

THE TWENTIETH DAY

Maya, _ahau_; Tzental, _aghual_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _hunahpu_; Zapotec, _lao_ or _loo_; Nahuatl, _xochitl_.

The symbol for this day, except where evidently imperfectly drawn, is subject to but few and slight changes, that given by Landa corresponding to the form found in the codices.

The usual and correct form is shown in LXVIII, 5-7; slight variations are seen in LXVIII, 8 and 9. Dr Seler figures several other varieties, but as these are from plates of the Dresden Codex, where the symbol is in columns, where they are evidently hastily made, without any attempt to have more than one or two in a column complete, they are not given here. The character represented in LXVIII, 10, is from the Tikal inscription, and that in LXVIII, 11, from the Palenque Tablet.

The Maya and Tzental names signify "king, lord, sovereign." The derivation of the word has been explained in various ways. Brasseur explains it by "the lord of the collar," _ah-au_, as does Dr Brinton; Stoll gives "lord of the cultivated lands," from the Ixil, _avuan_, "to sow." Dr Seler, however, is disposed to derive the name from the masculine prefix _ah_ and _uinic_ or _vinak_, "man." His method of reaching this conclusion is as follows:

For the Tzental word _aghual_, standing parallel with the Maya _ahau_, which doubtless corresponds to the abstract form _ahaual_ of the word _ahau_, is to be referred rather to a primitive form _avu_, _a'ku_, _ahu_, than to _ahau_. In the Tzental Pater Noster which Pimental gives, we find the phrase "to us come Thy kingdom (Thy dominion)" expressed by the words _aca taluc te aguajuale_. The primitive meaning of _ahau_ is certainly "man," "lord," and the two roots of similar significance, _ah_ and _vu_ (see _uinic_, _vinak_, "man") seem to concur in this word.

He explains the Quiche-Cakchiquel _hunahpu_ by _hun_, "one," and _ahpu_ "lord of the blowpipe," or "blowpipe shooter." Dr Brinton translates it the "One Master of Power." He brings the Mexican name into harmony by rendering it "the flower of the day"--that is, the sun; and the Zapotec by rendering it "eye," meaning "the eye of the day"--i. e., the sun.

When we attempt to bring the symbol of the day into harmony with the Maya name, we encounter a difficulty which can be overcome only by following a different line from that suggested by Dr Brinton or Dr Seler. That the character shown in LXVIII, 12, is the symbol for the cardinal point "east," which in Maya is _likin_, is now generally admitted, and that the lower portion is the symbol for _kin_, "day" or "sun," is also admitted. We are therefore justified in concluding that the upper portion, which is the _Ahau_ symbol, stands for _li_, and that _l_ is its consonant element. If Landa's second _l_ (shown in LXVIII, 43) is turned part way round, it will be seen that it is a rough attempt to draw the _Ahau_ symbol. If a careful study is made of his _l_'s as given in his list, and his example of spelling _le_, and of the similar characters in the codices, it will be seen that both his _l_ characters are derived from the same original. For example, the character shown in LXV, 60, from Tro. 22*a is precisely the combination which this author translates _le_, "a snare," or "to snare." By referring to the plate it will be seen that it is followed by the character (LXV, 61) which we have interpreted _kutz_, "turkey," and that in the picture below the text there is a lassoed turkey. It is apparent, therefore, that both these forms are used sometimes for words of which _l_ is the chief phonetic element, and that the parallelogram and two interior dots are the essential elements. The day symbol is of less frequency in combination than the other form, but it sometimes occurs. It must, however, be distinguished from the closely allied _p_ symbol heretofore alluded to.

From what has been shown in regard to the symbol it would seem, if considered phonetic, that the original day name it was intended to represent contained _l_ as its chief consonant element. If ikonomatic, the name of the thing indicated had _l_ as its chief element.

I think there can be little doubt that the symbol, as has been suggested by others, was taken from the full face, the central double line representing the nose, the two open dots the eyes, and the circle below the mouth. Now, according to Fuller's Zapotec Vocabulary, the name for face is _lu_, which is the Zapotec name of the day. As has been stated, Dr Brinton thinks the Nahuatl and Zapotec names refer to the sun, and he is inclined also to believe that the "ruler" or "sovereign" referred to by the names of the Maya dialects is the sun.

I think we may rest assured that the symbol of this day was derived from the full face, and that the word (for face) it was intended to indicate had _l_ as its chief phonetic element--possibly from _lec_, "brow, front, forehead." If derived from the face, its use as a day symbol, and in numerous combinations, proves beyond question that it is phonetic in the true or in the rebus sense.

FOOTNOTES:

[205-1] Study of the Manuscript Troano, pref., p. viii.

[205-2] American Anthropologist, Washington, July, 1893.

[207-1] The plates are designated by Roman numerals, and the figures by the Arabic numbers 1, 2, 3, etc. Hence LXIV, 1, signifies figure 1 of plate LXIV; LXIV, 2, figure 2 of plate LXIV, etc.

[208-1] American Anthropologist, July, 1893, p. 254.

[208-2] There appears to be much confusion among writers who have referred to this subject in regard to the "Black Deities" of the codices. Dr Brinton's remarks on this subject in his late work, "A Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics," does not clear up the confusion. Apparently he has not discovered that quite a number of these are merely black figures of well-recognized deities not thus usually colored. It appears also, judging by his statements, that Dr. Brinton has failed to identify the characteristics by which the different deities of this class are to be distinguished. Dr Schellhas, in his excellent paper "Die Gottergestallen der Maya Handschriften," fails also to properly distinguish between these deities. Dr Seler, whose profound studies have thrown much light on the Maya hieroglyphs, fixes quite satisfactorily the characteristics of some of these deities, yet he confounds others which should have been separated.

[209-1] Dr Brinton (Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics, p. 93) claims to have discovered that this hitherto supposed "vessel" is, in reality, "a drum." As the four (Cort. 27a) are without any accompaniments to indicate their use as drums, and as each has above it one of the cardinal point signs, there is nothing, unless it be the form, to lead to the supposition that they are drums. In the same division of the two preceding and three following pages we see vessels of different kinds represented. In the lower divisions pages 29 and 30, are vessels somewhat of the same elongate, cylindrical form, borne on the backs of individuals; and also in the lower division of page 40 are four tall cylindrical vessels, in each of which the arm of a deity figure is thrust. This section is copied in Dr Brinton's work with the subscript "The beneficent gods draw from their stores." Additional proof, if any is needed to show that these are vessels, is found in the Tro. Codex. On plates 6* and 7* are tall cylindrical vessels with the same inverted V marks on them; moreover, one of them has the upper portion margined by the same tooth-like projection as those in the Cortesian plate. That these are vessels of some kind is apparent from the use the pictures show is made of them.

[209-2] See Brasseur's lexicon under _bacab_, also the mention below, under the day _Ik_, of four vessels.

[210-1] Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie, p. 115.

[210-2] A Study of the Manuscript Troano, pp. 80 and 56.

[214-1] Jour. Anthrop. Inst. G. B. and I., November, 1889, p. 121.

[214-2] Ibid., 1885, p. 199.

[214-3] Polynesian Race, vol I, pp. 75-77.

[214-4] Rev. Richard Taylor, Te-Ika-a-Maui; London, 1870.

[215-1] American Anthropologist, July, 1893, pp. 263-264.

[216-1] Historia de los Mexicanos, as quoted by Brinton.

[216-2] American Anthropologist, July, 1893.

[217-1] Cong. Inter. des Americanistes, Actes de la Cuarta Reunion, Madrid, 1881, tom. 2, pp. 173-174.

[219-1] Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics, p. 115.

[220-1] American Hero Myths, p. 222.

[220-2] Names of the Gods in Kiche Myths, p. 22.

[223-1] Fourth Ann. Rep. Bur. Eth. (1882-83), p. 238.

[223-2] Schoolcraft, "Indian Tribes," etc, vol. I, pl. 51, No. 10, p. 360.

[224-1] American Anthropologist, July, 1893, pp. 258-259.