Dr Seler calls attention to the character shown in plate [LXVIII], 32, from Dres. 13c, which is repeated in the form [LXVIII], 33, on plate 21b. That this refers to the deer figured below must be admitted, as this is clearly shown by the relation of the characters in the adjoining section to the animals figured below the text. Henderson (MS. Lexicon) gives xolke as “the male deer.” If this could be considered substantially equivalent to cholceh in sound, our manik symbol would retain its value. The objection to this supposition is that the figure is probably intended for a doe instead of the male. Brasseur gives chacyuc as the name applied to a small species of deer. It is true these interpretations leave out the numeral prefix; nevertheless they serve to show that it is probable the true name is a word which retains the phonetic value of the manik symbol as we have given it. Be the word what it may, two conclusions maybe relied on: First, that it alludes to the deer, and, second, that one of its chief phonetic elements is ch. The character shown in plate [LXVIII], 34, from Tro. 11*b, has probably the same element in its phonetic equivalent, for the Maya verb hax (haxnahi), “to twist or turn by rolling the thing between the palms of the hand; make cord used for muslin or cloth,” etc, gives substantially this phonetic equivalent.
The character shown, in plate [LXVIII], 35, from Dres. 10b, is referred to by Seler as indicating an offering to the gods. In this he is possibly correct. As tich, in Maya, signifies an “offering,” “a sacrifice,” and tich (tichah) “to offer, present,” etc, it is probable that in this instance also the manik symbol retains ch, as its chief phonetic element. However, I am inclined to believe it refers to the collecting or gathering of the ripened fruit. In this case the prefix must be understood as a determinative indicating piling or heaping up, putting together or in a heap, or storing away. Of the Maya words indicating this operation, we note the following: Cħicħ (cħicħah), hich, and hoch, each of which has ch or cħ as its chief consonant element. This interpretation agrees very well with the fact that here, as elsewhere, a date is to be taken into consideration. On such a date, at such a time, the cacao is to be gathered, is to be harvested and stored away. Students of these codices, in their attempts at interpretation, appear, as a general thing, to overlook the fact that almost every paragraph or group of glyphs in the script is accompanied by a date which must be taken into consideration in the interpretation. The symbol which follows immediately to the right, shown in plate [LXVIII], 36, may be rendered cacau, the “cacao,” as the duplicated comb-like character is Landa’s ca.
As the Quiche-Cakchiquel, Zapotec, and Nahuatl names all signify “deer,” the difficulty in bringing all into harmony lies in the Maya and Tzental names. Dr Seler’s explanation is substantially as follows: That the word manik is from the root man or mal, which signifies “to pass quickly;” manik may therefore mean “that which passes by,” “that which is fleeting.” Dr Brinton gives the same explanation, and concludes that the deer is referred to metaphorically. In regard to the Tzental name moxic, Dr Seler suggests that it may be founded on the root max, from which is derived maxan, “swift.” Dr Brinton objects to this derivation, as maxan with the signification “swift” is from ma, “not,” and xan, “slow, tardy,” and suggests that the name is probably a corruption of the Nahuatl mazatl. However, it may be stated in favor of Seler’s explanation, that Henderson gives moxan, “quickly, shortly, without hindrance,” which is apparently another form of maxan. Dr Seler, however, concludes, from a study of the relations in which the character is found in the codices, that it is the symbol of offering, of sacrifice, the deer being esteemed the animal most appropriate for this purpose. Henderson says manik signifies “calm,” evidently considering it to be formed of ma, negative, and ik, “wind.”
It is evident, therefore, that the authorities are at sea in regard to the signification of the Maya and Tzental names. If the symbol is used, as Seler claims, to indicate offerings or sacrifices, this may be readily explained on the supposition that it is used ikonomatically because of the phonetic value I have assigned it; but otherwise it is difficult, if not impossible, to see any relation between the symbol and the name given it. So far I have found it used in no place, in combination, where the value manik will give a satisfactory interpretation.
The following additional renderings are added here as tending to confirm the phonetic value assigned the manik character.
The character shown in plate [LXVIII], 37, is from Tro. 20*c, where it is repeated four times. The figures below the text show women in the act of sprinkling or pouring water on children. Whether this be considered a religious ceremony or not, it is probably intended to denote purifying or cleansing, and not baptism in the modern acceptation of the term. As choah, according to Perez, signifies “to cleanse, purify, scour,” and choich “to clean, scour, or wash the face,” we have therein a quite appropriate interpretation of the symbol. The presence of the cardinal-point symbols renders it probable that the scene refers to a religious ceremony of some kind. The strict regard paid to the position relative to the cardinal points by savage and semicivilized people is too well known to require any proof here.
On Tro. 34*c two individuals are engaged in some work which we might suppose to be weaving but for the fact that there is no cord or thread to be seen. Over each is the character shown in plate [LXVIII], 38. This is evidently an incomplete manik symbol. As the supposed aspirate sign is present, it is probable that hooch, “to pare off, to scrape,” or hoochci, “to pare off, or scrape the hennequin,” will furnish an appropriate rendering.
Maya, lamat; Tzental, lambat; Quiche-Cakchiquel, canel or kanel; Zapotec, lapa or laba; Nahuatl, tochtli.
The various forms of the symbol of this day are shown in plates [LXV], 33 to 37, and [LXVIII], 39-40. That given by Landa is seen in [LXV], 33; it is also found very frequently in the codices as [LXV], 34. The three other forms found in the codices are shown in [LXV], 35, 36, 37. The form on the Palenque Tablet is given in [LXVIII], 40; that of the Tikal inscription is similar to Landa’s figure, if we are correct in our determination, of which there is some doubt, as the dots are effaced.