There can be no doubt that most, if not all, of the figures on this plate (Tro. 29) are intended to represent the injurious and destructive agencies to which maize and other cultivated plants were subject. Birds and quadrupeds pull up the sprouting seed and pull down and devour the ripening grain; worms gnaw the roots and winds break down the stalks, one out of four escaping injury and giving full return to the planter. The latter is therefore probably the correct interpretation, the only difficult feature being the presence of the Earth god, which agrees better with the first suggestion.
It is to be observed that the series on Tro. 29c really commences with the right-hand group on 30c. The figure here holds in his hand an ik symbol. Following this, the left group on 29c shows a bird pecking the corn; the next, a small quadruped tearing it down; the next, a worm gnawing at the root of a plant; and the fourth, or right-hand group, a corn figure holding a kan symbol, indicating the mature grain, the uninjured portion of the crop. It would therefore appear that the ik symbol in this series denotes wind.
As additional proof that the symbol is used to indicate “wind,” reference is made to Tro. 24a. Here the long-nose Rain god, or Maya Tlaloc, is seen amidst the storm, clothed in black and bearing on his arm a shield on which are two ik symbols (plate [LXIV], 33), doubtless indicative of the fierceness of the tempest. In front of him is the Corn god, bending beneath the pouring rain. On plate 25, same codex, lower division, the storm is again symbolized, and the ik symbol is present here also.
It seems from these facts to be quite certain that the value of the symbol in the codices, so far as it can be satisfactorily determined, corresponds in signification with the Maya name.
Referring again to Dr Seler’s theory that the plant-like figures on Tro. 15*, 16* indicate the freshly extracted heart and the vapor arising therefrom, the following additional items are noted: He says that in the text the scene below, or at least these sprouting-plant figures, are expressed by hieroglyphs 27-29, plate [LXVIII]. His comparison with the so-called heart figures from the Mexican codices can scarcely be regarded as convincing, for there is hardly any resemblance. Moreover, he omits to furnish an explanation, on his theory, of the fact that some of these rising “vapors” are crowned with blossoms or fruit (plate [LXIV], 31).
I think it quite probable that Dr Seler, although not accepting the theory of phoneticism, has been influenced to some extent by the form of the right-hand character of the glyph shown in plate [LXVIII], 27. This is much like Landa’s o, and ol in Maya denotes “heart, etc.”
According to Brasseur, oloh signifies “a germ” and “to germinate;” hokol also has about the same meaning. This furnishes a consistent and appropriate explanation of the figures, and gives at the same time the phonetic value of the glyph. I have not determined the prefix satisfactorily, but presume it is some word having ch’ or tz’ as its chief phonetic element, which signifies “little,” “plant,” or something similar.
I have not determined the other symbols to which Seler alludes in this connection, but some of them, as may be seen by comparison with other passages, do not have special reference to the plant-like figures.
Whether the little sharp-corner square seen in the upper right-hand character of the compound symbols shown in plate [LXVI], 28 and 55, and others of similar form, are to be taken as ik glyphs is yet an undecided question. Dr Seler appears to have excluded them from this category in his paper, so frequently referred to, though he subsequently brings them into this relation. But in these places he gives the glyph the signification “fire” or “flame.” It is possible that in some of the cases to which he refers he is correct, as, for example, in regard to the figure shown in plate [LXVIII], 30, from Dres. 25, where it is in the midst of the blaze. If so, the word equivalent must be kak, as it is seemingly a variant of ik, and hence may be supposed to have the k sound. This will agree with his interpretation of plate [LXVI], 29, by kinichkakmo; but in this case we must give ich as the value of the so-called ben symbol. This, however, is not so very objectionable, as there are other places where the chief phonetic element of the ben glyph appears to be i. It is also to be remembered that it is much like Landa’s i. It is likewise true, as will hereafter be shown, that the value ben does not appear to hold good where it occurs in combination with other symbols. However, until a satisfactory rendering of this little four-corner ik (?) symbol in some other place than the fire is found, I am hardly prepared to give full acceptance to Dr Seler’s supposition.
The Zapotec names are somewhat difficult to bring into harmony with the others. Dr Brinton’s solution is as follows: