SYMBOL OP THE GOD OF DEATH. 



U\ 



(machete) iu his hand, with arrows or spears, with a scepter, and finally, also, with 

 the bod}- of a snake. Considering the immense variety of this god's la^prescMla- 

 tions and the numerous symbols of jjower in the various elements which the deity 

 rules, we maj- well bi- juslilird in assiiiiiinu tliat tlicir air indications here of one of 



the most importani li-iiiv-, iu Maya iii\lbol.,4\ , «iih ..I the principal deities of 



the people. The nicst ini|».iiaiit -od ol lb.-.Ma>as was Kiilvu lean, the creator of the 

 counti-y's civilization, who had come from the far, unkndwn i a-.l. (lie Mexican Quet- 

 zalcohuatl, the Gucumatz of the Kiche, the Kukulcan <<\' ilir I'/tiKials. All these 

 names mean '' feathered snake,"' " bird snake." Now. in Ihr ali^w' incntinncil sec- 

 tion of the Dresden manuscript, pp. 39-43, there is found on page 8(). middle, the 

 representation of a bu-d and a snake, the two symbols of the god Kukulcan, which, 

 at the same time, denote his name in the manner of a rebus. That this represen- 

 tatiiin is to Ipc rcffiifil l<i []\f god with the snake's tongue is rendered probalile on 

 tbi' on.' Iiaml 1.^ the tait that this whole section treats of him and is proved on the 

 otJHi- hand li> the ciii nnistancc that in the same place the same snake is found rep- 

 iTsiaiir.l u itii the head of the god; thus, page 35, middle, and 36, above. In the 

 sanir wav t his snake with the god's head is also found in the Codex Cortesianus, page 

 . a passage which is rendered notable also by the fact that in the writing 

 jiicture there is expressly found as a second sign the name hieroglyph of 



Cimi (?). Supposed symbols of the god of death. Occurring very 

 o frequently in all the codices, but with several variations (see Figs. 

 383 and 384). 



These are given chiefly on the authority of Drs. Forste- 



^ mann and Schellhas, as I have some doubt in reference 



to this conclusion, for reasons which will here be given. 



As Dr. Schellhas remarks, this is "'the most characteristic and 

 most easily recognized deity of the Maya Codices"; but this state- 

 ment will not apply to the symbols, as the variations are such as to 

 render it exceedingly doubtful whether precisely the same idea is 

 embodied in each. Even the two forms here given, both of which 

 are found in all the codices and often together, present variations too 

 mnrlKcd for us to believe, except upon strong evidence, that they rep^ 

 rrsi'iit I III' sjime thing. Nor do the figures of this deity or supposed 

 dfity apjicar to embody throughout the same idea. In fact, they 



