£4 MAYA AND MEXICAN MANUSCRIPTS. 



the same manuscript, under the four symbols of the cardinal points, 

 we see four figures, one a sitting figure similar to the middle one with 

 black head, on the left side of the Cortesian plate; one a spotted dog 

 sitting on what is apparently part of the carapace of a tortoise; one a 

 monkey, and the other a bird with a hooked bill. Is it not possible that ' 

 we have here an indication of the four days— Dragon, Death, Monkey, 

 Vulture, with which the Mexican years began f 



In all the Maya manuscripts we find the custom of using heads as 

 symbols, almost, if not quite, as often as in the Mexican codices. Not 

 only so, but in the former, even in the purely conventional characters, 

 we see evidences of a desire to turn every one possible into the figure 

 of a head, a fact still more apparent in the monumental inscriptions. 



Turning to th» ruins of Copan as represented by Stephens and others, 

 we find on the altars and elsewhere the same death's-head with huge 

 incisors so common in Mexico, and on the statues the snake-skin so 

 often repeated on those of Mexico. Here we find the Gipactli as a huge 

 crocodile head, 52 also the monkey's head used as a hieroglyphic. 53 



The pendant lip or lolling tongue, which ever it be, of the central 

 figure of the Mexican calendar stone is found also in the central figure 

 of the sun tablet of Palenque 54 and a dozen times over in the inscrip- 

 tions. 



The long, elephantine, Tlaloc nose, so often repeated in the Mexican 

 codices, is even more common and more elaborate in the Maya manu- 

 scripts and sculptures, and, as we learn from a M.S. paper by Mr. Gus- 

 tav Eisen, lately received by the Smithsonian Institution, has also been 

 found at Copan. 



Many more points or items of agreement might be pointed out. but 

 these will suffice to show that one must have borrowed from the other, 

 for it is impossible that isolated civilizations should have produced such 

 identical results in details eveu down to conventional figures. Again 

 we ask the questiou, Which was the borrower :' We hesitate t<> accept 

 what seems to be the legitimate conclusion to be drawn from these 

 facts, as it compels us to take issue with the view almost universally 

 held. One thing is apparent, viz, that the Mexican symbols could 

 never have grown out of the Maya hieroglyphics. That the latter might 

 have grown out of the former is not impossible. 



If we accept the theory that there was a Toltec nation preceding the 

 adveut of the Aztec, which, when broken up aud driven out of Mexico, 



62 Travels in Cent. Amer., vol. I, p. 156. Monument .V, plate. Mr. Gustav Eisen, 

 in a Ms. lately received by and now in possession of the Smithsonian Institution, also 

 mentions another similar head as found at Copan. This, he says, is on the side of an 

 altar similar to that described by Stephens, except that the top wants the hieroglyphics. 

 The sides have human figures similar to the other; on one of these is the head of an 

 '•Alligator." 



• Il>i<l., 2d plate to p. 108. 



51 Stephens' Trav. Cent. Amer. Ill Frontispiece. 



