Maya, cimi; Tzental, tox; Quiche-Cakchiquel, camey; Zapotec, lana; Nahuatl, miquiztli.
Landa’s symbol for this day is shown in plate [LXV], 24. The usual form in the Codex Tro. and Cortesian Codex is given in [LXV], 25; it is varied frequently by an extension of the line from the mouth, somewhat as in symbol 28 of the same plate, which is the usual form in the Dresden Codex. A variation of this is seen at 29, which seems to have given rise to the unusual form shown in 31. A radical variation is that given at 27. The symbol of the Death god, 26 and 30, is sometimes, though rarely, substituted as the symbol of this day. The closed or dead eye and prominent teeth, as seen in the usual forms, show very clearly that the symbol is simply a conventional representation of the naked skull. The form shown at 27, however, is more difficult to account for; reference to it will be made farther on.
The Maya, Quiche Cakchiquel, and Nahuatl terms signify “death.” The Tzental name tox, however, presents a difficulty not readily overcome in order to bring its signification into harmony with that of the others. Dr Seler does not attempt an explanation in his paper on the meaning of the day names, and in his subsequent article fails to reach any settled conclusion. Dr Brinton thinks it means something (as a human head) separated, sundered, cut off; “hence tox-oghbil, the ax or hatchet; q-tox, to split, divide, cut off.” In this, he holds, it agrees precisely with the Zapotec lana, which, he says, the Zapotec vocabulary renders “a separated thing, like a single syllable, word, or letter.” Dr Seler’s interpretation of the Zapotec name is wholly different, as he says that the most natural of the various significations given is, in his opinion, “hare;” pela-pillaana, “liebre animal;” too-quixe-pillaana, or pella-pillaana, “red para liebres.” I observe, however, that in Fuller’s vocabulary gu-lana is “to steal.” Other significations are “name,” “flesh,” “secretly,” etc. The proper interpretation of the Zapotec name therefore appears to be very doubtful. In Cordova’s vocabulary, as given by Ternaux-Compans, “fleche” is given as the meaning of quii-lana. In Tzotzil gtox signifies “to split, break off, break open, to chop.” In Maya we have tok; which, as a substantive, Perez explains by “pedernal, la sangria;” as a verb it signifies “to bleed, let blood.” In this dialect tox denotes “to drain, draw off liquor, spill, shed.”
The usual form of the Mexican symbol for this day is shown in plate [LXV], 32. It is also a naked skull.
Like Dr Seler, I am compelled to admit that I can give no satisfactory suggestion as to the origin of the form shown in plate [LXV], 27. According to Colonel Mallery,[232-1] one sign among the Indians for knife is to “cut past the mouth with the raised right hand,” which, if figured, would probably bear some resemblance to the marks on this symbol.[232-2]
Maya, manik; Tzental, moxic; Quiche-Cakchiquel, queh; Zapotec, china; Nahuatl, mazatl.
The symbol for this day, shown in plate [LXVIII], 31, is without any change worthy of notice, the only difference observable being a greater or less degree of perfection with which it has been drawn by the aboriginal artist. It is found, however, in various combinations where it is subject to variation in form, if these in truth be intended for this symbol. As Brasseur de Bourbourg has suggested, this appears to have been taken from the partially closed hand, where the points of the fingers are brought round close to the tip of the thumb. Whether intended to show the palm or back outward is uncertain, though apparently the latter. The nearest approach I find among the Indian signs figured by Colonel Mallery is that denoting “little, diminutive, small.” But the position of the hand in the symbol appears to indicate the act of grasping; either signification gives ch as the chief phonetic element of the Maya word chan and chichan, signifying “little,” and chuc, chucah, “to grasp, to seize” (“alcanzar, asir, prender,” Perez); or chuuc, “to take, grasp, catch, seize,” Henderson.[232-3] It would seem from this that if the symbol is phonetic in any sense, the chief element of the word indicated is ch. The supposition by Drs Schellhas and Seler that this symbol sometimes contains the elements of the sign of the four winds or wind cross, appears to be without any real foundation. The partial cross-shape figure in it is merely the conventional method of drawing the opening between the fingers, and would be just as correctly given as an oval as an inverted tau.
As this interpretation of the symbol is quite different from that given by other writers, some evidence to justify it is presented here.
Attention is called first to the symbol for “west,” shown in plate [LXIV], 53. The lower portion is the recognized symbol for kin, “day” or “sun,” and the upper portion is beyond question the manik character. As chikin is the Maya name for “west,” we are justified in assuming that here at least this manik symbol is to be interpreted by chi, and is in some sense phonetic. As china is the Zapotec name of the day, and signifies “deer,” and chigh is the Zotzil name for “deer,” it is probable that the symbol preserves the old name, while in Maya this old name has been supplanted for some reason, or through some linguistic process, by manik.