{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_18013/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_18013","id":"gutenberg_18013","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18013","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Manuscripts, Maya","Mayas -- Antiquities","Mythology","Paganism"],"text":"E-text prepared by Julia Miller and the Project Gutenberg Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team (https://www.pgdp.net/)\n\n\n\nNote: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this\n      file which includes the original illustrations.\n      See 18013-h.htm or 18013-h.zip:\n      (https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/8/0/1/18013/18013-h/18013-h.htm)\n      or\n      (https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/8/0/1/18013/18013-h.zip)\n\n\nTranscriber's Note:\n\n      A number of typographical errors have been maintained in\n      this version of this book. A complete list is found at\n      the end of the text.\n\n\n\n\n\nPapers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology,\nHarvard University\nVol. IV.--No. 1\n\nREPRESENTATION OF DEITIES OF THE MAYA MANUSCRIPTS\n\nby\n\nDR. PAUL SCHELLHAS\n\nSecond Edition, Revised\nWith 1 Plate of Figures and 65 Text Illustrations\n\nTranslated by Miss Selma Wesselhoeft and Miss A. M. Parker\n\nTranslation revised by the Author\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCambridge, Mass.\nPublished by the Museum\nDecember, 1904.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE.\n\n\nIn order to make more widely known and more easily accessible to American\nstudents the results of important researches on the Maya hieroglyphs,\nprinted in the German language, the Peabody Museum Committee on Central\nAmerican Research proposes to publish translations of certain papers\nwhich are not too lengthy or too extensively illustrated. The present\npaper by one of the most distinguished scholars in this field is the\nfirst of the series.\n\n                                         F. W. PUTNAM.\nHarvard University\n           September, 1904.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nSince the first edition of this pamphlet appeared in the year 1897,\ninvestigation in this department of science has made such marked\nprogress, notwithstanding the slight amount of material, that a revision\nhas now become desirable. It can be readily understood, that a new\nscience, an investigation on virgin soil, such as the Maya study is,\nmakes more rapid progress and develops more quickly than one pertaining\nto some old, much explored territory.\n\nIn addition to numerous separate treatises, special mention should be\nmade of Ernst Foerstemann's commentaries on the three Maya manuscripts\n(Kommentar zur Mayahandschrift der Koeniglichen oeffentlichen Bibliothek zu\nDresden, Dresden 1901, Kommentar zur Madrider Mayahandschrift, Danzig\n1902, and Kommentar zur Pariser Mayahandschrift, Danzig 1903) which\nconstitute a summary of the entire results of investigation in this field\nup to the present time.\n\nThe proposal made in the first edition of this pamphlet, that the Maya\ndeities be designated by letters of the alphabet, has been very generally\nadopted by Americanists, especially by those in the United States of\nAmerica. This circumstance, in particular, has seemed to make it\ndesirable to prepare for publication a new edition, improved to accord\nwith the present state of the science.\n\nWarmest thanks are above all due to Mr. Bowditch, of Boston, who in the\nmost disinterested manner, for the good of science, has made possible the\npublication of this new edition.\n\nJanuary, 1904.                             P. SCHELLHAS.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE MATERIAL OF THE MANUSCRIPTS.\n\n\nThe three manuscripts which we possess of the ancient Maya peoples of\nCentral America, the Dresden (Dr.), the Madrid (Tro.-Cort.) and the Paris\n(Per.) manuscripts, all contain a series of pictorial representations of\nhuman figures, which, beyond question, should be regarded as figures of\ngods. Together with these are a number of animal figures, some with human\nbodies, dress and armor, which likewise have a mythologic significance.\n\nThe contents of the three manuscripts, which undoubtedly pertain to the\ncalendar system and to the computation of time in their relation to the\nMaya pantheon and to certain religious and domestic functions, admit of\nthe conclusion, that these figures of gods embody the essential part of\nthe religious conceptions of the Maya peoples in a tolerably complete\nform. For here we have the entire ritual year, the whole chronology with\nits mythological relations and all accessories. In addition to this,\nessentially the same figures recur in all three manuscripts. Their number\nis not especially large. There are about fifteen figures of gods in human\nform and about half as many in animal form. At first we were inclined to\nbelieve that further researches would considerably increase the number of\ndeities, but this assumption was incorrect. After years of study of the\nsubject and repeated examination of the results of research, it may be\nregarded as positively proved, that the number of deities represented in\nthe Maya manuscripts does not exceed substantially the limits mentioned\nabove. The principal deities are determined beyond question.\n\nThe way in which this was accomplished is strikingly simple. It amounts\nessentially to that which in ordinary life we call \"memory of persons\" and\nfollows almost naturally from a careful study of the manuscripts. For, by\nfrequently looking attentively at the representations, one learns by\ndegrees to recognize promptly similar and familiar figures of gods, by\nthe characteristic impression they make as a whole, or by certain details,\neven when the pictures are partly obliterated or exhibit variations, and\nthe same is true of the accompanying hieroglyphs. A purely inductive,\nnatural science-method has thus been followed, and hence this pamphlet is\ndevoted simply to descriptions and to the amassing of material. These\nfigures have been taken separately out of the manuscripts alone,\nidentified and described with the studious avoidance of all unreliable,\nmisleading accounts and of all presumptive analogies with supposedly\nallied mythologies.\n\nWhatever cannot be derived from the manuscripts themselves has been wholly\nignored. Hypotheses and deductions have been avoided as far as possible.\nOnly where the interpretation, or the resemblance and the relations to\nkindred mythologic domains were obvious, and where the accounts agreed\nbeyond question, has notice been taken of the fact so that the imposed\nlimitations of this work should not result in one-sidedness.\n\nSince, for the most part, the accounts of Spanish authors regarding the\nmythology of the Mayas correspond only slightly or not at all with these\nfigures of gods, and all other conjectures respecting their significance\nare very dubious, the alphabetic designation of the deities, which was\ntentatively introduced in the first edition of this work, has been\npreserved. This designation has proved to be practical. For the plate at\nthe end of this pamphlet, examples as characteristic as possible of the\nindividual figures of gods have been selected from the manuscripts.\n\nIt is a well known fact that we possess no definite knowledge either of\nthe time of the composition or of the local origin of the Maya\nmanuscripts. The objection might, therefore, be raised that it is a\nhazardous proceeding to treat the material derived from these three\nmanuscripts in common, as if it were homogeneous. But these researches\nthemselves have proved beyond a doubt, that the mythologic import of the\nmanuscripts belongs to one and the same sphere of thought. Essentially\nthe same deities and the same mythologic ideas are, without question, to\nbe found in all the manuscripts.\n\nThe material of the inscriptions has been set entirely at one side,\nbecause the style of representation contained in them, both of the\nmythologic forms and of the hieroglyphs, renders comparison exceedingly\ndifficult. In this field especial credit is due to Foerstemann and Seler,\nfor the work they have done in furtherance of interpretation, and mention\nshould not be omitted of the generosity with which the well known\npromoter of Americanist investigations, the Duke of Loubat, has presented\nto the Berlin Museum of Ethnology costly originals of reliefs and\ninscriptions for direct study. The representations on the reliefs from\nthe Maya region, it is true, give evidence of dealing with kindred\nmythologic conceptions. Figures and hieroglyphs of gods, made familiar by\nthe manuscripts, can also be found here and there. But on the whole so\nlittle appears in support of instituting a comparison with the\nmanuscripts, that it seems expedient to leave the inscriptions for\nindependent and special study.\n\n\n\n\nI. REPRESENTATIONS OF GODS.\n\n\nA. The Death-God.\n\n[Illustration: Figs. 1-6]\n\nGod A is represented as a figure with an exposed, bony spine, truncated\nnose and grinning teeth.[10-1] It is plainly to be seen that the head of\nthis god represents a skull and that the spine is that of a skeleton. The\npictures of the death-god are so characteristic in the Maya manuscripts\nthat the deity is always easily recognized. He is almost always\ndistinguished by the skeleton face and the bony spine. Several times in\nthe Dresden manuscript the death-god is pictured with large black spots\non his body and in Dr. 19b a woman with closed eyes, whose body also\ndisplays the black spots, is sitting opposite the god. While the Aztecs\nhad a male and a female death-deity, in the Maya manuscripts we find the\ndeath-deity only once represented as feminine, namely on p. 9c of the\nDresden manuscript. Moreover the Dresden manuscript contains several\ndifferent types of the death-god, having invariably the fleshless skull\nand (with the exception of Dr. 9c) the visible vertebrae of the spine.\nSeveral times (Dr. 12b and 13b) he is represented apparently with\ndistended abdomen. A distinguishing article of his costume is the stiff\nfeather collar, which is worn only by this god, his companion, the\nwar-god F, and by his animal symbol, the owl, which will both be\ndiscussed farther on. His head ornament varies in the Dresden Codex; in\nthe first portion of the manuscript, relating in part to pregnancy and\nchild-birth (see the pictures of women on p. 16, et seq.), he wears on\nhis head several times a figure occurring very frequently just in this\npart of the Dresden Codex and apparently representing a snail (compare\nDr. 12b and 13b), which among the Aztecs is likewise a symbol of\nparturition. In view of these variations in the pictures of the Dresden\nCodex, it is very striking that in the Codex Tro.-Cortesianus, there is\nonly one invariable type of the death-god.\n\n    [10-1] See Plate for representations of the gods, A-P\n\nA distinguishing ornament of the death-god consists of globular bells or\nrattles, which he wears on his hands and feet, on his collar and as a\nhead ornament. As can be distinctly seen in Dr. 11a, they are fastened\nwith bands wound around the forearm and around the leg; in Dr. 15c these\nbells are black.\n\nAmong the symbols of the death-god a cross of two bones should be\nmentioned, which is also found in the Mexican manuscripts. This cross of\nbones seems to occur once among the written characters as a hieroglyph\nand then in combination with a number: Tro. 10.* The figure [Death-god\nsymbol] is also a frequent symbol of the death-god. Its significance is\nstill uncertain, but it also occurs among the hieroglyphs as a death-sign\nand as a sign for the day Cimi (death).\n\nThe hieroglyphs of the death-god have been positively determined (see\nFigs. 1 to 4). Figs. 1 and 2 are the forms of the Dresden manuscript and\nFigs. 3 and 4 are those of the Madrid manuscript. God A is almost always\ndistinguished by two hieroglyphs, namely Figs. 1 and 2 or 3 and 4.\nMoreover the hieroglyphs are always the same, have scarcely any variants.\nEven in Dr. 9c, where the deity is represented as feminine, there are no\nvariations which might denote the change of sex. The hieroglyphs consist\nchiefly of the head of a corpse with closed eyes, and of a skull. The\ndesign in front of the skull in Figs. 2 and 4 and under it in Fig. 3 is a\nsacrificial knife of flint, which was used in slaying the sacrifices, and\nis also frequently pictured in the Aztec manuscripts. The dots under Fig.\n1 are probably intended to represent blood.\n\nThe death-god is represented with extraordinary frequency in all the Maya\nmanuscripts. Not only does the figure of the god itself occur, but his\nattributes are found in many places where his picture is missing. Death\nevidently had an important significance in the mythologic conceptions of\nthe Mayas. It is connected with sacrifice, especially with human\nsacrifices performed in connection with the captive enemy. Just as we find\na personification of death in the manuscripts of the Mayas, we also find\nit in the picture-writings of the ancient Mexicans, often surprisingly\nlike the pictures of the Maya codices. The Aztec death-god and his myth\nare known through the accounts of Spanish writers; regarding the death-god\nof the Mayas we have less accurate information. Some mention occurs in\nLanda's Relacion de las cosas de Yucatan, Sec. XXIII, but unfortunately\nnothing is said of the manner of representing the death-god. He seems to\nbe related to the Aztec Mictlantecutli, of whom Sahagun, Appendix to Book\nIII, \"De los que iban al infierno y de sus obsequias,\" treats as the god\nof the dead and of the underworld, Mictlan. When the representations of\nthe latter, for example in the Codex Borgia, and in the Codex Vaticanus\nNo. 3773, are compared with those of the Maya manuscripts, there can be\nhardly a doubt of the correspondence of the two god figures. In the Codex\nBorgia, p. 37, he is represented once with the same characteristic head\nornament, which the death-god usually wears in the Maya manuscripts, and\nin the Codex Fejervary, p. 8, the death-god wears a kind of breeches on\nwhich cross-bones are depicted, exactly as in Dr. 9 (bottom).\n\nBishop Landa informs us that the Mayas \"had great and immoderate dread of\ndeath.\" This explains the frequency of the representations of the\ndeath-god, from whom, as Landa states, \"all evil and especially death\"\nemanated. Among the Aztecs we find a male and a female death-deity,\nMictlantecutli and Mictlancihuatl. They were the rulers of the realm of\nthe dead, Mictlan, which, according to the Aztec conception, lay in the\nnorth; hence the death-god was at the same time the god of the north.\n\nIt agrees with the calendric and astronomic character of the Maya deities\nin the manuscripts, that a number of the figures of the gods are used in\nconnection with specified cardinal points. Since, according to the Aztec\nconception, the death-god was the god of the north, we might expect that\nin the Maya manuscripts also, the death-god would be always considered\nas the deity of the north. Nevertheless this happens only _once_, namely\nin the picture at the end of Codex Cort., pp. 41 and 42. Elsewhere, on\nthe other hand, this god is connected with other cardinal points, thus\nDr. 14a with the west or east (the hieroglyph is illegible, but it can\nbe only west or east), and in Dr. 27c with the west. It is interesting\nto note that once, however, in a series of cardinal points, the\nhieroglyph of the death-god connected with the numeral 10 stands just in\nthe place of the sign of the north; this is on Tro. 24* (bottom).\n\nIn regard to the name of the death-god in the Maya language, Landa tells\nus that the wicked after death were banished to an underworld, the name\nof which was \"Mitnal\", a word which is defined as \"Hell\" in the Maya\nlexicon of Pio Perez and which has a striking resemblance to Mictlan, the\nAztec name for the lower regions. The death-god Hunhau reigned in this\nunderworld. According to other accounts (Hernandez), however, the\ndeath-god is called Ahpuch. These names can in no wise serve as aids to\nthe explanation of the hieroglyphs of the death-god, since they have no\netymologic connection with death or the heads of corpses and skulls,\nwhich form the main parts of the hieroglyph. Furthermore, the hieroglyphs\nof the gods certainly have a purely ideographic significance as already\nmentioned above, so that any relation between the names of the deities\nand their hieroglyphs cannot exist from the very nature of the case.\n\nThe day of the death-god is the day Cimi, death. The day-sign Cimi\ncorresponds almost perfectly with the heads of corpses contained in the\nhieroglyphs of the death-god.\n\nA hieroglyphic sign, which relates to death and the death-deity and\noccurs very frequently, is the sign Fig. 5, which is probably to be\nregarded as the ideogram of the owl. It represents the head of an owl,\nwhile the figure in front of it signifies the owl's ear and the one\nbelow, its teeth, as distinguishing marks of a bird of prey furnished\nwith ears and a powerful beak. The head of the owl appears on a human\nbody several times in the Dresden manuscript as a substitute for the\ndeath-deity, thus Dr. 18c, 19c, 20a and 20c and in other places, and\nthe hieroglyphic group (Fig. 5) is almost a regular attendant hieroglyph\nof the death-god.\n\nA series of other figures of the Maya mythology is connected with the\ndeath-god. This is evident from the fact that his hieroglyphs or his\nsymbols occur with certain other figures, which are thus brought into\nconnection with death and the death-deity.\n\nThese figures are as follows:\n\n1. His companion, god F, the god of war, of human sacrifice and of\nviolent death in battle, apparently a counterpart of the Aztec Xipe, who\nwill be discussed farther on.\n\n2. The moan bird. See beyond under Mythological Animals, No. 1.\n\n3. The dog. See the same, No. 3.\n\n4. A human figure, possibly representing the priest of the death-god (see\nDr. 28, centre, Dr. 5b and 9a). The last figure is a little doubtful.\nIt is blindfolded and thus recalls the Aztec deity of frost and sin,\nItztlacoliuhqui. A similar form with eyes bound occurs only once again in\nthe Maya manuscripts, namely Dr. 50 (centre). That this figure is related\nto the death-god is proved by the fact that on Dr. 9a it wears the\nCimi-sign on the middle piece of the chain around its neck. Furthermore\nit should be emphasized that the Aztec sin-god, Itztlacoliuhqui, likewise\nappears with symbols of death.\n\n5. An isolated figure, Dr. 50a (the sitting figure at the right). This\nwears the skull as head ornament, which is represented in exactly the\nsame way as in the Aztec manuscripts (see Fig. 6).\n\n6. Another isolated figure is twice represented combined with the\ndeath-god in Dr. 22c. This picture is so effaced that it is impossible\nto tell what it means. The hieroglyph represents a variant of the\ndeath's-head, Cimi. It seems to signify an ape, which also in the\npictures of the Mexican codices was sometimes used in relation to the\ndeath-god.\n\nThe symbols of the death-god are also found with the figure without a\nhead on Dr. 2 (45)a, clearly the picture of a beheaded prisoner. Death\nsymbols occur, too, with the curious picture of a hanged woman on Dr.\n53b, a picture which is interesting from the fact that it recalls\nvividly a communication of Bishop Landa. Landa tells us, the Mayas\nbelieved that whoever hanged himself did not go to the underworld, but to\n\"paradise,\" and as a result of this belief, suicide by hanging was very\ncommon and was chosen on the slightest pretext. Such suicides were\nreceived in paradise by the goddess of the hanged, Ixtab. Ix is the\nfeminine prefix; tab, taab, tabil mean, according to Perez' Lexicon of\nthe Maya Language, \"cuerda destinada para algun uso exclusivo\". The name\nof this strange goddess is, therefore, the \"Goddess of the Halter\" or, as\nLanda says, \"The Goddess of the Gallows\". Now compare Dr. 53. On the\nupper half of the page is the death-god represented with hand raised\nthreateningly, on the lower half is seen the form of a woman suspended by\na rope placed around her neck. The closed eye, the open mouth and the\nconvulsively outspread fingers, show that she is dead, in fact,\nstrangled. It is, in all probability, the goddess of the gallows and\nhalter, Ixtab, the patroness of the hanged, who is pictured here in\ncompany with the death-god; or else it is a victim of this goddess, and\npage 53 of the manuscript very probably refers, therefore (even though\nthe two halves do not belong directly together), to the mythologic\nconceptions of death and the lower regions to which Landa alludes.\n\n7. Lastly the owl is to be mentioned as belonging to the death-god,\nwhich, strange to say, is represented nowhere in the pictures\nrealistically and so that it can be recognized, although other mythologic\nanimals, as the dog or the moan bird, occur plainly as animals in the\npictures. On the other hand, the owl's head appears on a human body in\nthe Dresden manuscript as a substitute for the death-deity itself, for\nexample on Dr. 18c, 19c, 20a and 20c and elsewhere, and forms a\nregular attendant hieroglyph of the death-god in the group of three signs\nalready mentioned (Fig. 5).\n\nAmong the antiquities from the Maya region of Central America, there are\nmany objects and representations, which have reference to the cultus of\nthe death-god, and show resemblances to the pictures of the manuscripts.\nThe death-god also plays a role, even today, in the popular superstitions\nof the natives of Yucatan, as a kind of spectre that prowls around the\nhouses of the sick. His name is Yum Cimil, the lord of death.\n\n\nB. The God With the Large Nose and Lolling Tongue.\n\n[Illustration: Figs. 7-10]\n\nThe deity, represented most frequently in all the manuscripts, is a\nfigure with a long, proboscis-like, pendent nose and a tongue (or teeth,\nfangs) hanging out in front and at the sides of the mouth, also with a\ncharacteristic head ornament resembling a knotted bow and with a peculiar\nrim to the eye. Fig. 7 is the hieroglyph of this deity. In Codex\nTro.-Cortesianus it usually has the form of Fig. 8.\n\nGod B is evidently one of the most important of the Maya pantheon. He\nmust be a universal deity, to whom the most varied elements, natural\nphenomena and activities are subject. He is represented with different\nattributes and symbols of power, with torches in his hands as symbols of\nfire, sitting in the water and on the water, standing in the rain, riding\nin a canoe, enthroned on the clouds of heaven and on the cross-shaped\ntree of the four points of the compass, which, on account of its likeness\nto the Christian emblem, has many times been the subject of fantastic\nhypotheses. We see the god again on the Cab-sign, the symbol of the\nearth, with weapons, axe and spears, in his hands, planting kernels of\nmaize, on a journey (Dr. 65b) staff in hand and a bundle on his back,\nand fettered (Dr. 37a) with arms bound behind his back. His entire myth\nseems to be recorded in the manuscripts. The great abundance of symbolism\nrenders difficult the characterization of the deity, and it is well-nigh\nimpossible to discover that a single mythologic idea underlies the whole.\nGod B is quite often connected with the serpent, without exhibiting\naffinity with the Chicchan-god H (see p. 28). In Dr. 33b, 34b and 35b,\nthe serpent is in the act of devouring him, or he is rising up out of the\nserpent's jaws, as is plainly indicated also by the hieroglyphs, for they\ncontain the group given in Fig. 10, which is composed of the rattle of\nthe rattlesnake and the opened hand as a symbol of seizing and\nabsorption. God B himself is pictured with the body of a serpent in Dr.\n35b and 36a (compare No. 2 of the Mythological Animals). He likewise\noccurs sitting on the serpent and in Dr. 66a he is twice (1st and 3d\nfigures) pictured with a snake in his hand.\n\nGod B sits on the moan head in Dr. 38c, on a head with the Cauac-sign in\nDr. 39c, 66c, and on the dog in Dr. 29a. All these pictures are meant\nto typify his abode in the air, above rain, storm and death-bringing\nclouds, from which the lightning falls. The object with the cross-bones\nof the death-god, on which he sits in Dr. 66c, can perhaps be explained\nin the same manner. As the fish belongs to god B in a symbolic sense, so\nthe god is represented fishing in Dr. 44 (1). His face with the large\nnose and the tongue (or fangs) hanging out on the side in Dr. 44 (1)a\n(1st figure) is supposed to be a mask which the priest, representing the\ngod, assumes during the religious ceremony.\n\nFurthermore the following four well-known symbols of sacrificial gifts\nappear in connection with god B in the Dresden manuscript; a sprouting\nkernel of maize (or, according to Foerstemann, parts of a mammal, game), a\nfish, a lizard and a vulture's head, as symbols of the four elements.\nThey seem to occur, however, in relation also to other deities and\nevidently are general symbols of sacrificial gifts. Thus they occur on\nthe two companion initial pages of the Codex Tro.-Cortesianus, on which\nthe hieroglyphs of gods C and K are repeated in rows (Tro. 36-Cort. 22.\nCompare Foerstemann, Kommentar zur Madrider Handschrift, pp. 102, 103).\nGod B is also connected with the four colors--yellow, red, white and\nblack--which, according to the conception of the Mayas, correspond to the\ncardinal points (yellow, air; red, fire; white, water; black, earth) and\nthe god himself is occasionally represented with a black body, for\nexample on Dr. 29c, 31c and 69. This is expressed in the hieroglyphs by\nthe sign, Fig. 9, which signifies black and is one of the four signs of\nthe symbolic colors for the cardinal points.\n\nGod B is represented with all the _four cardinal points_, a\ncharacteristic, which he shares only with god C, god K, and, in one\ninstance, with god F (see Tro. 29*c); he appears as ruler of all the\npoints of the compass; north, south, east and west as well as air, fire,\nwater and earth are subject to him.\n\nOpinions concerning the significance of this deity are much divided. It\nis most probable that he is Kukulcan, a figure occurring repeatedly in\nthe mythology of the Central American peoples and whose name, like that\nof the kindred deity Quetzalcoatl among the Aztecs and Gucumatz among the\nQuiches, means the \"feathered serpent\", \"the bird serpent\". Kukulcan and\nGucumatz are those figures of Central American mythology, to which belong\nthe legends of the creation of the world and of mankind. Furthermore\nKukulcan is considered as the founder of civilization, as the builder of\ncities, as hero-god, and appears in another conception as the rain-deity,\nand--since the serpent has a mythologic relation to water--as serpent\ndeity. J. Walter Fewkes, who has made this god-figure of the Maya\nmanuscripts the subject of a monograph (A Study of Certain Figures in a\nMaya Codex, in American Anthropologist, Vol. VII, No. 3, Washington,\n1894), also inclines to the belief that B is the god Kukulcan, whom he\nconceives of as a serpent-and rain-deity. This view has been accepted by\nFoerstemann (Die Tagegoetter der Mayas, Globus, Vol. 73, No. 10) and also\nby Cyrus Thomas (Aids to the Study of the Maya Codices, Washington,\n1888). The same opinion is held also by E. P. Dieseldorff, who, a\nresident of Guatemala, the region of the ancient Maya civilization, has\ninstituted excavations which have been successful in furnishing most\nsatisfactory material for these researches (see Dieseldorff: Kukulcan,\nZeitschrift fuer Ethnologie, 1895, p. 780). Others have considered god B\nas the first parent and lord of the heavens, Itzamna who has a mythologic\nimportance analogous to that of Kukulcan. Itzamna is also held to be the\ngod of creation and founder of civilization and accordingly seems to be\nnot very remotely allied to the god Kukulcan. Others again, for example\nBrasseur de Bourbourg and Seler, have interpreted the figure of god B to\nrepresent the fourfold god of the cardinal points and rain-god Chac, a\ncounterpart of the Aztec rain-god Tlaloc. The fact that this god-figure\nis so frequently connected with the serpent and the bird is strongly in\nfavor of the correctness of the supposition, that we should see in god B\na figure corresponding to the Kukulcan of tradition. Thus we see the god\nrepresented once with the body of a serpent and with a bird near by\n(Cort. 10b), while B's hieroglyph appears both times in the text. God B\nis also pictured elsewhere repeatedly with a serpent body, thus for\nexample on Dr. 35b, 36a. On pages 4-6 of the Codex Cortesianus he is\npictured six times and each time in connection with a serpent.\n\nThe accounts we have received concerning the mythology of the Maya\npeoples are very meagre and owing to the uncertainty respecting the\norigin of the Maya manuscripts, it cannot even be determined which of\nthese accounts are applicable to the Maya manuscripts, or, indeed,\nwhether they are applicable at all. For it is by no means positively\nproved that these manuscripts did not originate in regions of Maya\nculture, regarding which we have received no accounts at all. As our\npresent purpose is purely that of description and determination, it\nremains quite unimportant which of these recorded figures of gods shall\nbe regarded as god B.\n\nGod B is nearly allied to, but in no wise identical with, the deity with\nthe large ornamented nose, designated by K, who will be discussed farther\non. God K is an independent deity designated by a special hieroglyph, but\nlike C he stands in an unknown relation to God B (for details see K).\n\nFinally it should be mentioned, that god B never appears with death\nsymbols. He is clearly a deity of life and creation, in contrast to the\npowers of death and destruction.\n\nHis day seems to be Ik (aspiration, breath, life). (Compare Foerstemann,\nDie Tagegoetter der Mayas, Globus, Vol. 73, No. 10).\n\n\nC. The God with the Ornamented Face.\n\n[Illustration: Figs. 11-16]\n\nThis is one of the most remarkable and most difficult figures of the Maya\nmanuscripts, and shows, at the same time, how imperfect must be the\ninformation we have received in regard to the Maya mythology, since from\nthe frequency of his representations he is obviously one of the most\nimportant deities and yet can be identified with none of the\nrepresentations of gods handed down to us. His hieroglyph is definitely\ndetermined (Figs. 11, 12). The circular design in front of the forehead\nof the hieroglyph head seems, as a variant from the Codex Tro. (Fig. 12)\nleads us to suppose, to denote the ideographic representation of pouring\nout or emptying a vessel, the contents of which flow into the mouth of\nthe god. Another variant of this prefix occurs in Tro. 13*b; Fig. 15,\nthe symbol of the sacrificial knife, and instead of the prefix the\nnumeral 13 occurs in one instance! (Tro. 12*c). The head alone, without\nany accessory symbol whatever, is also found a few times, not in the\ntext, however, but only in the pictures, for example Cort. 10 (bottom)\nand Tro. 13* (bottom). This deity does not occur very often in the\nDresden manuscript, the places where it is depicted are: Dr. 5a, 6c,\n13b, 35a, 68a, and as a subordinate figure on 8c, 42a. His\nhieroglyph occurs alone a few times, as in Dr. 4; it is more frequent in\nthe Madrid manuscript. It appears on pp. 15 to 18 of the Paris\nmanuscript.\n\nIn regard to the significance of this deity, he doubtless represents the\npersonification of a heavenly body of astronomic importance, probably the\npolar star. In Codex Cort. 10 (bottom), his head is represented\nsurrounded by a nimbus of rays, which can only mean a star (see Fig. 13).\nOn the lower part of the same page, the third picture from the left, we\nagain see the deity hanging from the sky in a kind of rope. Furthermore\nit appears in Codex Tro. 20, 22 and 23 (centre) Fig. 14, in the familiar\nrectangular planet signs. Tro. 17* (at the top) the head surmounts the\ncross-shaped tree of god B, which denotes the lofty, celestial abode.\nIndeed, these passages prove positively that a heavenly body underlies\nthe idea of this deity.\n\nFurthermore, the head of this god recurs in entire rows in the calendric\ngroup of tabular form on the so-called initial page of the Codex Tro. 36,\nwith its continuation in the Cort. p. 22, and in exactly the same manner\nin the allied passage of Tro. 14 (middle and bottom). In addition, his\nhead is contained in the symbol for the north (Fig. 16); the head\ncontained in this sign is in fact nothing else than the head of god C.\n\nBrinton also accepts this interpretation of god C. According to\nFoerstemann (Die Mayahieroglyphen, Globus, Vol. 71, No. 5), the fact that\nthe figure of god C in the Tonalamatl in Dr. 4a-10a occurs on the day\nChuen of the Maya calendar, which corresponds to the day Ozomatli, the\nape, in the Aztec calendar, seems to indicate that the singular head of C\nis that of an _ape_, whose lateral nasal cavity (peculiar to the American\nape or monkey) is occasionally represented plainly in the hieroglyph\npicture. Hence it might further be assumed that god C symbolizes not the\npolar star alone, but rather the entire _constellation of the Little\nBear_. And, in fact, the figure of a long-tailed ape is quite appropriate\nto the constellation, at any rate decidedly more so than the Bear;\nindeed, it suggests the prehensile tail by means of which the ape could\nattach himself to the pole and in the form of the constellation swing\naround the pole as around a fixed point.\n\nThese astronomical surmises seem to be contradicted by the fact that god\nC, as already stated, is represented with all the four cardinal points\n(compare for example Cort. 10 and 11, bottom), which would certainly seem\nto harmonize ill with his personification of the north star, unless we\nassume, that in a different conception of the polar star he is ruler of\nthe cardinal points, which are determined from him as a centre.\n\nIt has already been remarked of B, that the deity C appears to stand in\nsome sort of relation to him. In fact, we find on those pages of the\nDresden manuscript, where B is represented with the four cardinal points,\nthat the hieroglyph of C almost always occurs in the text also (for\nexample Dr. 29, et seq., especially Dr. 32c). Indeed, C's hieroglyph is\nconnected even with the signs of the symbolic colors of the cardinal\npoints, already mentioned in connection with B.\n\nFinally, it should be borne in mind, that god C also seems to be\nconnected in some way with the serpent (compare Dr. 36b, 1st and 3d\npictures).\n\nAccording to Foerstemann, the day ruled by C seems to be Chuen.\n\n\nD. The Moon- and Night-God.\n\n[Illustration: Figs. 17-20]\n\nThis is a deity who is pictured in the form of an old man with an aged\nface and sunken, toothless mouth. He is frequently characterized by a\nlong, pendent head ornament, in which is the sign Akbal, darkness, night,\nwhich also appears in his hieroglyph before the forehead of the deity,\nsurrounded by dots as an indication of the starry sky. His name-hieroglyph\nis Fig. 17, and a second sign almost always follows (Fig. 18) which\nevidently serves likewise as a designation of the god, just as god A also\nis always designated by _two_ hieroglyphs. The second sign consists of\ntwo sacrificial knives and the sign of the day Ahau, which is equivalent\nto \"king\".\n\nThe head of this deity appears in reduced, cursive form as the sign of\nthe moon (Fig. 20). This character also has the significance of 20 as a\nnumber sign in the calendar. The association of these ideas probably\nrests upon the ancient conceptions, according to which the moon\nappearing, waxing, waning and again disappearing, was compared to man,\nand man in primeval ages was the most primitive calculating machine,\nbeing equivalent, from the sum of his fingers and toes, to the number 20.\nTwenty days is also the duration of that period during which the moon\n(aside from the new moon) is really _alive_. Moreover the sign (Fig. 20)\nappears in many places as a counterpart of the sign for the sun.\n\nGod D occurs once as feminine in the same passage mentioned above, in\nwhich the death-deity is also pictured as feminine (Dr. 9c). In a few\nother places the god is, curiously enough, depicted with a short beard,\nas Dr. 4c, 7a, 27b. He seems to stand in an unknown relation to the\nwater-goddess I (see this deity) with the serpent as a head ornament,\ncompare Dr. 9c, where apparently this goddess is represented, though the\ntext has D's sign; still it is possible that god D is pictured here with\nthe attributes of goddess I.\n\nGod D is not connected with the grim powers of destruction; he never\nappears with death symbols. In Dr. 5c and 9a he wears the snail on his\nhead. He seems, therefore, like god A to be connected with birth. In Dr.\n8c he is connected with god C, and this is quite appropriate, if we look\nupon these gods as heavenly bodies. The aged face, the sunken, toothless\nmouth are his distinguishing marks. In the Madrid manuscript, where god D\noccurs with special frequency, his chief characteristic, by which he is\nalways easily recognized, is the single tooth in his under-jaw (see Fig.\n19), compare too Dr. 8c, where the solitary tooth is also to be seen. In\nDr. 9a (1st figure) the god holds in his hand a kind of sprinkler with\nthe rattles of the rattlesnake, as Landa (Cap. 26) describes the god in\nconnection with the rite of infant baptism (see also Cort. 26, Tro. 7*a\nand 13*c)\n\nA very remarkable passage is Tro. 15*; there a figure is pictured carving\nwith a hatchet a head, which it holds in its hand. Above it are four\nhieroglyphs. The first shows a hatchet and the moon; the second probably\nrepresents simply a head, while the third and fourth are those of god D,\nthe moon-god. This passage, the meaning of which is unfortunately still\nobscure seems to contain a definite explanation of god D.\n\nJ. Walter Fewkes has made god D the subject of a special, very detailed\nmonograph (The God \"D\" in the Codex Cortesianus, Washington, 1895) in\nwhich he has treated also of gods B and G, whom he considers allied to D.\nHe believes D to be the god Itzamna, as do also Foerstemann, Cyrus Thomas\nand Seler, and sees sun-gods in all three of these deities. Whether god D\nis to be separated from G and B as an independent deity, Fewkes thinks is\ndoubtful. Brinton again holds that god D is Kukulcan. These different\nopinions show, at all events, on what uncertain grounds such attempts at\ninterpretation stand, and that it is best to be satisfied with\ndesignating the deities by letters and collecting material for their\npurely descriptive designation.\n\nAccording to Foerstemann the calendar day devoted to D is Ahau.\n\n\nE. The Maize-God.\n\n[Illustration: Figs. 21-27]\n\nThis god bears on his head the Kan-sign and above it the ear of maize\nwith leaves (Fig. 23); compare Dr. 9b (left figure), 11b, 12a, etc.\nThe hieroglyph is definitely determined (Fig. 21). The god is identical\nwith the figures recurring with especial frequency in the Madrid\nmanuscript, the heads of which are prolonged upward and curved backward\nin a peculiar manner; compare Cort. 15a, 20c, 40 (bottom), Tro. 32*b\n(Figs. 25-27) and especially the representation in Dr. 50a (Fig. 24),\nwhich is very distinct. This head was evolved out of the conventional\ndrawing of the ear of maize; compare the pictures of the maize plant in\nthe Codex Tro., p. 29b (Fig. 22) with the head ornament of the god in\nDr. 9b (Fig. 23), 9a, 12a; what was originally a head ornament finally\npassed into the form of the head itself, so that the latter appears now\nas an ear of maize surrounded by leaves. Compare the pictures, Figs.\n25-27. That these gods with elongated heads are, in point of fact,\nidentical with E is plainly seen from the passage in Dr. 2 (45)c (first\nfigure). There the figure represented, which is exactly like the pictures\nin the Madrid manuscript, is designated explicitly as god E by the third\nhieroglyph in the accompanying writing.\n\nThe hieroglyph of this deity is thus explained; it is the head of the god\nmerged into the conventionalized form of the ear of maize surrounded by\nleaves. When we remember that the Maya nations practised the custom of\nartificially deforming the skull, as is seen in particular on the reliefs\nat Palenque, we may also regard the heads of these deities as\nrepresentations of such artificially flattened skulls.\n\nGod E occurs frequently as the god of husbandry, especially in the Madrid\nmanuscript, which devotes much attention to agriculture. He seems to be a\ncounterpart of the Mexican maize-god Centeotl. The passages in the Madrid\nmanuscript (Tro. 29a and Cort. 39a, 40a) are very remarkable, where\nthe deity E is represented in the position of a woman in labor with\nnumerals on the abdomen; perhaps the underlying idea is that of\nfruitfulness.\n\nIn the Codex Cort., p. 40, this grain-deity is pictured with a tall and\nslender vessel before him, which he holds in his hands. It is possible\nthat this is meant to suggest a grain receptacle; to be sure, in the same\nplace, other figures of gods likewise have such vessels in their hands.\nAt any rate, it is interesting to note that in the passage already\nmentioned (Dr. 50a) god E also holds a similar tall and slender vessel\nin his hands.\n\nAccording to all appearances the scene pictured in Dr. 50a has reference\nto the conflict of the grain-god with a death-deity. The latter, the\nfigure sitting on the right, is characterized by a skull as a head\nornament (see Fig. 6) and seems to address threats or commands to god E,\nwho stands before him in the attitude of a terrified and cowed\nindividual.\n\nFurthermore god E has nothing to do with the powers of the underworld; he\nis a god of life, of prosperity and fruitfulness; symbols of death are\nnever found in connection with him. Brinton calls this god Ghanan,\nequivalent to Kan; it is possible, too, that he is identical with a deity\nYum Kaax who has been handed down to us and whose name means \"Lord of the\nharvest fields\".\n\nAccording to Foerstemann the day dedicated to this god is Kan.\n\n\nF. The God of War and of Human Sacrifices.\n\n[Illustration: Figs. 28-34]\n\nThis is a deity closely related to the death-god A, resembling the Aztec\nXipe, and may, I think, without hesitation be regarded simply as the god\nof human sacrifice, perhaps, even more generally, as the god of death by\nviolence. His hieroglyph is Figs. 28-30; it contains the number 11. A\nvariant of this occurs on Dr. 7b, where instead of the 11 there is the\nfollowing sign: [Hieroglyph]\n\nThe characteristic mark of god F is a single black line usually running\nperpendicularly down the face in the vicinity of the eye. This line\nshould be distinguished from the parallel lines of C's face and from the\nline, which, as a continuation of god E's head resembling an ear of\nmaize, frequently appears on his face, especially as in the variants of\nthe Madrid manuscript (compare Figs. 25-27). These pictures of E can\nalways be unfailingly recognized by the peculiar shape of the head and\nshould be distinguished from those representing F. The black face-line is\nthe distinguishing mark of god F, just as it is of the Aztec Xipe. It\nsometimes runs in a curve over the cheek as a thick, black stripe, as\nCort. 42. Sometimes it encircles the eye only (Dr. 6a) and again it is a\ndotted double line (Dr. 6b). The hieroglyph of god F likewise exhibits\nthis line and with the very same variants as the god himself. See the\nhieroglyphs of the god belonging to the pictures in Dr. 6a, 1st and 3d\nfigures, in which the line likewise differs from the other forms (Figs.\n30-34).\n\nIn a few places god F is pictured with the same black lines _on his\nentire body_, which elsewhere he has only on his face, the lines being\nlike those in Fig. 31, namely Tro. 27*c. Indeed, in Tro. 28*c, the\ndeath-god A likewise has these black lines on his body and also F's line\non his face; a clear proof of the close relationship of the two deities.\nThese lines probably signify gaping death-wounds and the accompanying\nrows of dots are intended to represent the blood.\n\nSince god F is a death-deity the familiar sign (Fig. 5), which occurs so\nfrequently with the hieroglyphs of A, also belongs to his symbols. F is\npictured in company with the death-god in connection with human sacrifice\n(Cort. 42); an exactly similar picture of the two gods of human sacrifice\nis given in Codex Tro. 30d; here, too, they sit opposite one another.\nThe identity of this attendant of death with the deity, designated by the\nhieroglyph with the numeral 11, is proved by the following passages:\nTro. 19, bottom (on the extreme right hand without picture, only\nhieroglyph, see Fig. 29), Dr. 5b, 6a, b, and c and many others. In\nsome of the passages cited (Dr. 5a and b) he is distinguished by an\nunusually large ear-peg. His hieroglyph occurs with the hieroglyph of the\ndeath-god in Dr. 6c, where he is himself not pictured.\n\nAs war-god, god F occurs combined with the death-god in the passages\nmentioned above (Tro. 27*-29*c), where he sets the houses on fire with\nhis torch and demolishes them with his spear.\n\nGod F occurs quite frequently in the manuscripts and must therefore be\nconsidered as one of the more important deities.\n\nAccording to Foerstemann his day is Manik, the seizing, grasping hand,\nsymbolizing the capturing of an enemy in war for sacrificial purposes.\n\nF's sign occurs once, as mentioned above, in fourfold repetition with all\nthe four cardinal points, namely in Tro. 29*c. In ancient Central\nAmerica the captured enemy was sacrificed and thus the conceptions of the\nwar-god and of the god of death by violence and by human sacrifice are\nunited in the figure of god F. In this character god F occurs several\ntimes in the Madrid manuscript in combat with M, the god of travelling\nmerchants (see page 35). Spanish writers do not mention a deity of the\nkind described here as belonging to the Maya pantheon.\n\n\nG. The Sun-God.\n\n[Illustration: Figs. 35-36]\n\nGod G's hieroglyph (Fig. 35) contains as its chief factor the sun-sign\nKin. It is one of the signs (of which there are about 12 in the\nmanuscripts), which has the Ben-ik prefix and doubtless denotes a month\ndedicated to the sun. There is, I think, no difference of opinion\nregarding the significance of this deity, although Fewkes, as already\nstated, is inclined to identify G with B, whom, it is true, the former\nresembles. It is surprising that a deity who from his nature must be\nconsidered as very important, is represented with such comparative\ninfrequency. He occurs only a few times in the Dresden manuscript, for\nexample 22b, 11c, and in the Codex Tro.-Cortesianus none can be found\namong the figures which could be safely regarded as the sun-god; in no\nmanuscript except the Dresden does a deity occur wearing the sun-sign Kin\non his body. But once in the Codex Cort. the figure of D appears with the\nsun-sign on his head, as pointed out by Fewkes in his article entitled\n\"The God 'D' in the Codex Cortesianus\". G's hieroglyph, to be sure, is\nfound repeatedly in the Madrid manuscript, for example Codex Tro. 31c.\n\nGod G seems to be not wholly without relation to the powers of death; the\nowl-sign (Fig. 5) occurs once in connection with him (Dr. 11c). Besides\nthe sun-sign Kin, which the god bears on his body, his representations\nare distinguished by a peculiar nose ornament (Fig. 36) which, as may be\nseen by comparison with other similar pictures in the Dresden manuscript,\nis nothing but a large and especially elaborate nose-peg. Similar\nornaments are rather common just here in the carefully drawn first part\nof the Dresden manuscript. Compare Dr. 22b (middle figure), 21 (centre),\n17b, 14a, b; occasionally they also have the shape of a flower, for\nexample 12b (centre), 11c (left), 19a. Lastly it is worthy of note,\nthat god G is sometimes represented with a snake-like tongue protruding\nfrom his mouth, as in Dr. 11b and c.\n\n\nH. The Chicchan-God.\n\n[Illustration: Figs. 37-40]\n\nThe figure of a deity of frequent occurrence in the Dresden manuscript is\na god, who is characterized by a skin-spot or a scale of a serpent on his\ntemple of the same shape as the hieroglyph of the day Chicchan (serpent).\nMoreover the representations of the god himself differ very much, so that\nthere are almost no other positive, unvarying characteristic marks to be\nspecified. His picture is plainly recognizable and has the Chicchan-mark\non the temple in Dr. 11a, 12b and 20b.\n\nThe hieroglyph belonging to this deity likewise displays the\nChicchan-sign as its distinguishing mark. Furthermore several variants\noccur. The Chicchan-sign has sometimes the form of Fig. 37 and again that\nof Fig. 38. The prefix likewise differs very much, having sometimes the\nform of Fig. 37, and again that of Fig. 38 or of Figs. 39 and 40. Thus\nthere are, in all, four different forms of the prefix. It is to be\nassumed that all these hieroglyphs have the same meaning, notwithstanding\ntheir variations. Taking into consideration the frequency of the\nvariations of other hieroglyphs of gods and of the hieroglyphs in the\nMaya manuscripts in general, it is quite improbable from the nature of\nthe case, that a hieroglyph, which displays so great an agreement in its\nessential and characteristic elements, should denote several different\ngods. The dissimilarity which Seler thinks he finds between the forms of\nthe Chicchan-sign in Figs. 37 and 38 and which leads him to assume that\nFig. 37 is not a Chicchan-sign at all, but that it denotes another face\nornament, cannot be satisfactorily proved, and must be regarded as an\narbitrary assumption. The Chicchan-mark in the sign of the day Chicchan\nalso differs very much from that on the bodies of the serpents pictured\nin the manuuscripts, so that variations of this kind by no means make it\nnecessary to assume that the hieroglyphs actually denote different\nthings. Observe, for example, the different Chicchan-spots on the\nserpent's body in Tro. 27a. The crenelated, black border of the\nChicchan-spot in Fig. 38 passes in rapid cursive drawing almost of itself\ninto the scallops of Fig. 37, a transition to which there are distinct\ntendencies on the serpent's body in Tro. 27a. Nor does the fact, that\nunder H's hieroglyph different personages are very often pictured, whom\nwe cannot positively identify, compel the assumption that we have here\nnot _one_, but two or more mythical figures, for the same is true of\nother hieroglyphs of gods. There are many places in the manuscripts where\nthe text contains a definite well-known hieroglyph of a god, while the\naccompanying picture represents some other deity or some other figure not\ndefinitely characterized, perhaps merely a human form (priest, warrior,\nwoman and the like). Thus in Dr. 4a we see H's hieroglyph in the text,\nbut the picture is the figure of god P while in other places we miss the\ncharacteristic Chicchan-spot on the figure represented, for example Dr.\n4c, 6a, 7b, 7c, 14a, 21c. In the Madrid manuscript, it is true, H's\nhieroglyph also occurs often enough, but _not in a single instance_ is a\ndeity represented displaying the Chicchan-spot. This fact is, I think, to\nbe explained by the coarser style of the drawing, which does not admit of\nrepresenting such fine details as in the Dresden manuscript. In the Paris\nmanuscript H's hieroglyph occurs but once (p. 8, bottom).\n\nSeler thinks he recognizes in some of the figures represented under H's\nhieroglyph in the manuscripts, a so-called \"young god\". Such a deity is\nunknown and the assumption is entirely arbitrary. Apparently this \"young\ngod\" is an invention of Brinton. The purely inductive and descriptive\nstudy of the manuscripts does not prove the existence of such a\npersonage, and we must decline to admit him as the result of deductive\nreasoning. In this so-called \"young god\", we miss, first of all, a\ncharacteristic mark, a distinct peculiarity such as belongs to all the\nfigures of gods in the manuscripts without exception and by which he\ncould be recognized. Except his so-called youthfulness, however, no such\ndefinite marks are to be found. Furthermore there is no figure of a god\nin the manuscripts which would not be designated by a definite\ncharacteristic hieroglyph. No such hieroglyph can be proved as belonging\nto the \"young god\". The figures, which are supposed to have a \"youthful\nappearance\" in the Madrid manuscript, often convey this impression merely\nin consequence of their smallness and of the pitiful, squatting attitude\nin which they are represented. Furthermore real _children_ do occur here\nand there, thus, for example, in the Dresden manuscript in connection\nwith the pictures of women in the first part and in Tro. 20*c in the\nrepresentation of the so-called \"infant baptism.\"\n\nThat god H has some relation to the serpent must be conjectured from what\nhas been said. Thus, for example, on Dr. 15b, we see his hieroglyph\nbelonging to the figure of a woman with the knotted serpent on her head,\nin Dr. 4a to the god P, who there bears a serpent in his hand, and in\nDr. 35b in connection with a serpent with B's head. What this relation\nis, cannot now be stated.\n\nThe day dedicated to god H is Chicchan, and the sign for this day is his\ndistinguishing hieroglyph.\n\n\nI. The Water-Goddess.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 41]\n\nIn the Dresden manuscript the figure of an old woman, with the body\nstained brown and claws in place of feet, occurs repeatedly. She wears on\nher head a knotted serpent and with her hands pours water from a vessel.\nEvidently we have here a personification of water in its quality of\ndestroyer, a goddess of floods and cloud-bursts, which, as we know, play\nan important part in Central America. Page 27, of the Codex Troano\ncontains a picture, in which this character of goddess I may be\ndistinctly recognized. In accordance with this character, also on Dr. 74,\nwhere something resembling a flood is represented, she wears the\ncross-bones of the death-god.\n\nThe goddess is pictured in the manner described in the following places:\nDr. 39b, 43b, 67a and 74. The figure corresponding to her in the\nMadrid manuscript, in Tro. 27 and 34*c, displays some variations, in\nparticular the tiger claws on the feet and the red-brown color of the\nbody are lacking. But the agreement cannot be questioned, I think, when\nwe recall that the Maya manuscripts doubtless originated in different\nages and different areas of civilization, circumstances which readily\nexplain such variations. The goddess distinguished in the Madrid\nmanuscript by symbols of flood and water is doubtless the same as goddess\nI of the Dresden manuscript described above; her unmistakable character\nof water-goddess in both manuscripts is in favor of this. In both\nmanuscripts she is invariably distinguished by the serpent on her head,\nwhich, as we know, is a symbol of the water flowing along and forming\nwaves.\n\nStrange to say, a fixed hieroglyph of this goddess cannot be proved with\ncertainty. There is some probability in favor of the sign given in Fig.\n41. The well-known oblong signs, which Foerstemann (Drei Mayahieroglyphen,\npublished in the Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie, 1901, pp. 215-221) interprets\nas the sign for evil days, frequently occur with her. This would be\nappropriate for the goddess of floods.\n\nIn the Dresden manuscript a few similar figures of women are found, who,\nlike goddess I, wear a knotted serpent on the head. Representations of\nthis kind occur in Dr. 9c, 15b, 18a, 20a, 22b and 23b. Whether they\nare identical with goddess I is doubtful, since there is no symbolic\nreference to water in these passages. Besides, the hieroglyphs of other\nknown deities occur each time in the above-mentioned places, so that\ndefinite mythologic relations must be assumed to exist here between the\nwomen repsented and the deities in question. Thus in Dr. 9c we find D's\nsign, in 15b that of H; on 18a, 22b and 23b we see only the general\nsign for a woman. In Dr. 20a the signs are effaced.\n\nIn the Codex Troano goddess I occurs on pp. 25b and 27; there is also a\nwoman with the knotted serpent on her head in Tro. 34*c. In the Codex\nCortesianus and in the Paris manuscript these forms are wholly lacking.\n\n\nK. The God with the Ornamented Nose.\n\n[Illustration: Figs. 42-43]\n\nThis god, as already mentioned in connection with B, is not identical\nwith the latter, but is probably closely related to him. His hieroglyph\nis Fig. 42; Fig. 43 is the form in the Madrid manuscript. He is closely\nrelated to god B. He is represented in Dr. 25 (centre) where he is\nperhaps conceived of as a priest wearing a mask with the face of the god,\nalso in Dr. 7a, 12a (with his own hieroglyph and that of E!), 26\n(bottom) with a variant of the sign. His figure without the hieroglyph\noccurs in Dr. 3. Very frequently the well-known group, 3 Oc, is given\nwith him and in connection with his hieroglyph (in Dr. 3, 7a, 10b\n(right); without picture, 12a). Foerstemann (Drei Mayahieroglyphen,\nZeitschrift fuer Ethnologie, 1901. pp 215-221) sees in this the sign for\ngood days, a proof that we have to do here with a benevolent deity well\ndisposed to mankind, his kinship with B being also in favor of this\ninterpretation. His hieroglyph alone without his picture occurs in Dr.\n10b, 49 (middle and bottom), 58 (bottom, left), and Tro. 8*b; with a\nvariant of the attribute in Dr. 24 (third vertical row). A slight\nvariation appears also in Dr. 69 (top, right).\n\nIn Dr. 65a (middle) B is pictured. But in the text we see K's hieroglyph\npresented by a hand. The next figure on the same page at the right\nrepresents god B with the head of K on his own and the same head once\nmore in his hand. Agreeing with this, we find in the accompanying text\nthe signs of B and K, the latter in a hand. K seems to be pictured again\nin Dr. 46 (bottom); the passage, however, is somewhat obliterated. The\nhieroglyph is lacking in this place; it is found, however, on the\npreceding page 45 (middle).\n\nIn addition to the passage already mentioned, which represents god K\ntogether with B, such double deities again occur in the Paris manuscript,\np. 13, where B holds K's head in his hand; in Dr. 34b, where he carries\nthis head on his own and in Dr. 67a where he appears to carry it in a\nrope. Once, how ever, a variation of these plainly synonymous\nrepresentations occurs, namely in Dr. 49 (at the top), where we see a\n_feminine_ form above whose head rises the head of god K. In the Paris\nmanuscript, so far as its defaced condition permits us to recognize the\nrepresentation, K occurs very frequently, as for example, in Per. 3, 4, 5,\n6, 7 and 9 (in part only his head is given, presented by god B, as in the\nDresden manuscript).\n\nBrinton considers this figure simply as a special manifestation of B and\nidentical with that god. Foerstemann thinks that god K is a storm-deity,\nwhose ornamental nose, according to the conventional mode of drawing of\nthe Central American peoples, is intended to represent the blast of the\nstorm.\n\nApparently, however, the deity has an _astronomic significance_ and seems\nto symbolize a _star_. In favor of this is the fact, that on the\nso-called initial pages of the Madrid manuscript (Cort. 22-Tro. 36) a\nrow, composed of repetitions of his sign, occurs below the signs of the\ncardinal points and parallel to a row composed of signs of god C, the\ngod of the polar star and the north. The hieroglyphs of C and K are the\nonly hieroglyphs of gods, which are repeated 13 times on these pages with\nthe 13 days enumerated there. The two gods must, therefore, have either a\nparallel or an opposite astronomic and calendric meaning. The fact that\nin Dr. 25 and 26 K appears as regent of the year, is an argument in favor\nof his astronomic significance.\n\nAccording to Foerstemann, Muluc is the day dedicated to god K.\n\nIn the head of god K we recognize the ornament so common in the temple\nruins of Central America--the so-called \"elephant's trunk.\" The peculiar,\nconventionalized face, with the projecting proboscis-shaped nose, which is\napplied chiefly to the corners of temple walls, displays unquestionably\nthe features of god K. The significance of god K in this architectural\nrelation is unknown. Some connection with his character as the deity of a\nstar and with his astronomic qualities may, however, be assumed, since, as\nwe know, the temple structures of Central America are always placed with\nreference _to the cardinal points_.\n\n\nL. The Old, Black God.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 44]\n\nGod L's features are those of an old man with sunken, toothless mouth.\nHis hieroglyph is Fig. 44, which is characterized by the black face.\n\nGod L, who is also black, must not be confounded with M whose description\nfollows. L is represented and designated by his hieroglyph in the\naccompanying text, in Dr. 14b and 14c and Dr. 46b; the figure has the\ncharacteristic black face. He appears entirely black in Dr. 7a. The\nhieroglyph alone occurs in Dr. 21b and 24 (third vertical line in the\nfirst passage) with a variation, namely without the Ymix-sign before the\nhead. This deity does not occur in the Madrid and Paris manuscripts.\n\nThe significance of god L does not appear from the few pictures, which\nare given of him. In Dr. 46b the god is pictured armed and in warlike\nattitude. Both in Dr. 14b and 14c he wears a bird on his head and has a\nKan in his hand.\n\nAccording to Foerstemann, his day is Akbal, darkness, night.\n\nCyrus Thomas (Aids to the Study of the Maya Codices, in the 6th Annual\nReport of the Bureau of Ethnology, Washington, 1888, p. 358) thinks he is\nthe god Ekchuah, who has come down to us as a black deity. God M seems,\nhowever, to correspond to Ekchuah (see the description of M).\n\n\nM. The Black God with the Red Lips.\n\n[Illustration: Figs. 45-48]\n\nGod M's hieroglyph is Figs. 45, 46; it seems to represent an eye rimmed\nwith black, though the figure of the god himself displays an entirely\ndifferent drawing of the eye (see Fig. 47).\n\nThe god is found in the Dresden manuscript only three times, namely in\nDr. 16b (with a bone in his hand) in picture and sign, in Dr. 13c\ngrouped with an animal, without the hieroglyph, and in Dr. 43a (with his\nsign) while finally his hieroglyph alone appears in Dr. 56 (top, left) in\na group and of a somewhat different form.\n\nOn the other hand, god M appears with special frequency in the Madrid\nmanuscript, which treats of this deity with great fullness of detail.\nWhile he is represented in the Dresden manuscript (16b) with his body\nstriped black and white, and on p. 43a entirely white, he is always\nentirely black in the Codex Troano. His other distinguishing marks are\nthe following:\n\n1. The mouth encircled by a red-brown border.\n\n2. The large, drooping under lip. By this he can be recognized with\ncertainty also in Dr. 43a.\n\n3. The two curved lines at the right of the eye.\n\nHis significance can be conjectured. He seems to be of a warlike nature,\nfor he is almost always represented armed with the lance and also as\nengaged in combat and, in some instances, pierced by the lance of his\nopponent, god F, for example in Tro. 3c, 7a, 29*a. The peculiar object\nwith parallel stripes, which he wears on his head is a rope from which a\npackage frequently hangs. By means of a rope placed around his head the\ngod frequently carries a bale of merchandise, as is the custom today\namong the aborigines in different parts of America. On 4b and 5a in the\nCod. Tro. this can plainly be seen. All these pictures lead us to\nconclude, that we have here to do with a god of _travelling merchants_. A\ndeity of this character called Ekchuah has been handed down to us, who is\ndesignated explicitly as a _black_ god. In favor of this is also the\nfact, that he is represented fighting with F and pierced by the latter.\nFor the travelling merchant must, of course, be armed to ward off hostile\nattacks and these are admirably symbolized by god F, for he is the god of\ndeath in war and of the killing of the captured enemy. The god is found\nin the Codex Troano in the following places and on many pages two or\nthree times: pp. 2, 3, 4, 5, always with the hieroglyph, then without it\non pp. 6, 7, 19, 4*c, 14*b, 17*a, 18*b and again with the hieroglyph\non pp. 22*a, 23*a, 25*a; finally it is found again without the\nhieroglyph on pp. 29*a, 30*a, 31*, 32*, 33*, 34*. In the Codex\nCortesianus god M occurs in the following places: p. 15, where he strikes\nthe sky with the axe and thus causes rain, p. 19 (bottom), 28 (bottom,\nsecond figure), 34 (bottom) and 36 (top). M is always to be recognized by\nthe encircled mouth and the drooping under-lip; figures without these\nmarks are not identical with M, thus for example in Tro. 23, 24, 25, 21*.\nTro. 34*a shows what is apparently a variant of M with the face of an\nold man, the scorpion's tail and the vertebrae of the death-god, a figure\nwhich in its turn bears on its breast the plainly recognizable head of M.\nGod M is also represented elsewhere many times with the scorpion's\ntail, thus for example on Tro. 30*a, 31*a.\n\nBesides his hieroglyph mentioned above, Figs. 45 and 46, another sign\nseems to refer to god M, namely Fig. 48 (compare for example Tro. 5a and\nCort. 28, bottom). The head in this sign has the same curved lines at the\ncorner of the eye as appear on the deity himself. Foerstemann mentions\nthis sign in his Commentary on the Paris Manuscript, p. 15, and in his\nCommentary on the Dresden Manuscript, p. 56. He thinks the hieroglyph has\nrelation to the revolution of Venus, which is performed in 584 days. A\nrelation of this kind is, I think, very possible, if we bear in mind that\nall the god-figures of the manuscripts have more or less of a calendric\nand chronologic significance in their chief or in their secondary\nfunction.\n\nIt should be mentioned that God M is represented as a rule as an old man\nwith toothless jaw or the characteristic solitary tooth. That he is also\nrelated to bee-culture is shown by his presence on p. 4*c of the Codex\nTroano, in the section on bees.\n\nBesides gods L and M, a few quite isolated black figures occur in the\nCodex Troano, who, apparently, are identical with neither of these two\ndeities, but are evidently of slight importance and perhaps are only\nvariants of other deities. Similar figures of black deities are found in\nthe Codex Tro. 23, 24 and 25 (perhaps this is a black variant of B as god\nof the storm?) and on 21*c we twice see a black form with the aged face\nand the solitary tooth in the under jaw (perhaps only a variant of M). In\nthe Codex Cortesianus and in the Dresden manuscript no other black\ndeities occur, but in the Paris manuscript a black deity seems to be\npictured once (p. 21, bottom).\n\nAccording to Brinton (Nagualism, Philadelphia 1894, pp. 21, 39), there is\namong the Tzendals in addition to Ekchuah, a second black deity called\nXicalahua, \"black lord\".\n\n\nN. The God of the End of the Year.\n\n[Illustration: Figs. 49-51]\n\nWe have here a deity with the features of an old man and wearing a\npeculiar head ornament reproduced in Fig. 50, which contains the sign for\nthe year of 360 days. The god's hieroglyph is Fig. 49, which consists of\nthe numeral 5 with the sign of the month Zac. Foerstemann has recognized\nin god N the god of the five Uayeyab days, which were added as\nintercalary days at the end of the original year of 360 days, and were\nconsidered unlucky days. N is, therefore, the god of the end of the year.\nFoerstemann has discussed him in detail under this title in a monograph\npublished in Globus, Vol. 80, No. 12. It is still open to question\nwhether god N actually occurs in all the places of the Dresden\nmanuscript, which are mentioned by Foerstemann. He can be recognized\npositively on Dr. 17a, 21c (grouped with a woman) and 37a; also on\n12c, but in this latter place with pronounced deviations from the usual\nrepresentations. The figures in Dr. 23c (first group) and 43a (third\npicture) are doubtful, especially since the hieroglyph of the god is\nlacking in both instances. The third group in Dr. 21c is equally\ndubious. Here a woman is pictured sitting opposite a god. The latter\nseems to be god N, yet in the text we find instead of his sign the\nhieroglyph given in Fig. 51. It is not impossible that this sign likewise\ndenotes god N.\n\nGod N is found a few times in the Paris manuscript, for example on p. 4,\nwhere he holds K's head in his hands, and on p. 22.\n\n\nO. A Goddess with the Features of an Old Woman.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 52]\n\nThis goddess occurs only in the Madrid manuscript and is distinguished by\nthe solitary tooth in the under jaw, as a sign of age, the invariable\ncharacteristic of aged persons in the manuscripts. She is pictured in the\nfollowing places: Tro. 5*c, 6*b, and 11*b, c and d, Cort. 10b,\n11a, 38a. In Tro. 11* she is represented working at a loom. She does\nnot appear at all in the Dresden and Paris manuscripts. The figures of\nwomen mentioned under I with the serpent on their heads, are especially\nnot to be regarded as identical with goddess O, for she never wears the\nserpent, but a tuft of hair bound high up on her head and running out in\ntwo locks.\n\nHer hieroglyph is Fig. 52; it is distinguished by the wrinkles of age\nabout the eye. Owing to the limited number of her pictures, there is\nlittle to be said concerning the significance of this goddess.\n\n\nP. The Frog-God.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 53]\n\nWe call him the frog-god because in the Codex Tro. 31, he is pictured in\nthe first and second lines with the club-shaped fingers of a frog, which\noccur only on this figure. The blue background, which is his attribute\ntwice in the same passage, likewise points to a connection with water,\nand that the god also has something to do with agriculture may be deduced\nfrom the fact that he is pictured sowing seed and making furrows with the\nplanting-stick. The two black parallel stripes at the corner of the eye\nseem to be folds of skin or marks on the skin, which may represent a\npeculiarity of this particular species of frog. His head ornament is very\ncharacteristic and contains the sign for the year of 360 days. He\ntherefore bears some unknown relation also to the computation of time. It\nshould be recalled in this connection that one of the Maya months is\ncalled Uo, frog. The god is pictured again in Tro. 30a and b, Tro. 22\n(top, scattering seed) and Cort. 5 (at the very bottom, the figure lying\ndown). Finally his neck ornament must be mentioned, which, as a rule,\nconsists of a neck-chain with pointed, oblong or pronged objects,\nprobably shells.\n\nIn the Dresden manuscript he occurs but once, Dr. 4a (first figure),\nwith some variations it is true. The text at this place contains H's\nhieroglyph. God P does not occur in the Peresianus.\n\nHis hieroglyph is Fig. 53. It occurs in Tro. 31 (top) and can be\nunerringly recognized by the two black parallel stripes at the corner of\nthe eye; which correspond exactly to the same marks on the face of the\npicture of the god himself.\n\nThis is all that can be said respecting this deity from the pictures in\nthe manuscripts. Its meaning is obscure. Seler's assumption that god P is\nKukulcan (Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie, 1898, p. 403) has certainly very\nslight foundation, and in view of the material from the manuscripts\ndescribed in the preceding pages, it is in the highest degree improbable.\n\n           *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe foregoing is an almost complete enumeration of the god-figures proper\nin the Maya manuscripts. Whatever other figures of gods occur in the\nmanuscripts are details of slight importance. This is especially true of\nthe Dresden manuscript, which is well nigh exhausted by the types\nenumerated here; there may be, I think, a few figures still undescribed\nin the Madrid manuscript, the careless drawing of which renders the\nidentification very difficult. An isolated figure of the Dresden\nmanuscript still remains to be mentioned, concerning which it is doubtful\nwhether it is intended to represent a deity or only a human personage.\n\nThis is the figure characterized by a peculiar head ornament in Dr. 20b.\nIt is designated in the text by two hieroglyphs, which belong together,\nFigs. 54 and 55, the latter occurring once with K (Dr. 7a). It seems to\nrepresent blowing from the mouth, screaming or speaking.\n\n[Illustration: Figs. 54-55]\n\n\n\n\nII. MYTHOLOGICAL ANIMALS.\n\n\n1. THE MOAN BIRD.\n\n[Illustration: Figs. 56-59]\n\nThis bird[41-1] belongs to the death-god as his symbol and attendant. Its\nhieroglyph (Fig. 56) contains the numeral 13; other forms are Figs. 57-59.\nIt is pictured in Dr. 7c, 10a, 11a, 16c, 18b, and its hieroglyph\nwithout the picture is seen in Dr. 8b. A realistic representation of the\nwhole figure of the moan as a bird, occurs on the head of the woman in\n16c (1st figure) and 18b. God B sits on the head of the moan in Dr.\n38c; the third hieroglyph of the accompanying text refers to this\nrepresentation. Just as in Dr. 16 and 18, the moan bird appears in Tro.\n18*c on the head of a woman. Its character as an attribute of the\ndeath-god is expressed by the Cimi-sign, which it wears upon its head\n(_e. g._, Dr. 10a), and also by the regular occurrence of symbols of the\ndeath-god in the written characters, which refer to the moan bird. In the\nsame manner the sign of the owl, Fig. 5, also occurs frequently with it.\n\n    [41-1] See plate for representations of the Mythological Animals,\n    1-6.\n\nThe moan confers name and symbol alike on one of the eighteen months of\nthe Maya year, and thus, as Foerstemann conjectures (Die Plejaden bei den\nMayas, in Globus, 1894), has an astronomic bearing on the constellation\nof the Pleiades.\n\nAccording to Brinton the moan is a member of the falcon family and its\nzoological name is _Spizaetus tyrannus_.\n\n\n2. THE SERPENT.\n\nThis is one of the most common and most important mythological animals,\nand is closely related to different deities, as has already been more\nfully discussed in connection with the individual cases. Apparently it\nhas no _independent_ significance as a deity. Its most important\npersonification is that in god B, Kukulcan, the feathered serpent. Hence\na fixed hieroglyph designating the serpent as a deity, as a mythologic\nform, does not occur, though there are numerous hieroglyphs which refer\nto serpents or represent individual parts of the serpent, as its coils,\nits jaws, the rattles of the rattlesnake, etc. The serpent appears in the\nmythologic conceptions of the Mayas chiefly as the symbol of water and of\ntime. In the great series of numbers of the Dresden manuscript, certain\nnumbers occur which are introduced in the coils of a large serpent\n(compare in regard to this, Foerstemann, Zur Entzifferung der\nMayahandschriften, II, Dresden, 1891). The serpent is very frequently\nrepresented in all the manuscripts, sometimes realistically and sometimes\nwith the head of a god, etc. In the Dresden manuscript it occurs in the\nfollowing places: 1a, 26, 27, 28c, 35b, 36a, 36b, 37b 40, 42a, 61,\n62, 65c 66a and 69. It is prominent also in the Madrid manuscript,\noccurring for example in Cort. 4-6, 12-18, Tro. 25, 26, 27 and elsewhere.\n\n\n3. THE DOG.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 60]\n\nFig. 60 is its hieroglyph. It is the symbol of the death-god and the\nbearer of the lightning. The latter follows quite clearly from the\npicture in Dr. 40b where the god is distinguished by its hieroglyph.\nThis animal is again represented in Dr. 7a, 13c on the right, 21b with\nits hieroglyph, 29a, 30a (forming a part of 31a, where god B holds the\nbound dog by the tail), and 39a without the hieroglyph, 47 (bottom) with\na variant of the hieroglyph.\n\nIn Dr. 36a the dog bears the Akbal-sign on its forehead. The writing\nabove it contains a variant of the hieroglyph for the dog; this is the\nthird of the rubric. It shows (somewhat difficult of recognition) the\nAkbal-sign on the forehead of the dog's head occurring in it, and on the\nback of the head the Kin-sign, as symbols of the alternation of day and\nnight. The same sign occurs again with adjuncts in Dr. 74 (last line, 2nd\nsign) and once with the _death-god_ in Dr. 8a. The dog as\nlightning-beast occurs with the Akbal-sign in the eye instead of on the\nforehead in Codex Tro. 23*a; here again its hieroglyph is an entirely\ndifferent one (the third of the rubric).\n\nThat the dog belongs to the death-god is proved beyond a doubt by the\nregular recurrence in the writing belonging to the dog, of the\nhieroglyphs, which relate to this deity, especially of Fig. 5. According\nto Foerstemann his day is Oc.\n\n\n4. THE VULTURE.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 61]\n\nThis bird is distinctly pictured as a mythological figure in Dr. 8a. It\nappears again, in feminine form, together with the dog, in Dr. 13c and\nalso in 19a. In the first passage, its hieroglyph is almost effaced; the\nhieroglyph is very striking and occurs nowhere else in the whole\ncollection of manuscripts. The body of this animal-deity is striped black\nand white; in Dr. 38b it is almost entirely black. The same passage\ndisplays a second hieroglyph for this figure (Fig. 61); this hieroglyph\nalso occurs with the numeral 4 in Dr. 56b. In Dr. 36b this bird of prey\nis pictured fighting with the serpent; its hieroglyph occurs in the\nsecond form; the serpent is designated by the Chuen, the gaping jaws of\nthe serpent (first character of the rubric).\n\nFinally it should be mentioned that the head of this bird occurs\nfrequently as a head ornament, thus in Dr. 11a, 11b, 12b and 14b.\nMention should also be made of the realistic representations of the\nvulture, eating the eye of a human sacrifice (Dr. 3, Tro. 26*a and\n27*a).\n\nAccording to Foerstemann his day is Cib.\n\n\n5. The Jaguar.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 62]\n\nThe jaguar is likewise an animal with mythological significance. It is\nrepresented in Dr. 8a, where its hieroglyph is the third sign in the\nwriting; it also occurs in Dr. 26 (at the top). It occurs in Tro. 17 (at\nthe end) with a hieroglyph which represents the jaguar's head and\ncontains the numeral 4 (Fig. 62); again it appears without a hieroglyph\non p. 20 (bottom) and on 21 and 22 (bottom).\n\nIts day is Ix, and hence it also relates occasionally as year regent to\nthe Ix years, for example in Dr. 26a.\n\n\n6. The Tortoise.\n\n[Illustration: Figs. 63-65]\n\nThis animal, like the dog, appears as a lightning-beast (see Dr. 40b,\nmiddle). Its hieroglyph is Figs. 63, 64. This sign also is connected with\nthe numeral 4, which occurs so often with animals (but not alone with\nquadrupeds) as to be worthy of attention. The sign of the tortoise\nwithout the numeral is seen in Cort. 17a, where the tortoise itself is\nalso represented. It must have reference to the 17th month of the Maya\nyear, for the month Kayab (and apparently also Pop) contains the head of\nthe tortoise (compare Fig. 65). It occurs several times in the\nCortesianus, thus on pp. 13, 19, 37, 38; on p. 19 with the hieroglyph (on\nthe top of the lower half of the page, 1st line and at the right of the\nmargin). In Dr. 69 (at the top) we see the sign of the tortoise with the\nKin-sign as its eye and the numeral 12; under this group B, with a black\nbody, is seated on the serpent; on the same page the sign occurs again;\neach time, moreover, apparently as a month-hieroglyph.\n\nAccording to Foerstemann the tortoise is the symbol of the summer\nsolstice, as the _snail_, which occurs only as a head ornament in the\nmanuscripts and not independently, is the symbol of the winter solstice;\nboth, as the animals of slowest motion, represent the apparent standstill\nof the sun at the periods specified. This explains why the month Kayab,\nin which the summer solstice falls, should be represented by the head of\na tortoise, which has for its eye the sun-sign Kin (Foerstemann, Zur\nEntzifferung der Mayahandschriften III, Schildkroete und Schnecke in der\nMayaliteratur, Dresden 1892).\n\nAccording to Foerstemann its day is Cauac.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFinally the _owl_ and the _ape_ (or monkey) must be mentioned as animals\nof mythologic significance, of which we have already spoken in connection\nwith gods A and C. The _scorpion_ also seems to have an important\nmythologic significance, and appears in the manuscripts in connection\nwith figures of gods, as, for example, in Cort. 7a and Tro. 31*a,\n33*a, 34*a (god M with a scorpion's tail). In addition to those\ndiscussed in this paper, there are a few animals in the manuscripts,\nwhich probably also have a partial mythologic significance, but which\nhave been omitted because they are represented in a naturalistic manner,\nthus, for example, the deer on Tro. 8, et seq., while idealization (with\nhuman bodies, with torches, hieroglyphic character on the head, etc.)\nshould be considered as an unmistakable sign of mythologic meaning.\n\nA mythologic significance also seems to belong to the _bee_ which plays so\nprominent a part of the Codex Troano. Probably the section in question of\nthe Madrid manuscript (1* et seq.) treats of bee-keeping, but incidentally\nit certainly has to do also with the mythologic conceptions connected with\nthe culture of bees.\n\nThe _bat_ which is found as a mythological figure on pottery vessels and\ninscriptions from the Maya region (compare Seler, Zeitschrift fuer\nEthnologie, 1894, p. 577) does not occur in the manuscripts. It is true,\nhowever, that hieroglyphic signs, which seem to relate to the head of the\nbat, occur in isolated cases in the manuscripts.\n\n\n\n\nSUMMARY.\n\n\nAn enumeration of the most important deities in the manuscripts gives the\nfollowing results, in connection with which it is to be noted that, of\ncourse, the numbers cannot be absolutely correct, because one or another\nof the pictures occasionally remains doubtful. As far as possible,\nhowever, only the _positively_ determined representations have been\nconsidered.\n\nThe deity occurring most frequently in the DRESDEN MANUSCRIPT is god B,\nwho is pictured there 141 times. Following him in point of number in the\nsame manuscript are the death-god A pictured 33 times, god D 19 times,\nand gods C and E 17 and 14 times respectively.\n\nIn the MADRID MANUSCRIPT, god D, with 84 pictures, is of most frequent\noccurrence. He is followed by the maize-god E with 76 pictures, god B\nwith 71, god A with 53, C with 38 and M with 37 pictures.\n\nIn the PARIS MANUSCRIPT, god E's picture can be verified 8 times, those\nof C and B 6 times each and that of god A twice; N and K are also\nfrequently represented.\n\nAn enumeration of all the pictures in all the manuscripts shows that the\nfollowing deities occur most frequently and are therefore to be\nconsidered the most important:\n\n  1.  God B: pictured 218 times.\n  2.   \"  D:  \"       103  \"\n  3.   \"  E:  \"        98  \"\n  4.   \"  A:  \"        88  \"\n  5.   \"  C:  \"        61  \"\n  6.   \"  M:  \"        40  \"\n  7.   \"  F:  \"        33  \"\n\nFurthermore, interesting conclusions can be arrived at, by means of a\nlist of those deities, who occur in the representations of the\nmanuscripts, so _united_ or _grouped together_ as to make it evident that\nthey must stand in some relation to one another. _Mythologic\ncombinations_ of this kind occur among the following deities and\nmythological animals:\n\n1. In the DRESDEN MANUSCRIPT: D and C, B and C, dog and vulture, bird and\nserpent, B and K.\n\n2. In the MADRID MANUSCRIPT: F and M, B and M, C and M, E and M, A and E,\nA and D, A and F, B and C, D and C, D and E.\n\n3. In the PARIS MANUSCRIPT: N and K, B and K.\n\nThe most common of these combinations are those of the deities A and F, M\nand F, A and E, D and C. These groups are entirely intelligible,\nconsisting of death-god and war-god, god of the travelling merchants and\nwar-god, death-god and maize-god (as adversaries: meaning famine),\nnight-god and deity of the polar star.\n\n\n[Illustration: I. Gods.\n\nA B C D E\n\nF G H I K\n\nL M N O P\n\nII. Mythological Animals.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6]\n\n\n\n     *     *     *     *     *     *\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Note:\n\nTypographical errors:\n\n  Page\n  10   Footnote 1 missing final period\n  17   serpent-and rain-deity should read serpent-and-rain-deity\n  23   Sentence ending with \"and 13*c)\" does not have a period\n  29   manuuscripts should read manuscripts\n  32   repsented should read represented\n  33   pp 215-221 should read pp. 215-221\n  42   comma missing following 37b\n       comma missing following 65c\n\nInconsistencies:\n\nThe placement of punctuation at the end of a word or phrase surrounded\nby quotation marks is inconsistent, usually it is placed outside the\nfinal close quotation mark but occasionally is found inside the mark.","title":"Representation of Deities of the Maya Manuscripts","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":14490}