230 DAY SYMBOLS OF THE MAYA YEAR [eTH. ANN. 16 
marking is frequently present on the serpent figures in the codices 
(plate LXV, 23), it is possible that its signification is chan, “serpent,” or 
it may refer to some real or mythological characteristic. 
The signification of the names of this day, except that of the Nahuatl 
ealendar—cohuatl, *“serpent”—appears to be uncertain. Perez says the 
word chicchan can be explained only by considering it to be incorrectly 
written for chichan, “little.” Henderson in his lexicon writes it chichan, 
and gives as the meaning of the word, “new, young, as chichan u, the 
new moon.” Dr Seler first suggested that the first part of the name 
might be derived from the root chi, chii, ‘mouth, to bite,” and hence 
that the signification might be “the biting serpent.” However, he 
subsequently concluded that the proper interpretation is “a sign 
marked or taken,” from chich, “a sign or mark,” and ch’aan, ““some- 
thing taken or carried away.” Dr Brinton thinks there is much less 
difficulty in construing it as chich, strong or great, and chan, the generic 
Tzental term for serpent. The generic term for serpent in the Zoztzil 
is cham. 
Dr Seler does not attempt an explanation-of the Tzental term, but 
Dr Brinton says that it means in that dialect and in Cakchiquel, “luck, 
fate, fortune.” This, he says, is identical with the Zapotee ci, 277, and 
guii, and, as he finds evidence that the serpent is mentioned as an 
animal whence portents were derived by the Zapotecs, thinks this fur- 
nishes the connecting link with the signification in other calendars. 
This explanation is so circuitous, and in fact strained, as to render it 
unsatisfactory. 
A study of the symbol with reference to its origin may perhaps fur- 
nish some aid in arriving at the true signification of the name. As will 
be seen by reference to the various forms of the symbol, the bordering 
of the circular inclosed space appears to be more permanent than the 
inner markings. This is apparent from the fact that the little squares or 
blocks are retained in all the types except the anomalous forms shown 
in plate Lxv, 16-18, and even in one of these (LXV, 18) they appear. 
On the other hand, the markings in the inclosed space are varied, 
and in some instances, as LXV, 11, are omitted altogether. It would 
seem, therefore, from this that the bordering was considered the essen- 
tial element of the glyph. From what, then, is the symbol taken? If 
we turn to Dresden 25c, we see in the priest’s robe, in all probability, 
that from which the symbol was derived. Here we have the inner cross- 
hatching and the little dark blocks or squares around the border. The 
same pattern is seen also on Tro. 16*b and ¢, and on the female dresses, 
same codex, 20*e and d. On the latter, in some cases, is the waved 
line seen in the unusual forms of the day symbol shown in plate LXV, 17, 
18,and 19. Other examples could be referred to, but attention is called 
only to one more, viz, the curtain-like articles exhibited on Tro. 29*b, 
where we see not only the inner crosshatching and bordering blocks, 
but on the side borders the precise marking of the day symbol shown 
in plate LXxv, 17. 
