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 a.s.signed 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 a.s.signed the character, which are applicable, as _pokchetah_, which Perez interprets "pisar, poner el pie sobre algo;" _puchah_, "des.p.a.churran, 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 a.s.sume 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 Peresia.n.u.s or Cortesia.n.u.s. 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 a.s.sertion 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 repet.i.tions 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 Bra.s.seur 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 Forstemann is right in supposing that the long numeral series running through plates 46-50 of this codex relates to the apparent revolution of the planet Venus.

In Dres. 18c is the compound symbol shown in plate LXVI, 46, followed by 47. In the former we see our _ek_ or _ke_ symbol as the upper character and the supposed _cimi_ (LXV, 28) glyph as the lower character, and to the left a prefix. This prefix is precisely that in the symbol for the month _Zac_ (LXVI, 48), and has presumably the same value in one glyph as the other. This will give, as the proper rendering of the symbol LXVI, 46, _zeek-cimil_, "the skull of the dead." By referring to the figure below the text, a woman is seen bearing on her back a skull inclosed in a wrapping of some kind, which in Kingsborough, where the color is retained, appears to be cloth. This certainly agrees with the rendering of the glyph. The symbol which follows it, shown in LXVI, 47, has one of the elements of LXVI, 27, and, as suggested under "the Thirteenth Day," should probably be interpreted _cuchpach_, "a carrier or porter" (or "bear upon the back"). In the corresponding glyph in Tro.

20*d (LXVI, 24) the upper portion, as above stated, refers probably to the hamper or basket-like holder in which the load is carried, and is a simple ideogram; but here (LXVI, 47) the upper character is phonetic, corresponding very closely to the lower part of the symbols for the months _Yax_ and _Zac_. The character which follows--the lower left-hand of the group of four--seen at LXVI, 49, is the well-known symbol for woman. As the women were the burden bearers in Yucatan, the interpretation appears to be consistent. It is therefore probable that the prefix to LXVI, 43, is to be interpreted by _ek_, as Rosny has suggested.

Seler, alluding to the symbol, asks, "May not the skin of the tiger, instead of the animal itself, be here indicated?" He further suggests that it represents the round hairy ear and the spotted skin of the tiger, and that the glyph shown at LXVI, 39, represents the entire head of this animal, of which there can be little doubt.

Some of the symbols of this day, found in the Fejervary Codex, one of which is shown in LXVIII, 41, appear to favor Seler's idea.[250-2]

THE FIFTEENTH DAY

Maya, _men_; Tzental, _tziquin_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _tziquin_; Zapotec, _naa_ or _naa_; Nahuatl, _quauhtli_.

Landa's figure is so imperfect in this case that it is not given. The usual forms and variations are shown in plate LXVI, 50 to 54. The last two, which show the widest variation, are from the Dresden Codex.

The Tzental and Quiche-Cakchiquel, _tziquin_, signifies "bird" in general, and the Nahuatl, _quauhtli_, "eagle." The Maya and Zapotec names are more difficult to bring into harmony with the others. Dr Brinton thinks that the Zapotec name is derived from _na_, "to know, to understand, to be able through knowledge." This, he says, "exactly corresponds to the Maya _men_, which means to understand, to be able to do ...; hence in this latter tongue, _ah-men_ means the man of knowledge, the wise one, the master of wisdom." "The bird," he adds, "was the symbol of wisdom and knowledge."

Dr Seler says it is difficult to determine the Yucatan name. However, from the form of the symbol he concludes it is intended to represent an aged face, by which he connects it with an aged G.o.ddess, Ixchel, the companion of Itzamna, and with certain Mexican deities. In his subsequent paper he says the Zapotec name furnishes linguistic proof of the above conclusion. "I had concluded," he says, "that the Maya hieroglyph represented the image of the old earth mother, the universally worshipped G.o.ddess called Tonantzin, 'our mother,' who is connected in the Codex Vienensis with the eagle symbol." He then adds that the Zapotec term _naa_ or _naa_ signifies "mother," and thus finds the connection between the calendar names.

It is probable we will not be far wrong if we a.s.sume that reference to the bird as used in this connection is not so much to it as an animal as an augury, sign, or portent. The birds introduced in the Dresden and Troano codices, especially those on pages 16, 17, and 18 of the former and 18* and 19* of the latter, are supposed to have reference to auguries. In the "Vocabulario Castellano Zapoteco," under "Ave," we find _mani-biici_, "ave agorera." In the Dresden Codex (17b) one of the birds introduced as playing this role is an eagle, or some rapacious species resembling an eagle or vulture. Although Seler believes the symbol to have been derived from the aged wrinkled female face, yet he closes his observations on this day in his first article as follows:

I think the reference to the eagle is very distinctly indicated [referring to a number of glyphs accompanying or indicating an eagle-like bird]. We can understand that these hieroglyphs were annexed as attributes of the deities. But how is it that figures 687-689 [same as our plate LXVIII, 42] serve as a seat for the Chac? Now Chac [he refers to the long-nose G.o.d] is not really a G.o.d of water, but of rain; the rain-producing storm cloud is his vehicle; the storm bird is his beast of burden on which he rides.

It follows from this, notwithstanding his supposition in regard to the origin of the symbol, that he looks upon it as signifying the eagle, or bird. However, the explanations given by Drs Brinton and Seler of the Maya name fail to make a satisfactory connection between the names in the different calendars.

Not only do we find birds introduced on the pages of the Troano and Dresden codices above referred to, apparently for the purpose of indicating augury, but on Dres. 69b we see the long-nose G.o.d (probably Itzamna) sitting on the glyph LXVIII, 42, holding a bird in his arms.

Also on Dres. 73b, where the groups are composed of short columns, each apparently relating to storms, winds, etc, we see in the right-hand group the bird and _men_-like glyph a.s.sociated. Whether these are in fact _men_ glyphs is a question not yet determined. I am as yet unable to interpret satisfactorily any of the compound characters of which these supposed _men_ glyphs form a part. If the form shown in LXVI, 28, the lower portion of which is substantially the same as Landa's first _l_, is to be accepted as equivalent to LXVI, 55, then it is probable that the symbol of the day does not indicate the phonetic value of the name. This would lead to the supposition that the name _men_ is not the original one applied to the day, or that the symbol has been changed. I am inclined to believe one or the other of these suppositions to be correct. If the symbol could be identified in the inscriptions, I would adopt the first supposition until substantial evidence of its erroneousness could be produced.

I am unable to offer any suggestions as to the origin of the symbol. I do not think the suggestion that it is intended to represent an aged face of woman or man of any force or worthy of serious consideration.

The symbol would be just as complete so far as its signification is concerned without the eye as with it.

THE SIXTEENTH DAY

Maya, _cib_; Tzental, _chabin_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _ahmak_; Zapotec, _guilloo_ or _loo_; Nahuatl, _cozcaquauhtli_. In addition to these the following are also given: Pipil, _tecolotl_; Mezt.i.tlan, _teotl itonal_ or _temetlatl_.

The forms of this symbol shown in plates LXVI, 56 to 59, and LXVII, 1 to 3, are those usually found in the codices, the slight differences being due to the greater or less degree of perfection with which they have been made. Landa's figure is similar to LXVII, 1. The variants in LXVII, 4 and 5, are from Dres. 46 and 49; but the symbols found in the day columns of Dres. 46 to 50 must not be taken as evidence of peculiar types, as they are to a large extent dashed off without care, one or two of a column being sufficiently exact for determination and the rest mere blotches. I have referred to them here and under other days simply because Dr Seler has noticed them; hence had I failed to allude to them it might be thought an oversight. However, I do not think any of the variations in the day columns of these five plates should be taken into consideration as types.

The Nahuatl name _cozcaquauhtli_ is the "royal zopilote" (_Sarcoramphus papa_ of ornithologists). Drs Seler and Brinton agree in the supposition that the Zapotec name is derived from _balloo_, "the raven or crow." Dr Seler says that the Quiche-Cakchiquel word _ahmak_ seems to signify the vulture, "who pecks out the eyes," "who makes deep holes;" while Dr Brinton maintains that the Quiche _ahmak_ means "the master of evil,"

referring to the owl, which is esteemed a bird of evil omen and bad fortune. The Pipil _tecolotl_ also denotes "the night bird or owl."

[Ill.u.s.tration: PL. LXVII COPIES OF GLYPHS FROM THE CODICES]

The Maya and Tzental names, however, present a difficulty not so easily explained. The signification of the former is "wax, gum, or copal gum,"

and also, according to Henderson, "root." According to Brinton the Tzental radical _chab_ means "honey, was, bee, a late meal." He refers, however, to the Cakchiquel, where he finds that _ch'ab_ means "mud, clay, mire," and suggests that "as red and black clays were the primitive pigments this may connect the Tzental day name with the Maya."

Seler, however, derives the Maya name from _ci_ or _cii_, "to taste good," "to smell good;" and as _ci_ is also the name of the maguey plant, and likewise refers to the pulque or intoxicating drink from this plant, he concludes that _cib_ must have been formed by the addition of the instrumental suffix, and hence refers to that which is used for wine, "either the honey, or, more correctly, the narcotic root."

This conclusion he thinks is strengthened by the fact that the corkscrew figure, which is the chief element of the _cib_ symbol, is found several times on vases or earthen vessels (see LXVII, 6). Attention is called in this connection to the fact that _loo_ in Zapotec signifies "root,"

which is also one of the meanings given by Henderson to the Maya _cib_, which would seem to strengthen Dr Seler's conclusion.

The glyph is seldom if ever found in combination with other characters or used otherwise than as a day symbol. This, together with the fact that it is not found except as a day symbol in the beekeeper's calendar in the Troano Codex, would seem to indicate that there has been a change in the name of the day since the origin of the symbol; or, on the other hand, the symbol has been modified from some older form. Nevertheless, there are some indications that it is phonetic and that the corkscrew figure has _b_ as its chief element, whether _cib_ be the word indicated or not.

In the symbol for the day _Caban_ (LXVII, 9) we see the same corkscrew figure, and observe that _b_ is the chief consonant element of the word.

In the well-known symbol for woman (LXVI, 49) there appears the same character, usually double, one at the front of the face, the other on the back part of the head. I have usually considered this a mere conventional symbol, taken from the female head, these corkscrew figures indicating the rolls of hair. Nevertheless it is possible that it is phonetic, as we see on the cheek the _c_, _ch_, or _k_ character heretofore referred to. As _chup_, _chupal_, and _chuplal_ are names for "woman, female, or girl," the _p_ may replace the _b_ and represent the corkscrew figure. I am unable, however, to explain the prefix, which should have the _b_ or _p_ sound, or be a determinative. Possibly it may denote _pal_, signifying a young person, though this appears to refer generally to the male s.e.x. Henderson, however, prefixes _x_ to give it the signification "daughter, or girl."