Day Symbols of the Maya Year Part 7

THE TWENTIETH DAY

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

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

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

[Ill.u.s.tration: PL. LXIX Sh.e.l.l BEARING MAYA GLYPHS

This sh.e.l.l, on which are engraved seven Maya hieroglyphs, was found in Belize and courteously sent to the Bureau of American Ethnology by Sir Alfred Moloney, Governor of British Honduras. The sh.e.l.l is here figured for the purpose of placing it before students of Central American paleography[TN-3]]

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

For the Tzental word _aghual_, standing parallel with the Maya _ahau_, which doubtless corresponds to the abstract form _ahaual_ of the word _ahau_, is to be referred rather to a primitive form _avu_, _a'ku_, _ahu_, than to _ahau_. In the Tzental Pater Noster which Pimental gives, we find the phrase "to us come Thy kingdom (Thy dominion)" expressed by the words _aca taluc te aguajuale_.

The primitive meaning of _ahau_ is certainly "man," "lord," and the two roots of similar significance, _ah_ and _vu_ (see _uinic_, _vinak_, "man") seem to concur in this word.

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

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

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

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

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

FOOTNOTES:

[205-1] Study of the Ma.n.u.script Troano, pref., p. viii.

[205-2] American Anthropologist, Was.h.i.+ngton, July, 1893.

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

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

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

[209-1] Dr Brinton (Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics, p. 93) claims to have discovered that this. .h.i.therto supposed "vessel" is, in reality, "a drum."

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

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

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

[210-2] A Study of the Ma.n.u.script Troano, pp. 80 and 56.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[220-2] Names of the G.o.ds in Kiche Myths, p. 22.

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

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

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

[224-2] Dr Brinton (Primer, etc, p. 93) explains it as the symbol of a drum. He remarks that "in a more highly conventionalized form we find them in the Cod. Troano thus [giving plate LXIV, 51], which has been explained by Pousse, Thomas, and others as making fire or as grinding paint. It is obviously the _dzacatan_, what I have called the 'pottery decoration'

around the figures, showing that the body of the drum was earthenware."

Yet (p. 130 and fig. 75) Dr. Brinton explains this identical group or paragraph as a representation of the process of making fire from the friction of two pieces of wood. It seems to mo clear that this glyph represents something in the picture, and not the personage, as there is a special glyph for this. A comparison of the groups in the two divisions of this plate (Tro. 19) and plates 5 and 6 b of the Dresden Codex shows that the glyph refers to the work or action indicated by the pictures. That it refers to something in or indicated by the pictures, and that no drum is figured, will, I think, be admitted by most students of these codices.

[225-1] Dr Brinton (Primer, p. 117) errs in regarding the superfix to this glyph as the _kin_ or sun symbol.

[227-1] Dr Brinton (Primer, p. 110) says the object represented by this symbol is "a polished stone, sh.e.l.l pendant, or bead." This authority considers the dot or eye in the upper part as a perforation by which it was strung on a cord. If this be true, it is strange that we see them nowhere in the codices strung on strings, though necklaces are frequently represented; and that we do see them piled up in vessels, see them putting forth shoots and leaves, and see birds and quadrupeds devouring thorn. Dr Brinton himself (p. 123, E. No. 29) gives one of these sprouting _kan_ symbols, which he says "is a picture of the maize plant from Cod. Tro., p.

29." That it is not used ikonomatically here is evident, as _kan_ in Maya is not a name for maize or grain of maize.

[232-1] First Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn., p. 386.

[232-2] Dr Brinton (Primer, p. 65) says: "Former students have been unable to explain this design" and suggests that it is a maggot.

[232-3] Brinton follows Bra.s.seur in supposing it represents the "grasping hand," and thinks it is a rebus of _mach_, "asir, tomar con los manos."

[236-1] Page 66.

[237-1] Notwithstanding his definition given above, Dr Brinton suggests in his late work that the symbols of the day bear a close resemblance to some of the sun signs.

[238-1] For explanation of the inclosed comb-like characters, Landa's _ca_, see Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, page 355.

[239-1] Brinton thinks that in some of the forms it indicates "a trail" or "footprints," which are meanings of _oc_.