Day Symbols of the Maya Year.

by Cyrus Thomas.

INTRODUCTORY

As the origin and signification of the day and month, names of the Maya calendar, and of the symbols used to represent these time periods, are now being discussed by students of Mexican and Central American paleography, I deem it advisable to present the result of my investigations in this line. The present paper, however, will be limited to the days only, as I have but little to add in regard to the month names or symbols. As the conclusion reached by Drs Seler and Brinton in regard to the order and sequence of the days of the month in the different calendars appears to be satisfactorily established, it will be accepted.

As frequent allusion is made herein to the phoneticism or phonetic value of the written characters or hieroglyphs, it is proper that the writer's position on this point should be clearly understood. He does not claim that the Maya scribes had reached that advanced stage where they could indicate each letter-sound by a glyph or symbol. On the contrary, he thinks a symbol, probably derived in most cases from an older method of picture writing, was selected because the name or word it represented had as its chief phonetic element a certain consonant sound or syllable.

If this consonant element were _b_, the symbol would be used where _b_ was the prominent consonant element of the word to be indicated, no reference, however, to its original signification being necessarily retained. Thus the symbol for _cab_, "earth," might be used in writing _Caban_, a day name, or _cabil_, "honey," because _cab_ is their chief phonetic element.

In a previous work[205-1] I have expressed the opinion that the characters are to a certain extent phonetic--are not true alphabetic signs, but syllabic. And at the same time I expressed the opinion that even this definition did not hold true of all, as some were apparently ideographic, while others were simple abbreviated pictorial representations. In a subsequent paper[205-2] I expressed substantially the same opinion, and gave as my belief that one reason why attempts at decipherment have failed of success is a misconception of the peculiar character of the writing, which peculiarity is found in the fact that, as it exists in the codices and inscriptions, it is in a transition stage from the purely ideographic to the phonetic. I stated also my belief that the writing had not reached the stage when each sound was indicated by a glyph or sign.

This may further be explained by the following ill.u.s.tration: The conventionalized figure of a turtlehead is the symbol for a "turtle,"

_ak_, _ac_, or _aac_ in Maya; and a conventionalized footprint is the symbol for "step" or "road," _be_, _beil_, in Maya. These may be brought together to form the word _akyab_ or _kayab_, which may have no reference to the original signification of the combined symbols. These two glyphs are, in fact, combined to form the symbol for the month _Kayab_.

These statements will perhaps suffice to make clear my views on this question, which do not appear to have been clearly understood, possibly because of my frequent use of the words "phonetic" and "phoneticism,"

and perhaps rather loose reference to "letter elements."

It is proper, however, to add that I am inclined to the opinion that modification in the form and details of a glyph which belongs to the cla.s.s which, for want of a better term, we may designate "phonetic," in many cases indicates a modification or change in the signification or word value. I say in "many cases," because these modifications are due often to the greater or lesser accuracy with which the glyph is drawn, the caprice of the scribe, and other causes which have no reference to sound or signification. For example, the change of a rounded or circular symbol to a face figure, as is often done, does not appear, at least in the day signs, to have any significance. On the other hand, a slight variation, if permanent, may be indicative of a difference in signification or phonetic value. This appears to be true, to some extent, whether we consider the characters ideographic or as, in some sense, phonetic.

THE FIRST DAY

Maya, _imix_ (or _ymix_); Tzental, _imox_ or _mox_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _imox_ or _moxin_; Zapotec, _chilla_ or _chiylla_; Nahuatl, _c.i.p.actli_.

The symbol of this day, which is quite uniform in the day series of the codices, is shown in plate LXIV, 1.[207-1] In this the essential features appear to be the black spot at the top, the semicircle of dots around it, and the short perpendicular lines in the lower half. The form on the right slab of the "Palenque tablet," and also in the Lorillard City inscription, copied by Charney,[TN-1] is given in plate LXIV, 2.

The only particular in which this differs from the other is that the little circle at the top is crosshatched. The form shown in LXIV, 3, is found in the Tikal inscription; it shows also the crosshatching in the little circle at the top. This character, however, when combined with other glyphs, and when used otherwise than as a day symbol, sometimes varies from the types given. For example, in the symbol of the month _Mac_ it is as shown in plate LXIV, 4. In this a minute, divided oblong, takes the place of the dark spot at the top, and a double curved line accompanies the circle of dots. Another form is shown in plate LXIV, 5.

The only variation in this from the usual type is the introduction of two or three minute circles in the curved line of dots and the divided oblong. Dr Seler is inclined to believe that these are essential variants from the true _imix_ symbol; nevertheless, as _m_ is the chief consonant element both in _imix_, or _mox_ and _mac_, there appears to be a relation between the form of the glyphs and their phonetic value.

Drs Seler and Sch.e.l.lhas believe _im_ to be the radical of _imix_ and _imox_, which are dialectal variations of the same word. Dr Brinton, however, basing his opinion on the fact that _mox_ and _moxin_ are used sometimes as equivalents, decides that the radical syllable is _m-x_. In this he is probably correct, and if so, this furnishes additional evidence of the close relation between form and sound, as in one case _m-x_ are the chief phonetic elements and in the other _m-c_. It is probable that Drs Sch.e.l.lhas and Seler were led to their conclusion by the fact that the symbol bears a close resemblance to the conventional form of the female breast, which in Maya is _im_. This, which was perhaps the origin of the symbol, was probably selected simply because _m_ is its only prominent element. Nevertheless, it is worthy of notice that the symbol for the day _Ix_ is frequently represented as shown in plate LXVI, 36, from Tro. 5*c. This is similar in some respects to the _Imix_ symbol, and the name contains the _i_ and _x_ of the latter. If the writing is phonetic, the points of resemblance may have some significance, otherwise they do not.

In a previous paper[208-1] I suggested that the probable signification of the character LXIV, 7, from Dres. 14c and 46b, is _maax_, "monkey, ape, imitator." Below the text in each case is seen a dark male figure (or deity), to which it undoubtedly refers, as is conceded by Drs Sch.e.l.lhas and Seler. The face character, which forms part of the glyph, may be only a determinative; at least I am unable to a.s.sign it any other value in this connection, and the necessity for such determinative is apparent. Bra.s.seur, under _akab-maax_, speaks of a phantom or hobgoblin of this name, which he says signifies "the great monkey of the night."

Perez gives as definitions "duende" (elf or hobgoblin) and "mico nocturno." Henderson, who writes the name _akabmax_, simply says "sprite, phantom." It would seem, therefore, that among the superst.i.tious beliefs of the Maya was that of a night phantom or deity, which took the form of a monkey. But this black figure appears to be different from those on Tro. 34*-31*, with which Seler connects it and to which he applies the name Ekchuah.[208-2]

In the paper above referred to, I have interpreted the symbol shown in plate LXIV, 8 (from Dres. 35c) _maach_, "the crow," a.s.suming the birdhead to be a determinative. Seler concludes that the bird which this represents is "a subst.i.tute, colleague, or symbol of the Rain G.o.d Chac,"

the so-called Maya Tlaloc so frequently represented in the codices.

Although there is in this case no bird figure below to confirm our interpretation, yet it appears to be justified by the comparisons given and by its agreement with the phonetic value of the _imix_ symbol. It is also further confirmed by the two glyphs shown in plate LXVIII, 13, 14, which occur together in Dres. 38b. In this case the two characters, which are combined in plate LXIV, 8, are separated, yet must have the same signification. Here the bird figure (a man with a bird's head or bird mask) is seen below. In both instances rain is represented, showing that the bird is supposed to bear some relation thereto. But it is more likely that it has direct reference to the wind which accompanies the rain storm rather than to "fruitfulness," as Seler supposes. Be this, however, as it may, our rendering of the _imix_ symbol in this connection appears to be justified, and indicates that the symbol is used here for its phonetic value rather than with any reference to its primary signification.

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

Dr Seler also refers in this connection to the lower line of symbols on Dres. 29-30b (three of which are shown in plate LXVIII, 15, 16, 17); to those shown in plate LXVIII, 18, 19, from Tro. 14c; and those shown in plate LXVIII, 20, 21, from Tro. 11a. He remarks that "in a number of hieroglyphs the character _imix_ stands as an equivalent of a peculiar animal head which bears as a distinctive mark the element _akbal_ over the eye. Thus in the hieroglyphs enumerating those above mentioned which, standing after the hieroglyphs of the cardinal points, seem to express the deities presiding over them, indeed there appears here on the same animal head, on one hand the character _imix_, on the other the element figure 165" (our plate LXIV, 5).

Although I am unable to interpret satisfactorily the _imix_ symbols in the places above referred to, I think it can be made apparent that Dr Seler's explanation is without foundation. For instance, by referring to the plates of the Dresden and Troano codices mentioned, it will be seen that there is nothing whatever that refers to an "animal head which bears the element _akbal_ over the eye," unless we suppose it to be in plate LXVIII, 16 (from Dres. 29b) and LXVIII, 21 (from Tro. 11a). There is no figure below or connected with either series to justify this conclusion. It is also certain that plate LXVIII, 21 (Tro. 11a) is not an animal head. Possibly plate LXVIII, 16 (Dres. 29b) may be intended for an animal head, but this is not certain and, moreover, it is not repeated in the series.

Referring to Cort. 27a it will be seen that the compound glyph shown in plate LXVIII, 22 (apparently the same as that on Tro. 11a) is repeated four times in one line, each connected with a cardinal point symbol, and each standing immediately over and evidently referring to a large vessel.[209-1] It is stated that it was a custom among the Maya during certain religious ceremonies to place a vessel in their temples at each of the four cardinal points.[209-2] As _c.u.m_ and _xamach_ are Maya words signifying vessel, we still find in these the _m_ sound. It is therefore possible that the similar glyphs on Dres. 29b and Tro. 14 and 15 also refer to vessels. The supposition seems to be strengthened by the fact that connected with the former are figures of the four cla.s.ses of food animals--quadrupeds, birds, reptiles (iguana), and fishes. The latter refer to the hunter's occupation, being accompanied by figures of the deer. Landa, in his descriptions of the various festivals, repeatedly alludes to the four Chacs or Bacabs which represent the four cardinal points, and to the different cla.s.ses of food animals presented where vessels were used. It is therefore more likely that the symbol is used in the places mentioned because of its phonetic value rather than as a subst.i.tute for the heads of lightning animals, for which supposed subst.i.tution Dr Seler admits he can not account.

Dr Seler refers also to the glyph on which the long nose deity is seated, Dres. 44a, shown in our plate LXVIII, 23. The prefix he interprets by "man, human being," and supposes the whole glyph refers to the attributes of the Rain G.o.d. As the deity holds a fish in his hand, and is seen in the lowest division of the same plate in the act of seining fish, is it not more likely that this symbol should be rendered by _cayom_, "a fisherman"? This is appropriate and retains the phonetic value of the _imix_ symbol.

In the compound glyph 24, plate LXVIII, from Dres. 67b, to which Seler also refers in the same connection, we see in the figure below the same deity wading in water in which a fish is swimming. The right portion of the symbol is the same as the last (plate LXVIII, 23) and presumably has the same signification--_cayom_, "a fisherman," or _cayomal_, "to fish."

I am unable to interpret the first or left-hand character; possibly it may be found in one of the terms _chucay_, or _?aucay_, which Henderson gives as equivalents of _cayomal_. The latter--_?aucay_--would give to this prefix precisely the phonetic value I have hitherto a.s.signed it.

The next character Dr Seler refers to in this connection is that shown in plate LXVIII, 25, from Dres. 40c, where the long-nose G.o.d is seen below rowing a boat on the water. The adjoining symbol in the text is a fish. It is probable therefore that substantially the same interpretation is to be given here.

The group shown in plate LXIV, 9, consisting of an _Imix_ and _Kan_ symbol, is of frequent occurrence in all the codices. The relation of the characters in this combination varies, the order being frequently the reverse of that given in the figure, and again one being placed on top of the other. They frequently follow deity symbols, especially the symbol of the so called "Corn G.o.d," and in these instances seem to refer to some attribute of the divinity indicated. However, they are by no means confined to these relations, being found quite frequently in other connections. The combination is occasionally borne upon the back of an individual, as Dres. 16a, and on Tro. 21b it is on the back of a dog. Dr Seler concludes "that it denotes the copal or the offering of incense."

However, he subsequently[210-1] expresses the view that it may signify "beans and maize." In a previous work[210-2] some reasons were presented by me for believing this combination was intended to denote bread or maize bread. This belief is based on the statement by Landa in his account of the sacrifices at the beginning of the year _Muluc_, that they made "images of dogs, in baked earth, carrying bread on the back,"

and the fact that in plate 21 of the Codex Tro., representing the sacrifices of this year, we see the figure of a dog with this _Kan-Imix_ group on its back. This figure (plate LXIV, 10) probably represents the images of which Landa speaks, and the symbols on the back, bread or food in the general sense. Further notice of this combination will be given under the fourth day, _Kan_.

The character shown in plate LXVIII, 26, from Tro. 20*d, is erroneously given by Seler as an example of the _kan-imix_ symbol. The two glyphs on the mat figure are unquestionably _imix_ symbols, though of the two different types shown in plate LXIV, 1 and 5. He suggests that here it replaces the deity symbol, but this is contradicted by the fact that in both groups where it appears the deity symbol is present. The mat-like figure, which is probably a determinative, shows that it refers to the sack, bag, or kind of hamper which the women figured below bear on the back, filled with corn, bones, etc. As _mucuc_ signifies "portmanteau, bag, sack, etc," _mucub_ "a bag or sack made of sackcloth," and _mucubcuch_ "to carry anything in a sack or folded in a shawl," it is more than probable we have in these words the signification of the symbol. The duplication of the _imix_ symbol may be to denote the plural; or, as the words come from a root signifying "secret, hidden, covered," it may be to intensify. It is noticeable also that the latter or right-hand _Imix_ symbol is similar to that used for the mouth _Mac_.

In the right section of Dres. 41b is the glyph shown in plate LXIV, 11, which, according to the phonetic system that appears to prevail in this writing, may be translated _yulpolic_, from _yulpol_, "to smooth or plane wood," or, as given by Henderson (MS. Lexicon), "to smooth, plane, or square timber, to beat off the log." This interpretation, which is given here merely because of its relation to the symbol which follows, is based in part on the following evidence: The left character, which has _y_ as its chief phonetic element, is the same as the upper character in the symbol for the month _Yax_ (plate LXIV, 12), and also the upper character of the symbol for the month _Yaxkin_ (plate LXIV, 13). Other evidence of its use with this value will be presented farther on, and also in reference to the right character of the above-mentioned symbol (plate LXIV, 11), which has been given _p_ as its chief phonetic element. By reference to the figure below the text the appropriateness of this rendering is at once apparent, as here is represented an individual in the act of chipping off the side of a tree. This he appears to be doing by holding in his left hand an instrument resembling a frow, which he strikes with a hatchet.

The character immediately below the one above mentioned and belonging to the same series is shown in plate LXIV, 14. It may be interpreted _mamachah_, "to make flat by repeated strokes." The phonetic value of the parts is obtained in this way. The upper character with two wings is Landa's _ma_, except that the circular wings contain the lines or strokes which the bishop has omitted, and which appear to indicate the _m_ sound and are observed in the _Imix_ symbol. Colonel Mallery, comparing this with the sign of negation made by the Indians and that of the Egyptians given by Champollion (our plate LXIV, 15), concludes that it is derived from the symmetrically extended arms with the hands curved slightly downward. This will furnish an explanation of the strokes in the terminal circles. The left of the two lower characters is almost identical with the symbol for the month _Mac_ (plate LXIV, 4), omitting the _ca_ glyph. The lower right-hand character is similar to the symbol for the month _Chuen_. We thus obtain legitimately the sounds _ma ma-ch_, whether we consider the parts truly phonetic or only ikonomatic.

For further ill.u.s.tration of the use of this symbol and evidence of phoneticism, the reader is referred to the article in the _American Anthropologist_ above mentioned.

The fact that a symbol is used to denote a given Maya day does not prove, supposing it to be in any sense phonetic, that the Maya name gives the original equivalent. It may have been adopted to represent the older name in the Tzental, or borrowed from the Zapotec calendar and retained in the Maya calendar for the new name given in that tongue.

However, the symbol for this first day, which has substantially the same name in the Maya and Tzental, appears to represent the name in these languages and to be in some degree phonetic, _m_ being the chief phonetic element represented by it. The crosshatching in the little circle at the top, seen in some of the older forms found in the inscriptions, may indicate, as will later be seen, the _x_ or _ch_ sound, thus giving precisely the radical _m-x_.

It may be said, in reference to the signification of the names of the day in different dialects, that no settled or entirely satisfactory conclusion has been reached in regard to either.

The Cakchiquel word _imox_ is translated by the grammarian Ximenes as "swordfish," thus corresponding with the usual interpretation of the Mexican _c.i.p.actli_. Dr Seler thinks, however, that the Maya names were derived, as above stated, from _im_. Nevertheless he concludes that the primitive signification of both the Maya and Mexican symbols is the earth, "who brings forth all things from her bosom and takes all living things again into it." If we may judge from its use, there is no doubt that the Mexican _c.i.p.actli_ figure is a symbol of the earth or underworld. The usual form of the day symbol in the Mexican codices is shown in plate LXIV, 16, and more elaborately in plate LXIV, 17. As proof that it indicates the earth or underworld, there is shown on plate 73 of the Borgian Codex an individual, whose heart has been torn from his breast, plunging downward through the open jaws of the monster into the shades or earth below. On plate 76 of the same codex, the extended jaws open upward, and into them a number of persons are marching in regular order. These apparently represent the thirteen months of the sacred year. One has pa.s.sed on and disappeared from view, and the other twelve are following with bowed heads. It would seem from these to be not only symbolic of the earth or hades, but also to have some relation to time.

For positive proof that it is sometimes used to denote the earth, or that from which vegetation comes, it is only necessary to refer to the lower right-hand figure of plate 12, Borgian Codex. Here is Tlaloc sending down rain upon the earth, from which the enlivened plants are springing forth and expanding into leaf and blossom. The earth, on which they stand and from which they arise, is represented by the figure of the mythical _c.i.p.actli_.

It is quite probable that the monster on plates 4 and 5 of the Dresden Codex, which appears to be of the same genus, is a time symbol, and also that on plate 74 of the same codex. It is therefore more than likely that the animal indicated by the Mexican name of the day is mythical, represented according to locality by some known animal which seems to indicate best the mythical conception. Some figures evidently refer to the alligator, and others apparently to the iguana; that on plates 4 and 5 of the Dresden Codex is purely mythical, but contains reptilian characteristics.

Dr Brinton, probably influenced to some extent by the apparent signification of the Nahuatl name and symbol, explains the other names as follows:

This leads me to identify it [the Maya name] with, the Maya _mex_ or _meex_, which is the name of a fish (the "pez arana," "un pescado que tiene muchos brazos"), probably so called from another meaning of _mex_, "the beard." ... This identification brings this day name into direct relation to the Zapotec and Nahuatl names. In the former, _chiylla_, sometimes given as _pi-chilla_, is apparently from _bi-chilla-beo_, water lizard, and Nahuatl _c.i.p.actli_ certainly means some fish or fish-like animal--a swordfish, alligator, or the like, though exactly which is not certain, and probably the reference with them was altogether mythical.

Dr Seler, in his subsequent paper, gives the following explanation of the Zapotec name _chilla_ or _chijlla_:

For this I find in the lexicon three princ.i.p.al meanings: One is the cubical bean (wurfel bohne). "Pichijlla, frisolillos o havas con que echan las suertes los sortilegos" [beans used by the sorcerers in casting lots or telling fortunes]; another meaning is "the ridge" (pichijlla, lechijlla, chijllatani, loma o cordillera de sierra); another is "the crocodile" (cocodrillo, lagarto grande de agua); and another "swordfish" (pella-pichijlla-tao, espadarte pescado). Finally, we have chilla-tao, "the great Chilla," given again as one of the names of the highest being. Here it seems to me that the signification "crocodile" is the original one, and thus far suitable. For the manner in which the first day character is delineated in Mexican and Zapotec picture writing [our plate LXIV, 16] shows undoubtedly the head of the crocodile with the movable snapping upper jaw, which is so characteristic of the animal.

Attention is called to the apparently closely related word as given by Perez--_mech_, _ixmech_, "lagartija."

It will not be out of place here to refer to a superst.i.tion pervading the islands of the Pacific ocean, which seems strangely coincident with the conception of the physical symbol of this day. This is a mythological monster known in some sections by the name _Taniwha_, and in others as _moko_ or _mo'o_.

Dr Edward Tregear[214-1] speaks of it as follows:

Taniwha were water monsters generally. They mostly inhabited lakes and streams, but sometimes the sea. Sometimes the beast was a land animal, a lizard, etc, but the true _taniwha_ is a water kelpie.

Mr Kerry Nichols,[214-2] speaking of these monsters, says:

With the other fabulous creations of Maori mythology were the _taniwhas_ or evil demons, mysterious monsters in the form of gigantic lizards, who were said to inhabit subterranean caves, the deep places of lakes and rivers, and to guard tabued districts.

They were on the alert to upset canoes and to devour men. Indeed, these fabulous monsters not only entered largely into the religious superst.i.tions, but into the poetry and prose of Maori tradition.