Part 4

According to Foerstemann the day dedicated to this god is Kan.

F. The God of War and of Human Sacrifices.

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

The characteristic mark of god F is a single black line usually running perpendicularly down the face in the vicinity of the eye. This line should be distinguished from the parallel lines of C's face and from the line, which, as a continuation of god E's head resembling an ear of maize, frequently appears on his face, especially as in the variants of the Madrid manuscript (compare Figs. 25-27). These pictures of E can always be unfailingly recognized by the peculiar shape of the head and should be distinguished from those representing F. The black face-line is the distinguishing mark of god F, just as it is of the Aztec Xipe. It sometimes runs in a curve over the cheek as a thick, black stripe, as Cort. 42. Sometimes it encircles the eye only (Dr. 6a) and again it is a dotted double line (Dr. 6b). The hieroglyph of god F likewise exhibits this line and with the very same variants as the god himself. See the hieroglyphs of the god belonging to the pictures in Dr. 6a, 1st and 3d figures, in which the line likewise differs from the other forms (Figs. 30-34).

In a few places god F is pictured with the same black lines on his entire body, which elsewhere he has only on his face, the lines being like those in Fig. 31, namely Tro. 27*c. Indeed, in Tro. 28*c, the death-god A likewise has these black lines on his body and also F's line on his face; a clear proof of the close relationship of the two deities. These lines probably signify gaping death-wounds and the accompanying rows of dots are intended to represent the blood.

Since god F is a death-deity the familiar sign (Fig. 5), which occurs so frequently with the hieroglyphs of A, also belongs to his symbols. F is pictured in company with the death-god in connection with human sacrifice (Cort. 42); an exactly similar picture of the two gods of human sacrifice is given in Codex Tro. 30d; here, too, they sit opposite one another. The identity of this attendant of death with the deity, designated by the hieroglyph with the numeral 11, is proved by the following passages: Tro. 19, bottom (on the extreme right hand without picture, only hieroglyph, see Fig. 29), Dr. 5b, 6a, b, and c and many others. In some of the passages cited (Dr. 5a and b) he is distinguished by an unusually large ear-peg. His hieroglyph occurs with the hieroglyph of the death-god in Dr. 6c, where he is himself not pictured.

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

God F occurs quite frequently in the manuscripts and must therefore be considered as one of the more important deities.

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

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

G. The Sun-God.

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

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

H. The Chicchan-God.

The figure of a deity of frequent occurrence in the Dresden manuscript is a god, who is characterized by a skin-spot or a scale of a serpent on his temple of the same shape as the hieroglyph of the day Chicchan (serpent). Moreover the representations of the god himself differ very much, so that there are almost no other positive, unvarying characteristic marks to be specified. His picture is plainly recognizable and has the Chicchan-mark on the temple in Dr. 11a, 12b and 20b.

The hieroglyph belonging to this deity likewise displays the Chicchan-sign as its distinguishing mark. Furthermore several variants occur. The Chicchan-sign has sometimes the form of Fig. 37 and again that of Fig. 38. The prefix likewise differs very much, having sometimes the form of Fig. 37, and again that of Fig. 38 or of Figs. 39 and 40. Thus there are, in all, four different forms of the prefix. It is to be assumed that all these hieroglyphs have the same meaning, notwithstanding their variations. Taking into consideration the frequency of the variations of other hieroglyphs of gods and of the hieroglyphs in the Maya manuscripts in general, it is quite improbable from the nature of the case, that a hieroglyph, which displays so great an agreement in its essential and characteristic elements, should denote several different gods. The dissimilarity which Seler thinks he finds between the forms of the Chicchan-sign in Figs. 37 and 38 and which leads him to assume that Fig. 37 is not a Chicchan-sign at all, but that it denotes another face ornament, cannot be satisfactorily proved, and must be regarded as an arbitrary assumption. The Chicchan-mark in the sign of the day Chicchan also differs very much from that on the bodies of the serpents pictured in the manuuscripts, so that variations of this kind by no means make it necessary to assume that the hieroglyphs actually denote different things. Observe, for example, the different Chicchan-spots on the serpent's body in Tro. 27a. The crenelated, black border of the Chicchan-spot in Fig. 38 passes in rapid cursive drawing almost of itself into the scallops of Fig. 37, a transition to which there are distinct tendencies on the serpent's body in Tro. 27a. Nor does the fact, that under H's hieroglyph different personages are very often pictured, whom we cannot positively identify, compel the assumption that we have here not one, but two or more mythical figures, for the same is true of other hieroglyphs of gods. There are many places in the manuscripts where the text contains a definite well-known hieroglyph of a god, while the accompanying picture represents some other deity or some other figure not definitely characterized, perhaps merely a human form (priest, warrior, woman and the like). Thus in Dr. 4a we see H's hieroglyph in the text, but the picture is the figure of god P while in other places we miss the characteristic Chicchan-spot on the figure represented, for example Dr. 4c, 6a, 7b, 7c, 14a, 21c. In the Madrid manuscript, it is true, H's hieroglyph also occurs often enough, but not in a single instance is a deity represented displaying the Chicchan-spot. This fact is, I think, to be explained by the coarser style of the drawing, which does not admit of representing such fine details as in the Dresden manuscript. In the Paris manuscript H's hieroglyph occurs but once (p. 8, bottom).

Seler thinks he recognizes in some of the figures represented under H's hieroglyph in the manuscripts, a so-called "young god". Such a deity is unknown and the assumption is entirely arbitrary. Apparently this "young god" is an invention of Brinton. The purely inductive and descriptive study of the manuscripts does not prove the existence of such a personage, and we must decline to admit him as the result of deductive reasoning. In this so-called "young god", we miss, first of all, a characteristic mark, a distinct peculiarity such as belongs to all the figures of gods in the manuscripts without exception and by which he could be recognized. Except his so-called youthfulness, however, no such definite marks are to be found. Furthermore there is no figure of a god in the manuscripts which would not be designated by a definite characteristic hieroglyph. No such hieroglyph can be proved as belonging to the "young god". The figures, which are supposed to have a "youthful appearance" in the Madrid manuscript, often convey this impression merely in consequence of their smallness and of the pitiful, squatting attitude in which they are represented. Furthermore real children do occur here and there, thus, for example, in the Dresden manuscript in connection with the pictures of women in the first part and in Tro. 20*c in the representation of the so-called "infant baptism."

That god H has some relation to the serpent must be conjectured from what has been said. Thus, for example, on Dr. 15b, we see his hieroglyph belonging to the figure of a woman with the knotted serpent on her head, in Dr. 4a to the god P, who there bears a serpent in his hand, and in Dr. 35b in connection with a serpent with B's head. What this relation is, cannot now be stated.

The day dedicated to god H is Chicchan, and the sign for this day is his distinguishing hieroglyph.

I. The Water-Goddess.

In the Dresden manuscript the figure of an old woman, with the body stained brown and claws in place of feet, occurs repeatedly. She wears on her head a knotted serpent and with her hands pours water from a vessel. Evidently we have here a personification of water in its quality of destroyer, a goddess of floods and cloud-bursts, which, as we know, play an important part in Central America. Page 27, of the Codex Troano contains a picture, in which this character of goddess I may be distinctly recognized. In accordance with this character, also on Dr. 74, where something resembling a flood is represented, she wears the cross-bones of the death-god.

The goddess is pictured in the manner described in the following places: Dr. 39b, 43b, 67a and 74. The figure corresponding to her in the Madrid manuscript, in Tro. 27 and 34*c, displays some variations, in particular the tiger claws on the feet and the red-brown color of the body are lacking. But the agreement cannot be questioned, I think, when we recall that the Maya manuscripts doubtless originated in different ages and different areas of civilization, circumstances which readily explain such variations. The goddess distinguished in the Madrid manuscript by symbols of flood and water is doubtless the same as goddess I of the Dresden manuscript described above; her unmistakable character of water-goddess in both manuscripts is in favor of this. In both manuscripts she is invariably distinguished by the serpent on her head, which, as we know, is a symbol of the water flowing along and forming waves.

Strange to say, a fixed hieroglyph of this goddess cannot be proved with certainty. There is some probability in favor of the sign given in Fig. 41. The well-known oblong signs, which Foerstemann (Drei Mayahieroglyphen, published in the Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie, 1901, pp. 215-221) interprets as the sign for evil days, frequently occur with her. This would be appropriate for the goddess of floods.

In the Dresden manuscript a few similar figures of women are found, who, like goddess I, wear a knotted serpent on the head. Representations of this kind occur in Dr. 9c, 15b, 18a, 20a, 22b and 23b. Whether they are identical with goddess I is doubtful, since there is no symbolic reference to water in these passages. Besides, the hieroglyphs of other known deities occur each time in the above-mentioned places, so that definite mythologic relations must be assumed to exist here between the women repsented and the deities in question. Thus in Dr. 9c we find D's sign, in 15b that of H; on 18a, 22b and 23b we see only the general sign for a woman. In Dr. 20a the signs are effaced.

In the Codex Troano goddess I occurs on pp. 25b and 27; there is also a woman with the knotted serpent on her head in Tro. 34*c. In the Codex Cortesianus and in the Paris manuscript these forms are wholly lacking.

K. The God with the Ornamented Nose.

This god, as already mentioned in connection with B, is not identical with the latter, but is probably closely related to him. His hieroglyph is Fig. 42; Fig. 43 is the form in the Madrid manuscript. He is closely related to god B. He is represented in Dr. 25 (centre) where he is perhaps conceived of as a priest wearing a mask with the face of the god, also in Dr. 7a, 12a (with his own hieroglyph and that of E!), 26 (bottom) with a variant of the sign. His figure without the hieroglyph occurs in Dr. 3. Very frequently the well-known group, 3 Oc, is given with him and in connection with his hieroglyph (in Dr. 3, 7a, 10b (right); without picture, 12a). Foerstemann (Drei Mayahieroglyphen, Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie, 1901. pp 215-221) sees in this the sign for good days, a proof that we have to do here with a benevolent deity well disposed to mankind, his kinship with B being also in favor of this interpretation. His hieroglyph alone without his picture occurs in Dr. 10b, 49 (middle and bottom), 58 (bottom, left), and Tro. 8*b; with a variant of the attribute in Dr. 24 (third vertical row). A slight variation appears also in Dr. 69 (top, right).

In Dr. 65a (middle) B is pictured. But in the text we see K's hieroglyph presented by a hand. The next figure on the same page at the right represents god B with the head of K on his own and the same head once more in his hand. Agreeing with this, we find in the accompanying text the signs of B and K, the latter in a hand. K seems to be pictured again in Dr. 46 (bottom); the passage, however, is somewhat obliterated. The hieroglyph is lacking in this place; it is found, however, on the preceding page 45 (middle).