F. The G.o.d of War and of Human Sacrifices.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figs. 28-34]

This is a deity closely related to the death-G.o.d A, resembling the Aztec Xipe, and may, I think, without hesitation be regarded simply as the G.o.d of human sacrifice, perhaps, even more generally, as the G.o.d of death by violence. His hieroglyph is Figs. 28-30; it contains the number 11. A variant of this occurs on Dr. 7b, where instead of the 11 there is the following sign: [Hieroglyph]

The characteristic mark of G.o.d F is a single black line usually running perpendicularly down the face in the vicinity of the eye. This line should be distinguished from the parallel lines of C's face and from the line, which, as a continuation of G.o.d E's head resembling an ear of maize, frequently appears on his face, especially as in the variants of the Madrid ma.n.u.script (compare Figs. 25-27). These pictures of E can always be unfailingly recognized by the peculiar shape of the head and should be distinguished from those representing F. The black face-line is the distinguishing mark of G.o.d F, just as it is of the Aztec Xipe. It sometimes runs in a curve over the cheek as a thick, black stripe, as Cort. 42. Sometimes it encircles the eye only (Dr. 6a) and again it is a dotted double line (Dr. 6b). The hieroglyph of G.o.d F likewise exhibits this line and with the very same variants as the G.o.d himself. See the hieroglyphs of the G.o.d belonging to the pictures in Dr. 6a, 1st and 3d figures, in which the line likewise differs from the other forms (Figs.

30-34).

In a few places G.o.d F is pictured with the same black lines _on his entire body_, which elsewhere he has only on his face, the lines being like those in Fig. 31, namely Tro. 27*c. Indeed, in Tro. 28*c, the death-G.o.d A likewise has these black lines on his body and also F's line on his face; a clear proof of the close relationship of the two deities.

These lines probably signify gaping death-wounds and the accompanying rows of dots are intended to represent the blood.

Since G.o.d F is a death-deity the familiar sign (Fig. 5), which occurs so frequently with the hieroglyphs of A, also belongs to his symbols. F is pictured in company with the death-G.o.d in connection with human sacrifice (Cort. 42); an exactly similar picture of the two G.o.ds of human sacrifice is given in Codex Tro. 30d; here, too, they sit opposite one another.

The ident.i.ty of this attendant of death with the deity, designated by the hieroglyph with the numeral 11, is proved by the following pa.s.sages: Tro. 19, bottom (on the extreme right hand without picture, only hieroglyph, see Fig. 29), Dr. 5b, 6a, b, and c and many others. In some of the pa.s.sages cited (Dr. 5a and b) he is distinguished by an unusually large ear-peg. His hieroglyph occurs with the hieroglyph of the death-G.o.d in Dr. 6c, where he is himself not pictured.

As war-G.o.d, G.o.d F occurs combined with the death-G.o.d in the pa.s.sages mentioned above (Tro. 27*-29*c), where he sets the houses on fire with his torch and demolishes them with his spear.

G.o.d F occurs quite frequently in the ma.n.u.scripts and must therefore be considered as one of the more important deities.

According to Forstemann his day is Manik, the seizing, grasping hand, symbolizing the capturing of an enemy in war for sacrificial purposes.

F's sign occurs once, as mentioned above, in fourfold repet.i.tion with all the four cardinal points, namely in Tro. 29*c. In ancient Central America the captured enemy was sacrificed and thus the conceptions of the war-G.o.d and of the G.o.d of death by violence and by human sacrifice are united in the figure of G.o.d F. In this character G.o.d F occurs several times in the Madrid ma.n.u.script in combat with M, the G.o.d of travelling merchants (see page 35). Spanish writers do not mention a deity of the kind described here as belonging to the Maya pantheon.

G. The Sun-G.o.d.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figs. 35-36]

G.o.d G's hieroglyph (Fig. 35) contains as its chief factor the sun-sign Kin. It is one of the signs (of which there are about 12 in the ma.n.u.scripts), which has the Ben-ik prefix and doubtless denotes a month dedicated to the sun. There is, I think, no difference of opinion regarding the significance of this deity, although Fewkes, as already stated, is inclined to identify G with B, whom, it is true, the former resembles. It is surprising that a deity who from his nature must be considered as very important, is represented with such comparative infrequency. He occurs only a few times in the Dresden ma.n.u.script, for example 22b, 11c, and in the Codex Tro.-Cortesia.n.u.s none can be found among the figures which could be safely regarded as the sun-G.o.d; in no ma.n.u.script except the Dresden does a deity occur wearing the sun-sign Kin on his body. But once in the Codex Cort. the figure of D appears with the sun-sign on his head, as pointed out by Fewkes in his article ent.i.tled "The G.o.d 'D' in the Codex Cortesia.n.u.s". G's hieroglyph, to be sure, is found repeatedly in the Madrid ma.n.u.script, for example Codex Tro. 31c.

G.o.d G seems to be not wholly without relation to the powers of death; the owl-sign (Fig. 5) occurs once in connection with him (Dr. 11c). Besides the sun-sign Kin, which the G.o.d bears on his body, his representations are distinguished by a peculiar nose ornament (Fig. 36) which, as may be seen by comparison with other similar pictures in the Dresden ma.n.u.script, is nothing but a large and especially elaborate nose-peg. Similar ornaments are rather common just here in the carefully drawn first part of the Dresden ma.n.u.script. Compare Dr. 22b (middle figure), 21 (centre), 17b, 14a, b; occasionally they also have the shape of a flower, for example 12b (centre), 11c (left), 19a. Lastly it is worthy of note, that G.o.d G is sometimes represented with a snake-like tongue protruding from his mouth, as in Dr. 11b and c.

H. The Chicchan-G.o.d.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figs. 37-40]

The figure of a deity of frequent occurrence in the Dresden ma.n.u.script is a G.o.d, who is characterized by a skin-spot or a scale of a serpent on his temple of the same shape as the hieroglyph of the day Chicchan (serpent).

Moreover the representations of the G.o.d himself differ very much, so that there are almost no other positive, unvarying characteristic marks to be specified. His picture is plainly recognizable and has the Chicchan-mark on the temple in Dr. 11a, 12b and 20b.

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 a.s.sumed that all these hieroglyphs have the same meaning, notwithstanding their variations. Taking into consideration the frequency of the variations of other hieroglyphs of G.o.ds and of the hieroglyphs in the Maya ma.n.u.scripts 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 G.o.ds. The dissimilarity which Seler thinks he finds between the forms of the Chicchan-sign in Figs. 37 and 38 and which leads him to a.s.sume 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 a.s.sumption. 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 a.s.sume 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 pa.s.ses 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 a.s.sumption that we have here not _one_, but two or more mythical figures, for the same is true of other hieroglyphs of G.o.ds. There are many places in the ma.n.u.scripts where the text contains a definite well-known hieroglyph of a G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 ma.n.u.script, 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 coa.r.s.er style of the drawing, which does not admit of representing such fine details as in the Dresden ma.n.u.script. In the Paris ma.n.u.script 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 ma.n.u.scripts, a so-called "young G.o.d". Such a deity is unknown and the a.s.sumption is entirely arbitrary. Apparently this "young G.o.d" is an invention of Brinton. The purely inductive and descriptive study of the ma.n.u.scripts 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 G.o.d", we miss, first of all, a characteristic mark, a distinct peculiarity such as belongs to all the figures of G.o.ds in the ma.n.u.scripts 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 G.o.d in the ma.n.u.scripts which would not be designated by a definite characteristic hieroglyph. No such hieroglyph can be proved as belonging to the "young G.o.d". The figures, which are supposed to have a "youthful appearance" in the Madrid ma.n.u.script, often convey this impression merely in consequence of their smallness and of the pitiful, squatting att.i.tude in which they are represented. Furthermore real _children_ do occur here and there, thus, for example, in the Dresden ma.n.u.script 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d H is Chicchan, and the sign for this day is his distinguishing hieroglyph.

I. The Water-G.o.ddess.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 41]

In the Dresden ma.n.u.script 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 G.o.ddess 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 G.o.ddess 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-G.o.d.

The G.o.ddess is pictured in the manner described in the following places: Dr. 39b, 43b, 67a and 74. The figure corresponding to her in the Madrid ma.n.u.script, 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 ma.n.u.scripts doubtless originated in different ages and different areas of civilization, circ.u.mstances which readily explain such variations. The G.o.ddess distinguished in the Madrid ma.n.u.script by symbols of flood and water is doubtless the same as G.o.ddess I of the Dresden ma.n.u.script described above; her unmistakable character of water-G.o.ddess in both ma.n.u.scripts is in favor of this. In both ma.n.u.scripts 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 G.o.ddess cannot be proved with certainty. There is some probability in favor of the sign given in Fig.

41. The well-known oblong signs, which Forstemann (Drei Mayahieroglyphen, published in the Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie, 1901, pp. 215-221) interprets as the sign for evil days, frequently occur with her. This would be appropriate for the G.o.ddess of floods.

In the Dresden ma.n.u.script a few similar figures of women are found, who, like G.o.ddess 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 G.o.ddess I is doubtful, since there is no symbolic reference to water in these pa.s.sages. Besides, the hieroglyphs of other known deities occur each time in the above-mentioned places, so that definite mythologic relations must be a.s.sumed 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 G.o.ddess 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 Cortesia.n.u.s and in the Paris ma.n.u.script these forms are wholly lacking.

K. The G.o.d with the Ornamented Nose.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figs. 42-43]

This G.o.d, 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 ma.n.u.script. He is closely related to G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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). Forstemann (Drei Mayahieroglyphen, Zeitschrift fur 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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sage, 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 pa.s.sage already mentioned, which represents G.o.d K together with B, such double deities again occur in the Paris ma.n.u.script, 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 G.o.d K. In the Paris ma.n.u.script, 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 G.o.d B, as in the Dresden ma.n.u.script).

Brinton considers this figure simply as a special manifestation of B and identical with that G.o.d. Forstemann thinks that G.o.d 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 ma.n.u.script (Cort. 22-Tro. 36) a row, composed of repet.i.tions of his sign, occurs below the signs of the cardinal points and parallel to a row composed of signs of G.o.d C, the G.o.d of the polar star and the north. The hieroglyphs of C and K are the only hieroglyphs of G.o.ds, which are repeated 13 times on these pages with the 13 days enumerated there. The two G.o.ds 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 Forstemann, Muluc is the day dedicated to G.o.d K.

In the head of G.o.d 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 G.o.d K. The significance of G.o.d 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 a.s.sumed, since, as we know, the temple structures of Central America are always placed with reference _to the cardinal points_.

L. The Old, Black G.o.d.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 44]

G.o.d 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.

G.o.d 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 pa.s.sage) with a variation, namely without the Ymix-sign before the head. This deity does not occur in the Madrid and Paris ma.n.u.scripts.

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

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