The symbol of this day, which is quite uniform in the day series of the codices, is shown in plate [LXIV], 1.[207-1] In this the essential features appear to be the black spot at the top, the semicircle of dots around it, and the short perpendicular lines in the lower half. The form on the right slab of the “Palenque tablet,” and also in the Lorillard City inscription, copied by Charney, is given in plate [LXIV], 2. The only particular in which this differs from the other is that the little circle at the top is crosshatched. The form shown in [LXIV], 3, is found in the Tikal inscription; it shows also the crosshatching in the little circle at the top. This character, however, when combined with other glyphs, and when used otherwise than as a day symbol, sometimes varies from the types given. For example, in the symbol of the month Mac it is as shown in plate [LXIV], 4. In this a minute, divided oblong, takes the place of the dark spot at the top, and a double curved line accompanies the circle of dots. Another form is shown in plate [LXIV], 5. The only variation in this from the usual type is the introduction of two or three minute circles in the curved line of dots and the divided oblong. Dr Seler is inclined to believe that these are essential variants from the true imix symbol; nevertheless, as m is the chief consonant element both in imix, or mox and mac, there appears to be a relation between the form of the glyphs and their phonetic value.
Drs Seler and Schellhas believe im to be the radical of imix and imox, which are dialectal variations of the same word. Dr Brinton, however, basing his opinion on the fact that mox and moxin are used sometimes as equivalents, decides that the radical syllable is m-x. In this he is probably correct, and if so, this furnishes additional evidence of the close relation between form and sound, as in one case m-x are the chief phonetic elements and in the other m-c. It is probable that Drs Schellhas and Seler were led to their conclusion by the fact that the symbol bears a close resemblance to the conventional form of the female breast, which in Maya is im. This, which was perhaps the origin of the symbol, was probably selected simply because m is its only prominent element. Nevertheless, it is worthy of notice that the symbol for the day Ix is frequently represented as shown in plate [LXVI], 36, from Tro. 5*c. This is similar in some respects to the Imix symbol, and the name contains the i and x of the latter. If the writing is phonetic, the points of resemblance may have some significance, otherwise they do not.
In a previous paper[208-1] I suggested that the probable signification of the character [LXIV], 7, from Dres. 14c and 46b, is maax, “monkey, ape, imitator.” Below the text in each case is seen a dark male figure (or deity), to which it undoubtedly refers, as is conceded by Drs Schellhas and Seler. The face character, which forms part of the glyph, may be only a determinative; at least I am unable to assign it any other value in this connection, and the necessity for such determinative is apparent. Brasseur, under akab-maax, speaks of a phantom or hobgoblin of this name, which he says signifies “the great monkey of the night.” Perez gives as definitions “duende” (elf or hobgoblin) and “mico nocturno.” Henderson, who writes the name akabmax, simply says “sprite, phantom.” It would seem, therefore, that among the superstitious beliefs of the Maya was that of a night phantom or deity, which took the form of a monkey. But this black figure appears to be different from those on Tro. 34*-31*, with which Seler connects it and to which he applies the name Ekchuah.[208-2]
In the paper above referred to, I have interpreted the symbol shown in plate [LXIV], 8 (from Dres. 35c) maach, “the crow,” assuming the birdhead to be a determinative. Seler concludes that the bird which this represents is “a substitute, colleague, or symbol of the Rain god Chac,” the so-called Maya Tlaloc so frequently represented in the codices. Although there is in this case no bird figure below to confirm our interpretation, yet it appears to be justified by the comparisons given and by its agreement with the phonetic value of the imix symbol. It is also further confirmed by the two glyphs shown in plate [LXVIII], 13, 14, which occur together in Dres. 38b. In this case the two characters, which are combined in plate [LXIV], 8, are separated, yet must have the same signification. Here the bird figure (a man with a bird’s head or bird mask) is seen below. In both instances rain is represented, showing that the bird is supposed to bear some relation thereto. But it is more likely that it has direct reference to the wind which accompanies the rain storm rather than to “fruitfulness,” as Seler supposes. Be this, however, as it may, our rendering of the imix symbol in this connection appears to be justified, and indicates that the symbol is used here for its phonetic value rather than with any reference to its primary signification.
Dr Seler also refers in this connection to the lower line of symbols on Dres. 29-30b (three of which are shown in plate [LXVIII], 15, 16, 17); to those shown in plate [LXVIII], 18, 19, from Tro. 14c; and those shown in plate [LXVIII], 20, 21, from Tro. 11a. He remarks that “in a number of hieroglyphs the character imix stands as an equivalent of a peculiar animal head which bears as a distinctive mark the element akbal over the eye. Thus in the hieroglyphs enumerating those above mentioned which, standing after the hieroglyphs of the cardinal points, seem to express the deities presiding over them, indeed there appears here on the same animal head, on one hand the character imix, on the other the element figure 165” (our plate [LXIV], 5).
Although I am unable to interpret satisfactorily the imix symbols in the places above referred to, I think it can be made apparent that Dr Seler’s explanation is without foundation. For instance, by referring to the plates of the Dresden and Troano codices mentioned, it will be seen that there is nothing whatever that refers to an “animal head which bears the element akbal over the eye,” unless we suppose it to be in plate [LXVIII], 16 (from Dres. 29b) and [LXVIII], 21 (from Tro. 11a). There is no figure below or connected with either series to justify this conclusion. It is also certain that plate [LXVIII], 21 (Tro. 11a) is not an animal head. Possibly plate [LXVIII], 16 (Dres. 29b) may be intended for an animal head, but this is not certain and, moreover, it is not repeated in the series.
Referring to Cort. 27a it will be seen that the compound glyph shown in plate [LXVIII], 22 (apparently the same as that on Tro. 11a) is repeated four times in one line, each connected with a cardinal point symbol, and each standing immediately over and evidently referring to a large vessel.[209-1] It is stated that it was a custom among the Maya during certain religious ceremonies to place a vessel in their temples at each of the four cardinal points.[209-2] As cum and xamach are Maya words signifying vessel, we still find in these the m sound. It is therefore possible that the similar glyphs on Dres. 29b and Tro. 14 and 15 also refer to vessels. The supposition seems to be strengthened by the fact that connected with the former are figures of the four classes of food animals—quadrupeds, birds, reptiles (iguana), and fishes. The latter refer to the hunter’s occupation, being accompanied by figures of the deer. Landa, in his descriptions of the various festivals, repeatedly alludes to the four Chacs or Bacabs which represent the four cardinal points, and to the different classes of food animals presented where vessels were used. It is therefore more likely that the symbol is used in the places mentioned because of its phonetic value rather than as a substitute for the heads of lightning animals, for which supposed substitution Dr Seler admits he can not account.
Dr Seler refers also to the glyph on which the long nose deity is seated, Dres. 44a, shown in our plate [LXVIII], 23. The prefix he interprets by “man, human being,” and supposes the whole glyph refers to the attributes of the Rain god. As the deity holds a fish in his hand, and is seen in the lowest division of the same plate in the act of seining fish, is it not more likely that this symbol should be rendered by cayom, “a fisherman”? This is appropriate and retains the phonetic value of the imix symbol.