208 DAY SYMBOLS OF THE MAYA YEAR (ETH. ANN. 16 
ment. 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*e. 
This is similar in some respects to the Jmiv symbol, and the name con- 
tains the i and x of the latter. If the writing is phonetic, the points of 
resemblance may have some significance, otherwise they do not. 
Ina previous paper! I suggested that the probable signification of the 
character LXIv, 7, from Dres. 14c and 46b, is maa, ‘‘monkey, ape, imi- 
tator.” 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 Tam 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, phan- 
tom.” 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 Ekechuah.? 
In the paper above referred to, I have interpreted the symbol shown 
in plate LXIv, 8 (from Dres. 35c¢) maach, “the crow,” assuming the bird- 
head to be a determinative. Seler concludes that the bird which this 
represents is “‘a substitute, colleague, or symbol of the Rain god Chae,” 
the so-called Maya Tlaloce so frequently represented in the codices. 
Although there is mm 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 LXV1I, 
13, 14, which occur together in Dres. 38b. In this case the two charac- 
ters, which are combined in plate LXTV, 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 accom- 
panies the rain storm rather than to “fruitfulness,” as Seler supposes. 
Be this, however, as it may, our rendering of the imix symbol in this 

‘American Anthropologist, July, 1893, p. 254. 
“There appears to be much confusion among writers who have referred to this subject in regard to 
the “Black Deities” of the codices. Dr Brinton’s remarks on this subject in his late work, ‘‘A 
Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics,"’ does not clear up the confusion. Apparently he has not discovered 
that quite a number of these are merely black figures of well-recognized deities not thus usually 
colored. It appears also, judging by his statements, that Dr. Brinton has failed to identify the chara -- 
teristics by which the different deities of this class are to be distinguished. Dr Schellhas, in his 
excellent paper ‘‘Die Gottergestallen der Maya Handschriften,’’ fails also to properly distinguish 
between these deities. Dr Seler, whose profound studies have thrown much light on the Maya hiero- 
glyphs, fixes quite satisfactorily the characteristics of some of these deities, yet he confounds others 
which should have been separated. 
