Chapter 3

The hieroglyph belonging to this deity likewise displays the Chicchan-sign as its distinguishing mark. Furthermore several variants occur. The Chicchan-sign has sometimes the form of Fig. 37 and again that of Fig. 38. The prefix likewise differs very much, having sometimes the form of Fig. 37, and again that of Fig. 38 or of Figs. 39 and 40. Thus there are, in all, four different forms of the prefix. It is to be assumed that all these hieroglyphs have the same meaning, notwithstanding their variations. Taking into consideration the frequency of the variations of other hieroglyphs of gods and of the hieroglyphs in the Maya manuscripts in general, it is quite improbable from the nature of the case, that a hieroglyph, which displays so great an agreement in its essential and characteristic elements, should denote several different gods. The dissimilarity which Seler thinks he finds between the forms of the Chicchan-sign in Figs. 37 and 38 and which leads him to assume that Fig. 37 is not a Chicchan-sign at all, but that it denotes another face ornament, cannot be satisfactorily proved, and must be regarded as an arbitrary assumption. The Chicchan-mark in the sign of the day Chicchan also differs very much from that on the bodies of the serpents pictured in the manuuscripts, so that variations of this kind by no means make it necessary to assume that the hieroglyphs actually denote different things. Observe, for example, the different Chicchan-spots on the serpent's body in Tro. 27a. The crenelated, black border of the Chicchan-spot in Fig. 38 passes in rapid cursive drawing almost of itself into the scallops of Fig. 37, a transition to which there are distinct tendencies on the serpent's body in Tro. 27a. Nor does the fact, that under H's hieroglyph different personages are very often pictured, whom we cannot positively identify, compel the assumption that we have here not _one_, but two or more mythical figures, for the same is true of other hieroglyphs of gods. There are many places in the manuscripts where the text contains a definite well-known hieroglyph of a god, while the accompanying picture represents some other deity or some other figure not definitely characterized, perhaps merely a human form (priest, warrior, woman and the like). Thus in Dr. 4a we see H's hieroglyph in the text, but the picture is the figure of god P while in other places we miss the characteristic Chicchan-spot on the figure represented, for example Dr. 4c, 6a, 7b, 7c, 14a, 21c. In the Madrid manuscript, it is true, H's hieroglyph also occurs often enough, but _not in a single instance_ is a deity represented displaying the Chicchan-spot. This fact is, I think, to be explained by the coarser style of the drawing, which does not admit of representing such fine details as in the Dresden manuscript. In the Paris manuscript H's hieroglyph occurs but once (p. 8, bottom).

Seler thinks he recognizes in some of the figures represented under H's hieroglyph in the manuscripts, a so-called "young god". Such a deity is unknown and the assumption is entirely arbitrary. Apparently this "young god" is an invention of Brinton. The purely inductive and descriptive study of the manuscripts does not prove the existence of such a personage, and we must decline to admit him as the result of deductive reasoning. In this so-called "young god", we miss, first of all, a characteristic mark, a distinct peculiarity such as belongs to all the figures of gods in the manuscripts without exception and by which he could be recognized. Except his so-called youthfulness, however, no such definite marks are to be found. Furthermore there is no figure of a god in the manuscripts which would not be designated by a definite characteristic hieroglyph. No such hieroglyph can be proved as belonging to the "young god". The figures, which are supposed to have a "youthful appearance" in the Madrid manuscript, often convey this impression merely in consequence of their smallness and of the pitiful, squatting attitude in which they are represented. Furthermore real _children_ do occur here and there, thus, for example, in the Dresden manuscript in connection with the pictures of women in the first part and in Tro. 20*c in the representation of the so-called "infant baptism."

That god H has some relation to the serpent must be conjectured from what has been said. Thus, for example, on Dr. 15b, we see his hieroglyph belonging to the figure of a woman with the knotted serpent on her head, in Dr. 4a to the god P, who there bears a serpent in his hand, and in Dr. 35b in connection with a serpent with B's head. What this relation is, cannot now be stated.

The day dedicated to god H is Chicchan, and the sign for this day is his distinguishing hieroglyph.

I. The Water-Goddess.

In the Dresden manuscript the figure of an old woman, with the body stained brown and claws in place of feet, occurs repeatedly. She wears on her head a knotted serpent and with her hands pours water from a vessel. Evidently we have here a personification of water in its quality of destroyer, a goddess of floods and cloud-bursts, which, as we know, play an important part in Central America. Page 27, of the Codex Troano contains a picture, in which this character of goddess I may be distinctly recognized. In accordance with this character, also on Dr. 74, where something resembling a flood is represented, she wears the cross-bones of the death-god.

The goddess is pictured in the manner described in the following places: Dr. 39b, 43b, 67a and 74. The figure corresponding to her in the Madrid manuscript, in Tro. 27 and 34*c, displays some variations, in particular the tiger claws on the feet and the red-brown color of the body are lacking. But the agreement cannot be questioned, I think, when we recall that the Maya manuscripts doubtless originated in different ages and different areas of civilization, circumstances which readily explain such variations. The goddess distinguished in the Madrid manuscript by symbols of flood and water is doubtless the same as goddess I of the Dresden manuscript described above; her unmistakable character of water-goddess in both manuscripts is in favor of this. In both manuscripts she is invariably distinguished by the serpent on her head, which, as we know, is a symbol of the water flowing along and forming waves.

Strange to say, a fixed hieroglyph of this goddess cannot be proved with certainty. There is some probability in favor of the sign given in Fig. 41. The well-known oblong signs, which Förstemann (Drei Mayahieroglyphen, published in the Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 1901, pp. 215-221) interprets as the sign for evil days, frequently occur with her. This would be appropriate for the goddess of floods.

In the Dresden manuscript a few similar figures of women are found, who, like goddess I, wear a knotted serpent on the head. Representations of this kind occur in Dr. 9c, 15b, 18a, 20a, 22b and 23b. Whether they are identical with goddess I is doubtful, since there is no symbolic reference to water in these passages. Besides, the hieroglyphs of other known deities occur each time in the above-mentioned places, so that definite mythologic relations must be assumed to exist here between the women repsented and the deities in question. Thus in Dr. 9c we find D's sign, in 15b that of H; on 18a, 22b and 23b we see only the general sign for a woman. In Dr. 20a the signs are effaced.

In the Codex Troano goddess I occurs on pp. 25b and 27; there is also a woman with the knotted serpent on her head in Tro. 34*c. In the Codex Cortesianus and in the Paris manuscript these forms are wholly lacking.

K. The God with the Ornamented Nose.

This god, as already mentioned in connection with B, is not identical with the latter, but is probably closely related to him. His hieroglyph is Fig. 42; Fig. 43 is the form in the Madrid manuscript. He is closely related to god B. He is represented in Dr. 25 (centre) where he is perhaps conceived of as a priest wearing a mask with the face of the god, also in Dr. 7a, 12a (with his own hieroglyph and that of E!), 26 (bottom) with a variant of the sign. His figure without the hieroglyph occurs in Dr. 3. Very frequently the well-known group, 3 Oc, is given with him and in connection with his hieroglyph (in Dr. 3, 7a, 10b (right); without picture, 12a). Förstemann (Drei Mayahieroglyphen, Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 1901. pp 215-221) sees in this the sign for good days, a proof that we have to do here with a benevolent deity well disposed to mankind, his kinship with B being also in favor of this interpretation. His hieroglyph alone without his picture occurs in Dr. 10b, 49 (middle and bottom), 58 (bottom, left), and Tro. 8*b; with a variant of the attribute in Dr. 24 (third vertical row). A slight variation appears also in Dr. 69 (top, right).

In Dr. 65a (middle) B is pictured. But in the text we see K's hieroglyph presented by a hand. The next figure on the same page at the right represents god B with the head of K on his own and the same head once more in his hand. Agreeing with this, we find in the accompanying text the signs of B and K, the latter in a hand. K seems to be pictured again in Dr. 46 (bottom); the passage, however, is somewhat obliterated. The hieroglyph is lacking in this place; it is found, however, on the preceding page 45 (middle).

In addition to the passage already mentioned, which represents god K together with B, such double deities again occur in the Paris manuscript, p. 13, where B holds K's head in his hand; in Dr. 34b, where he carries this head on his own and in Dr. 67a where he appears to carry it in a rope. Once, how ever, a variation of these plainly synonymous representations occurs, namely in Dr. 49 (at the top), where we see a _feminine_ form above whose head rises the head of god K. In the Paris manuscript, so far as its defaced condition permits us to recognize the representation, K occurs very frequently, as for example, in Per. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 (in part only his head is given, presented by god B, as in the Dresden manuscript).

Brinton considers this figure simply as a special manifestation of B and identical with that god. Förstemann thinks that god K is a storm-deity, whose ornamental nose, according to the conventional mode of drawing of the Central American peoples, is intended to represent the blast of the storm.

Apparently, however, the deity has an _astronomic significance_ and seems to symbolize a _star_. In favor of this is the fact, that on the so-called initial pages of the Madrid manuscript (Cort. 22-Tro. 36) a row, composed of repetitions of his sign, occurs below the signs of the cardinal points and parallel to a row composed of signs of god C, the god of the polar star and the north. The hieroglyphs of C and K are the only hieroglyphs of gods, which are repeated 13 times on these pages with the 13 days enumerated there. The two gods must, therefore, have either a parallel or an opposite astronomic and calendric meaning. The fact that in Dr. 25 and 26 K appears as regent of the year, is an argument in favor of his astronomic significance.

According to Förstemann, Muluc is the day dedicated to god K.

In the head of god K we recognize the ornament so common in the temple ruins of Central America--the so-called "elephant's trunk." The peculiar, conventionalized face, with the projecting proboscis-shaped nose, which is applied chiefly to the corners of temple walls, displays unquestionably the features of god K. The significance of god K in this architectural relation is unknown. Some connection with his character as the deity of a star and with his astronomic qualities may, however, be assumed, since, as we know, the temple structures of Central America are always placed with reference _to the cardinal points_.

L. The Old, Black God.

God L's features are those of an old man with sunken, toothless mouth. His hieroglyph is Fig. 44, which is characterized by the black face.

God L, who is also black, must not be confounded with M whose description follows. L is represented and designated by his hieroglyph in the accompanying text, in Dr. 14b and 14c and Dr. 46b; the figure has the characteristic black face. He appears entirely black in Dr. 7a. The hieroglyph alone occurs in Dr. 21b and 24 (third vertical line in the first passage) with a variation, namely without the Ymix-sign before the head. This deity does not occur in the Madrid and Paris manuscripts.

The significance of god L does not appear from the few pictures, which are given of him. In Dr. 46b the god is pictured armed and in warlike attitude. Both in Dr. 14b and 14c he wears a bird on his head and has a Kan in his hand.

According to Förstemann, his day is Akbal, darkness, night.

Cyrus Thomas (Aids to the Study of the Maya Codices, in the 6th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, Washington, 1888, p. 358) thinks he is the god Ekchuah, who has come down to us as a black deity. God M seems, however, to correspond to Ekchuah (see the description of M).

M. The Black God with the Red Lips.

God M's hieroglyph is Figs. 45, 46; it seems to represent an eye rimmed with black, though the figure of the god himself displays an entirely different drawing of the eye (see Fig. 47).

The god is found in the Dresden manuscript only three times, namely in Dr. 16b (with a bone in his hand) in picture and sign, in Dr. 13c grouped with an animal, without the hieroglyph, and in Dr. 43a (with his sign) while finally his hieroglyph alone appears in Dr. 56 (top, left) in a group and of a somewhat different form.

On the other hand, god M appears with special frequency in the Madrid manuscript, which treats of this deity with great fullness of detail. While he is represented in the Dresden manuscript (16b) with his body striped black and white, and on p. 43a entirely white, he is always entirely black in the Codex Troano. His other distinguishing marks are the following:

1. The mouth encircled by a red-brown border.

2. The large, drooping under lip. By this he can be recognized with certainty also in Dr. 43a.

3. The two curved lines at the right of the eye.

His significance can be conjectured. He seems to be of a warlike nature, for he is almost always represented armed with the lance and also as engaged in combat and, in some instances, pierced by the lance of his opponent, god F, for example in Tro. 3c, 7a, 29*a. The peculiar object with parallel stripes, which he wears on his head is a rope from which a package frequently hangs. By means of a rope placed around his head the god frequently carries a bale of merchandise, as is the custom today among the aborigines in different parts of America. On 4b and 5a in the Cod. Tro. this can plainly be seen. All these pictures lead us to conclude, that we have here to do with a god of _travelling merchants_. A deity of this character called Ekchuah has been handed down to us, who is designated explicitly as a _black_ god. In favor of this is also the fact, that he is represented fighting with F and pierced by the latter. For the travelling merchant must, of course, be armed to ward off hostile attacks and these are admirably symbolized by god F, for he is the god of death in war and of the killing of the captured enemy. The god is found in the Codex Troano in the following places and on many pages two or three times: pp. 2, 3, 4, 5, always with the hieroglyph, then without it on pp. 6, 7, 19, 4*c, 14*b, 17*a, 18*b and again with the hieroglyph on pp. 22*a, 23*a, 25*a; finally it is found again without the hieroglyph on pp. 29*a, 30*a, 31*, 32*, 33*, 34*. In the Codex Cortesianus god M occurs in the following places: p. 15, where he strikes the sky with the axe and thus causes rain, p. 19 (bottom), 28 (bottom, second figure), 34 (bottom) and 36 (top). M is always to be recognized by the encircled mouth and the drooping under-lip; figures without these marks are not identical with M, thus for example in Tro. 23, 24, 25, 21*. Tro. 34*a shows what is apparently a variant of M with the face of an old man, the scorpion's tail and the vertebrae of the death-god, a figure which in its turn bears on its breast the plainly recognizable head of M. God M is also represented elsewhere many times with the scorpion's tail, thus for example on Tro. 30*a, 31*a.

Besides his hieroglyph mentioned above, Figs. 45 and 46, another sign seems to refer to god M, namely Fig. 48 (compare for example Tro. 5a and Cort. 28, bottom). The head in this sign has the same curved lines at the corner of the eye as appear on the deity himself. Förstemann mentions this sign in his Commentary on the Paris Manuscript, p. 15, and in his Commentary on the Dresden Manuscript, p. 56. He thinks the hieroglyph has relation to the revolution of Venus, which is performed in 584 days. A relation of this kind is, I think, very possible, if we bear in mind that all the god-figures of the manuscripts have more or less of a calendric and chronologic significance in their chief or in their secondary function.

It should be mentioned that God M is represented as a rule as an old man with toothless jaw or the characteristic solitary tooth. That he is also related to bee-culture is shown by his presence on p. 4*c of the Codex Troano, in the section on bees.

Besides gods L and M, a few quite isolated black figures occur in the Codex Troano, who, apparently, are identical with neither of these two deities, but are evidently of slight importance and perhaps are only variants of other deities. Similar figures of black deities are found in the Codex Tro. 23, 24 and 25 (perhaps this is a black variant of B as god of the storm?) and on 21*c we twice see a black form with the aged face and the solitary tooth in the under jaw (perhaps only a variant of M). In the Codex Cortesianus and in the Dresden manuscript no other black deities occur, but in the Paris manuscript a black deity seems to be pictured once (p. 21, bottom).

According to Brinton (Nagualism, Philadelphia 1894, pp. 21, 39), there is among the Tzendals in addition to Ekchuah, a second black deity called Xicalahua, "black lord".

N. The God of the End of the Year.

We have here a deity with the features of an old man and wearing a peculiar head ornament reproduced in Fig. 50, which contains the sign for the year of 360 days. The god's hieroglyph is Fig. 49, which consists of the numeral 5 with the sign of the month Zac. Förstemann has recognized in god N the god of the five Uayeyab days, which were added as intercalary days at the end of the original year of 360 days, and were considered unlucky days. N is, therefore, the god of the end of the year. Förstemann has discussed him in detail under this title in a monograph published in Globus, Vol. 80, No. 12. It is still open to question whether god N actually occurs in all the places of the Dresden manuscript, which are mentioned by Förstemann. He can be recognized positively on Dr. 17a, 21c (grouped with a woman) and 37a; also on 12c, but in this latter place with pronounced deviations from the usual representations. The figures in Dr. 23c (first group) and 43a (third picture) are doubtful, especially since the hieroglyph of the god is lacking in both instances. The third group in Dr. 21c is equally dubious. Here a woman is pictured sitting opposite a god. The latter seems to be god N, yet in the text we find instead of his sign the hieroglyph given in Fig. 51. It is not impossible that this sign likewise denotes god N.

God N is found a few times in the Paris manuscript, for example on p. 4, where he holds K's head in his hands, and on p. 22.

O. A Goddess with the Features of an Old Woman.

This goddess occurs only in the Madrid manuscript and is distinguished by the solitary tooth in the under jaw, as a sign of age, the invariable characteristic of aged persons in the manuscripts. She is pictured in the following places: Tro. 5*c, 6*b, and 11*b, c and d, Cort. 10b, 11a, 38a. In Tro. 11* she is represented working at a loom. She does not appear at all in the Dresden and Paris manuscripts. The figures of women mentioned under I with the serpent on their heads, are especially not to be regarded as identical with goddess O, for she never wears the serpent, but a tuft of hair bound high up on her head and running out in two locks.

Her hieroglyph is Fig. 52; it is distinguished by the wrinkles of age about the eye. Owing to the limited number of her pictures, there is little to be said concerning the significance of this goddess.

P. The Frog-God.

We call him the frog-god because in the Codex Tro. 31, he is pictured in the first and second lines with the club-shaped fingers of a frog, which occur only on this figure. The blue background, which is his attribute twice in the same passage, likewise points to a connection with water, and that the god also has something to do with agriculture may be deduced from the fact that he is pictured sowing seed and making furrows with the planting-stick. The two black parallel stripes at the corner of the eye seem to be folds of skin or marks on the skin, which may represent a peculiarity of this particular species of frog. His head ornament is very characteristic and contains the sign for the year of 360 days. He therefore bears some unknown relation also to the computation of time. It should be recalled in this connection that one of the Maya months is called Uo, frog. The god is pictured again in Tro. 30a and b, Tro. 22 (top, scattering seed) and Cort. 5 (at the very bottom, the figure lying down). Finally his neck ornament must be mentioned, which, as a rule, consists of a neck-chain with pointed, oblong or pronged objects, probably shells.

In the Dresden manuscript he occurs but once, Dr. 4a (first figure), with some variations it is true. The text at this place contains H's hieroglyph. God P does not occur in the Peresianus.

His hieroglyph is Fig. 53. It occurs in Tro. 31 (top) and can be unerringly recognized by the two black parallel stripes at the corner of the eye; which correspond exactly to the same marks on the face of the picture of the god himself.

This is all that can be said respecting this deity from the pictures in the manuscripts. Its meaning is obscure. Seler's assumption that god P is Kukulcan (Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 1898, p. 403) has certainly very slight foundation, and in view of the material from the manuscripts described in the preceding pages, it is in the highest degree improbable.

* * * * *

The foregoing is an almost complete enumeration of the god-figures proper in the Maya manuscripts. Whatever other figures of gods occur in the manuscripts are details of slight importance. This is especially true of the Dresden manuscript, which is well nigh exhausted by the types enumerated here; there may be, I think, a few figures still undescribed in the Madrid manuscript, the careless drawing of which renders the identification very difficult. An isolated figure of the Dresden manuscript still remains to be mentioned, concerning which it is doubtful whether it is intended to represent a deity or only a human personage.

This is the figure characterized by a peculiar head ornament in Dr. 20b. It is designated in the text by two hieroglyphs, which belong together, Figs. 54 and 55, the latter occurring once with K (Dr. 7a). It seems to represent blowing from the mouth, screaming or speaking.

II. MYTHOLOGICAL ANIMALS.

1. THE MOAN BIRD.