UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS- (CONTINUED)
Note.— The University of California Publications are offered in exchange for the publi-
cations of learned societies and institutions, universities and libraries. Complete lists of all
the publications of the University will be sent upon request. For sample copies, lists of
publications or other information, address the Manager of the University Press, Berkeley,
California, U. S. A. All matter sent in exchange should be addressed to The Exchange
Department, University Library, Berkeley, California, U. S. A.
AOEICULTUEAIi SCIENCES. — E. B. Babcock, J. W. Gilmore, and C. B. Lipman, Editors.
Price per volume, $3.50. Volumes I and II in progress.
ASTRONOMY.— W. W. Campbell, Editor. (Lick Observatory, Mt. Hamilton, Oal.)
Publications of the Lick Observatory. — Volumes I-Xn completed.
BOTANY.— W. A. Setchell, Editor. Price per volume $3.60. Volumes I (pp. 418), 11 (pp.
360), III (pp. 400), and IV (pp. 397) completed. Volumes V and VI in progress.
CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY.— Edward B. Clapp, William A. Merrill, Herbert O. Nutting,
Editors. Price per volume $2.00. Volume I (pp. 270) completed. Volume n in
progress.
ECONOMICS.- A. 0. Miller, Editor.
EDUCATION.— Edited by the Department of Education. Price per volume $2.60.
ENGINEEBING.— Edited under the direction of the Engineering Departments. This series
will contain contributions from the Colleges of Mechanics, Mining, and Civil Engi-
neering. Volume I in progress.
GEOGEAPHY. — Ruliff S. Holway, Editor. Volume I in progress.
GEOLOGY. — Bulletin of the Department of Geology. Andrew C. Lawson and John 0.
Merriam, Editors. Price per volume $3.50. Volumes I (pp. 435), II (pp. 457), in
(pp. 482), IV (pp. 462), V (pp. 458), VI (pp. 454), and VII (pp. 504) completed.
Volume VIII in progress.
MODERN PHILOLOGY.— Volumes I (pp. 400) and n (pp. 373) completed. Volumes in
and rv in progress.
PATHOLOGY. — Frederick P. Gay, Editor. Price per volume, $2.50. Volume I (pp. 347)
completed. Volume II in progress.
PHILOSOPHY. — G. H. Howison, Editor. Volume I (pp. 262) completed. Volume n in
progress. Price per volume $2.00.
PHYSIOLOGY.— S. S. Maxwell, Editor. Price per volume $2.00. Volumes I (pp. 217),
n (pp. 215), III (pp. 197) completed. Volume IV in progress.
PSYCHOLOGY. — George M. Stratton, Editor. Volume I in progress.
ZOOLOGY, — W. E. Ritter and C. A. Eofoid, Editors. Price per volume for volumes I-X,
$3.50; for volume XI and following, $5.00. Volumes I (pp. 317), II (pp. 382), III
(pp. 383), rv (pp. 400), V (pp. 440), VI (pp. 478), VII (pp. 446), VIII (pp. 357), IX
(pp. 365), X (pp. 417), and XI (pp. 538) completed. Volumes xn, XIII, and XIV
in progress.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CHRONICLE.— An official record of University life.
Issued quarterly, edited by a committee of the Faculty. Price, $1.00 per year. Cur-
rent volume No. XVII.
Address all orders or requests for information concerning the above publicattona to The
University Press, Berkeley, California.
European agent for the series in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Classical Phil-
ology, Education, Philosophy, and Semitic Philology, Otto Harrassowitz, Leipzig. For the
series in Agricultural Sciences, Botany, Geography, Geology, Mathematics, Pathology,
Physiology, Zoology, and also American Archaeology and Ethnology, R. Friedlaender &
Sohn, Berlin.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS
IN
AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY
Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 297-398 March 8, 1916
THE DELINEATION OF THE DAY-SIGNS IN
THE AZTEC MANUSCRIPTS
BY
T. T. WATERMAN
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS
BERKELEY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFOENIA PUBLICATIONS
DEPABTMENT OF ANTHEOPOLOQY
The following publications dealing with archaeological and ethnological subjects issued
mder the direction of the Department of Anthropology are sent in exchange for the pubU-
eations of anthropological departments and museums, and for Journals devoted to general
anthropology or to archaeology and ethnology. They are for sale at the prices stated, which
Include postage or express charges. Exchanges should be directed to The Exchange Depart-
ment, University Library, Berkeley, California, U. S. A. All orders and remittances should
be addressed to the University Press.
European agent for the series in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Classical Phil-
ology, Education, Modem Philology, Philosophy, and Semitic Philology, Otto Harrassowitz,
Leipzig. For the series in Botany, Geology, Pathology, Physiology, Zoology and also Amer-
ican Archaeology and Ethnology, B. Friedlaender & Sohn, Berlin.
AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY.— A. L. Kroeber, Editor. Prices,
Volume 1, $4.25; Volumes 2 to 10, inclusive, $3.50 each; Volume 11 and following,
$5.00 each.
Cited as Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Arch. Ethn. Price
Vol. 1. 1. Life and Culture of the Hupa, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 1-88;
plates 1-30. September, 1903 $1.26
2. Hupa Texts, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 89-368. March, 1904 _. 3.00
Index, pp. 369-378.
VoL 2. 1. The Exploration of the Potter Creek Cave, by William J. Sinclair.
Pp. 1-27; plates 1-14. April, 1904 _ 40
2. The Languages of the Coast of California South of San Francisco, by
A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 29-80, with a map. June, 1904 60
3. Types of Indian Culture in California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 81-103.
June, 1904 26
4. Basket Designs of the Indians of Northwestern California, by A. L.
Kroeber. Pp. 105-164; plates 15-21. January, 1905 75
6. The Yokuts Language of South Central California, by A. L. Kroeber.
Pp. 165-377. January, 1907 „ _ 2.26
Index, pp. 379-392.
Vol. S. The Morphology of the Hupa Language, by Pliny Earle Goddard.
344 pp. June, 1905 3J50
Vol. 4. 1. The Earliest Historical Relations between Mexico and Japan, from
original documents preserved In Spain and Japan, by Zelia Nuttall.
Pp. 1-47. April, 1906 „ _... .60
2. Contribution to the Physical Anthropology of California, based on col-
lections in the Department of Anthropology of the University of
California, and in the U. S. National Museum, by Ales Hrdlicka.
Pp. 49-64, with 5 tables; plates 1-10, and map. June, 1906 76
3. The Shoshonean Dialects of California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 65-166.
February, 1907 .- 1.50
4. Indian Myths from South Central California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp.
167-250. May, 1907 .76
6. The Washo Language of East Central California and Nevada, by A. L.
Kroeber. Pp. 251-318. September, 1907 76
6. The Religion of the Indians of California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 319-
356. September, 1907 60
Index, pp. 357-374.
Vol. 6. 1. The Phonology of the Hupa Language; Part I, The Individual Sounds,
by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 1-20, plates 1-8. March, 1907 86
2. Navaho Myths, Prayers and Songs, with Texts and Translations, by
Washington Matthews, edited by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 21-63.
September, 1907 - .76
8. Kato Texts, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 65-238, plate 9. December,
1909 2.50
4. The Material Culture of the Klamath Lake and Modoc Indians of
Northeastern California and Southern Oregon, by 8. A. Barrett.
Pp. 239-292, plates 10-25. June, 1910 _. .75
5. The Chimariko Indians and Language, by Roland B. Dixon. Pp. 293-
380. August, 1910 1.00
Index, pp. 381-384.
Vol. 6. 1. The Ethno-Geography of the Porno and Neighboring Indians, by Sam-
uel Alfred Barrett. Pp. 1-332, maps 1-2. February, 1908 8.26
2. The Geography and Dialects of the Miwok Indians, by Samuel Alfred
Barrett. Pp. 333-368, map 3.
3. On the Evidence of the Occupation of Certain Regions by the Miwok
Indians, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 369-380. Nos. 2 and 3 In ome cover.
February, 1908 ..„ _ _ - -88
Index, pp. 381-400.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS
IN
AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY
Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 297-398 March 8, 1916
THE DELINEATION OF THE DAY-SIGNS IN
THE AZTEC MANUSCRIPTS
BY
T. T. WATEEMAN
CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction 298
The Manuscripts 299
The Aztec Calendar System 300
The Time-periods 300
Method of Determining the Time-periods 302
System of Dating 303
The Twenty Day-symbols 304
The Numerals 308
The Method of Writing Dates 309
The Tonalamatl, or Book of Indexes 310
The Book of Indexes Applied to the Time-periods 311
Corrections of the Calendar 316
Origin of the Calendar System 321
The Reason for Twenty as a Factor 322
The Reason for Thirteen as a Factor 323
Derivation of the Calendar Symbols 327
Probable Line of Evolution 327
The Delineation of the Calendar Symbols in the Manuscripts 328
The Twenty Day-signs; their Characteristics and Variations 332
Water-monster (Cipactli) 334
Wind (Ehecatl) 337
House (Calli) 342
Lizard (Cuetspalin) 343
Snake (Coatl) 346
Death (Miquiztli) 347
Deer {Mazatl) 351
Rabbit (Tochtli) 353
Water (Ml) 357
Dog (Itzcuintli) 360
Monkey ( Osomatli) 362
298 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
Grass (Malinalli) 364
Cane (Acatl) 368
Ocelot (Ocelotl) 370
Eagle (Quauhtli) 374
King- vulture ( Cozcaquauhtli) 376
Motion ( Olin) 377
Flint (Tecpatl) 382
Rain (Quiahuitl) 385
Flower (Xochitl) 390
Borrowing of Characteristics 392
Conclusion 393
Bibliography 394
INTRODUCTION
A very noteworthy achievement of the ancient Aztecs was
their peculiar calendar system. Even the Aztecs themselves seem
to have looked upon this calendar as the central fact of their lives.
It was not only of importance from a practical point of view,
but it filled a very large place in the ceremonial life of the people.
Thus ''calendar" had a meaning for them which the word quite
fails to carry for us. While their calendar system was in a sense
peculiar, its peculiarity lay chiefly in one or two unusual features.
In many ways the system was after all not unlike our own. This
does not, of course, mean that the two systems, theirs and ours,
had any historical connection. The development of the Aztec
calendar was undoubtedly independent of any influence from the
Old World. I am inclined to think that the Aztec system is not
so mysterious, and the history of its development not nearly so
abstruse, as the many commentaries written on it would lead us
to suppose.
It is a well-established fact that the particular system identi-
fied with the Aztecs of Mexico was merely an outgrowth, a sort
of special form, of one fundamental calendar concept which had
a very wide vogue in Middle America. This system is un-
doubtedly more ancient, for example, in Honduras, than it is in
the Mexican plateau. The Aztecs merely developed their own
special nomenclature for the various elements of this calendar,
and evolved certain special symbols. The system in its broad
outlines is very much older than the Aztec civilization proper.
1916] Waterman : Delineation of Day-signs in Astec Manuscripts 299
THE MANUSCRIPTS
Calendar symbols of one sort or another occur on a surprising
variety of monuments, both of early and late periods. The most
important of these monuments for the study of the workings of
the calendar system in detail are certain remarkable picture-
books or manuscripts, made on folded strips of deerskin, or on
paper made of the fibre of the maguey {Agave americana).
These manuscripts are usually spoken of as "codices." Only
a few of these native manuscripts survived the introduction of
European civilization into America. Those which were pre-
served were taken to Europe as curiosities, and often preserved
through mere luck. The ones still extant have received a great
deal of attention since the early part of the last century. All
but a few of the originals are still in Europe, and are at the
present time considered priceless.
The earliest effort at publishing or reproducing them on a
large scale is a work by Lord Kingsborough, in nine magnificent
volumes, called Mexican Antiquities} The arrangement of the
material in this work betrays almost complete ignorance of the
composition of the original manuscripts; and more than that,
the work of reproduction itself is, in a great many particulars,
inexact. The nine volumes, however, imperfect as they are, have
been the foundation of a great deal of later study. The American
scholar Cyrus Thomas,^ has written several papers on Aztec
matters which are based largely on Kingsborough 's work. The
same might be said of at least one well-known monograph written
by the Mexican archaeologist Antonio Peiiafiel.^ Reproductions
very similar to Kingsborough 's in general type, but rather better
in details of execution, have been published from time to time in
Mexico. Thus Penafiel's enormous work (noteworthy at least
in size and weight), called Monumentos del arte mexicano
antiguo* contains two Aztec manuscripts, namely, the "Book of
Tributes," and the "Zapotec Codex," both reproduced in fae-
1 For full titles of all works referred to, see bibliography at end of
essay.
2 See his "Numeral Systems of Mexico and Central America," 1893.
sNombres geogrdficos, 1885.
* Berlin, 1890, two volumes of plates and one of text.
300 University of California Publications in Am, Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
simile, including color. A more recent work, edited by Chavero,
Antigiledades mexicanas,^ contains several pictographic texts in
color. Since the year 1883 there have become available, due
principally to the Duke of Loubat, a number of very beautiful
facsimiles of ancient texts, which reproduce, in every respect,
the original picture manuscripts. A list of the facsimile texts
on which the present study is based will be found in the bibli-
ography below. A few "codices" like the Codex Borbonicus,
edited by Hamy, have not been used in the present study simply
because copies were not locally available. Moreover, those manu-
scripts are most interesting which seem to be purely Aztec, or
which show few traces of Spanish influence. Hence such sources
have been most emphasized in the following pages.
THE AZTEC CALENDAR SYSTEM
THE TIME-PERIODS
It seems necessary to begin a discussion of the treatment of
the calendar in the manuscripts by pointing out the most essen-
tial features of the calendar system itself. That will accordingly
be our first concern. A good deal of uncertainty has always
existed concerning some of the details of the ancient Aztec
calendar. Discussion about certain points began only a few
years after the Conquest. Bernardino de Sahagun, for example,
whose Historia general de las cosas de Nueva Espana^ is perhaps
the most valuable literary source for the study of conditions
among the Aztecs, was already involved in the year 1539 in an
acrimonious dispute with another monk concerning the ques-
tion of whether or not there were "corrections" or "intercala-
tions" in the Aztec system. Other features of the system have
always been surrounded with mystery. Certain facts, on the
other hand, are quite clear and have never been the subject of
dispute. Prominent among them is the fact, which must never
be lost sight of, that the basis of everything calendrical was
the solar year of 365 days, representing (though the Aztecs,
5 Mexico, 1892, one volume of plates and one of text.
8 See bibliography.
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Astec Mamuicripts 301
of course, never dreamed of the celestial mechanics involved)
approximately the period of the earth 's revolution about the sun.
This is the starting-point and basis for all the other features of
their calendar.
Their calendrical computations seem, to be sure, to reflect
knowledge of other periods, based not on the sun but on the stars.
Seler,'^ and Forstemann^ have said a great deal about a so-called
"Venus year," a period of 584 days based on the movements of
the second planet of our system. Seler has also discovered what
seem to his own mind traces of a period based on the revolution
of Mercury. It may readily be assumed that the Aztecs had
considerable knowledge of the stars, and the recognition of star-
periods is by no means impossible. It is a very notable fact in this
connection that the ancient peoples of Mexico paid little regard
to the most conspicuous body in the heavens, aside from the sun,
namely the moon. This is especially interesting because the
moon's phases are employed almost the world over, as marking off
convenient periods of time. An important work of the middle
seventeenth century, the Manual de los ministros de las Indias,
by a Jesuit, Jacinto de la Serna," states that certain month-
periods were actually reckoned by the Aztecs, beginning with
each new moon. These are said to have been used by women,
especially in connection with the period of pregnancy. Periods
based on the moon, however, do not appear in the manuscripts,
and even moon symbols are noticeably infrequent.^"
There was recognized in ancient Mexico, in addition to the
year mentioned above, a period of twenty days, a cempoalli,
employed as a subdivision of the year-period. Such twenty-day
units were regularly employed in speaking of a lapse of time of
less than a year's duration. Eighteen of these cempoallis, or
twenty-day periods, with a group of five special days added at
the end, made up the regular year of 365 days. The five days
thus added to the eighteen "twenties" are the often-mentioned
nemontemi referred to in every account of the Aztec calendar.
7 1898.
8 1893.
» Published in 1899. See bibliography.
10 See Cyrus Thomas, 1897, p. 954.
302 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
Many of the statements made concerning these nemontemi by
the older authors lead to confusion. The five days in question
were considered unlucky, and the Aztec refrained, as far as pos-
sible, from all activity during the period. Considered collec-
tively, they had no name, though each of the preceding eighteen
periods had one. It is often said, therefore, that they "were not
counted." Seler has shown^^ that this means that they were
"of no account," since all activities were, as far as practicable,
suspended until the five-day period was safely over. We know
for a fact that the separate nemontemi days were duly reckoned
in their regular places in all calendrical computations. The
concensus of modern opinion is that they are not to be looked
upon as intercalations or corrections. The Aztecs, then, in refer-
ring to the passage of time, employed (1) a period of 365 days,
broken up into (2) subdivisions or cempoallis of twenty days
each, each subdivision having a name. Besides the cempoallis
there was a nameless five-day period. Such twenty-day periods
are often called months. It is, I think, worthy of some reiteration
that our English word "month" is philologically based on the
word moon, just as, from the practical point of view, the month-
period is approximately one "moon" of 29^/2 days. Obviously,
therefore, the word month cannot be appropriately applied to
these twenty-day Aztec periods." Our best resource is to fall
back, in mentioning these subdivision of the Aztec year, on the
native word cempoalli, which means simply a ' ' period of twenty. ' '
They were not of prime importance in calendrical computations.
METHOD OP DETERMINING THE TIME-PERIODS
A point to be re-emphasized is that the one fundamental
element at the bottom of the Aztec calendar system is the 365-
day solar year.
The question which next arises is: how did the Aztecs come
to note so exactly the periods of revolution of certain of the
heavenly bodies such as the sun, and perhaps of some of the
planets? It seems that they had a simple but rather effective
11 1891.
12 Seler, 1900-1901, p. 5, makes this point.
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 303
method of making observations. Mrs. Nuttall in the Boas Anni-
versary Volume refers to a picture showing how celestial move-
ments were registered. A priest, to describe it briefly, sits inside
a temple door and notes, with the aid of a notch on the lintel, the
position of the rising or setting of a planet. The planet rises, of
course, in a slightly different place day after day. By observing
the rising of this planet until it got back to its original point,
he could determine its "period." Probably the approximate
length of the solar year was established in this way — by noting
the variation of the point of sunrise, day by day, until the
return of a summer or winter solstice marked the completion
of a given period. The priest could meanwhile keep a tally
of days by notching a stick, or in some other way. Apparatus
for making more exact observations than this certainly never
existed among the ancient Mexican peoples. The general situa-
tion as regards astronomy and their attitude towards it is brought
out in a rather interesting way in an address reported to have
been delivered to Montezuma on the occasion of his assumption
of the office of principal war-chief. This exhortation is chronicled
by Tezozomoc," and is referred to by Seler.^* The war-chief is
urged ''to rise at midnight and look at the stars; toward morn-
ing he must carefully observe the constellation Xonecuilli, St.
Jacob 's Cross ; and he must carefully observe the morning star. ' '
Sahagun also, in the seventh book of Historia general gives an
elaborate account of Aztec astronomy. They had therefore
enough knowledge to realize the importance of the heavenly
bodies for recording the passage of time. It seems quite natural
that their time-periods should have a basis in the movements of
certain celestial bodies.
SYSTEM OF DATING
The Aztecs seem to have recognized, then, a number of time-
periods, the most important of which is the solar year. Now
comes the question of how they wrote down dates.
Perhaps the simplest way of understanding the Aztec system
of indicating dates within the year is to recall the salient fea-
13 Cronica mexicana, chapter 82; see Kingsborough, 1831, vol. 9.
14 1898, p. 346.
304 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
tures of our own system. We recognize, first of all, our year of
365 days (disregarding for the moment leap-year and other
"corrections"). We divide this year up into twelve unequal
periods. These periods were, in the youth of our calendar, much
more uniform than they are at present. A number of perfectly
trifling considerations have from time to time been allowed to
alter the length of certain months. Within each of our months
the days are numbered in order, beginning with 1. We identify
days, then, by using twelve names, each name in combination with
twenty-eight, twenty-nine, thirty, or thirty-one numerals as the
case may be. Considered from this point of view, our system
offers many points of resemblance to the Aztec. The latter, how-
ever, employed not twelve but twenty names, and used each of
these names in combination with thirteen numerals. They did
not utilize the "months" or cempoallis for writing dates. It
is best perhaps at this point to have these day-names used in
dating and their symbols clearly in mind.
The Twenty Day-symhols
The Aztec words which were used as day-names are all names
of actual animals, objects, or phenomena. In writing or record-
ing these words the Aztec made use of pictures. This gives us
a series of twenty " day -symbols, " which are of fundamental
importance in all calendar reckonings. It is very much as though
we ourselves used our present names for the twelve divisions of
the year, but represented them by pictures — perhaps a picture of
Janus for the month of January, of Mars for March, and so on.
The twenty day-names of the Aztecs, in the order in which they
usually appear, are given in the following list. In this list the
English equivalent of the Aztec word is given first, with the
native term following it. The orthography used is that adopted
by the Spanish on their first contact with the Aztecs, since that
orthography has become classical, and is now a fixed tradition
among Americanists. The pronunciation of the Aztec words here
written is practically that of modern Spanish, except that x has
the value of English sh, and z that of English ts. The double-1
has more nearly the value of the symbol as used in English than
in Spanish.
1916]
terman :
Delineation
of Day-signs in As
The Aztec Day-names
Water-monster
Cipactli
Wind
Ehecatl
House
Calli
Lizard
Cuetzpalin
Snake
Coatl
Death
Miquiztli
Deer
Masatl
Eabbit
Tochtli
Water
Atl
Dog
Itzcuintli
Monkey-
OzomatU
Grass
Malinalli
Cane
Acatl
Ocelot (
"Tiger")
Ocelotl
Eagle
Quauhtli
King-vulture
CoscaquauhtU
Motion
Olin
Flint
Tecpatl
Rain
Quiahuitl
Flower
Xochitl
305
The graphic symbols corresponding to these names will be
found in figure 1. The name of the sign is in each case written
under it in English, with the original Aztec word in italics. The
drawings used in this figure are taken from various Aztec manu-
scripts, as follows:
a, Nuttall (Zouche)," p. 46
6, Nuttall (Zouche),
c, Nuttall (Zouche),
d, Nuttall (Zouche),
e, Nuttall (Zouche),
f, Nuttall (Zouche),
g, Vatican B,
h, Nuttall (Zouche),
i, Fejervary,
j, Nuttall (Zouche),
The effort has been made in this figure to exhibit a typical
form of each of the signs. The drawing has been selected in each
case, out of the large number available, as being perhaps the
most characteristic form and the one most frequently encountered.
Many of the graphic symbols in this figure are, as regards their
meaning, self-explanatory. The symbols for House, Lizard,
p. 46
fc.
Nuttall (Zouche;,
p. 72
p. 83
I,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 48
p. 47
m
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 46
p. 42
n,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 72
p. 44
o,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 1
p. 48
P,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 54
p. 66
q,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 47
p. 57
r,
Vatican B,
p. 50
p. 28
s,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 39
p. 72
t,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 47
15 For the citations, consult the list of manuscripts in the first part of
the bibliography.
306 University of California Puhlications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
e
f
9
h
Snake
Death
Deer
Eabbit
Coatl
Miquistli
Mazatl
Tochtli
Water
Atl
c==:03SS=:2
3
Dog
Itscuintli
Tc
Monkey
Ozomatli
Grass
Malinalli
Motion
Olin
r 8
Flint Rain
Tecpatl Quiahuitl
t
Flower
Xochitl
Fig. 1.-
-The Twenty Day-signs, Typical Forms
1916J Waterman : Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 307
Snake, Deer, Rabbit, Water, Dog, Monkey, Ocelot, Eagle, Vul-
ture, and Flower (c, d, e, g, h, i, j, k, n, o, p, and t, in the
figure) are fairly realistic pictures in each case of the thing
itself. The remainder are more or less puzzling. The first drawing
(a) represents a head, probably that of the "cayinan," either the
alligator or the crocodile. Both animals are very common along
the southern borders of the Gulf of Mexico, The second symbol
in the figure (&), standing for the idea "wind" is a representa-
tion of the wind-god Quetzal-coatl, or "Feathered Serpent,"
In this drawing he is shown, as is often the case, in human form.
The long beak shown in the figure is thought by some students
to be connected in some way with the idea of blowing. The sixth
sign (/), called "Death," is very appropriately drawn as a
human skull. The twelfth sign {I), "Grass," possesses, as it is
usually drawn, at least one curious feature. Underneath a very
realistic representation of a bunch of grass, with a seed stalk in
the center, there appears a human jawbone. The next symbol
in the list, "cane" (m), is a representation of the cane shaft
of an arrow or javelin, probably the latter. The appendages
on this "cane" figure apparently represent the feathering and
ornamentation of the missile. The cane-plant itself seems never
to occur as a day-sign. The idea is always represented by the
cane shaft. The seventeenth sign (g) is very much of a
puzzle. It represents the idea ' * motion ' ' ; but why motion should
be symbolized in this particular way seems impossible to say.
Seler^® does, to be sure, advance the notion that it represents,
in one place, the sun between the sky and the earth (see p, — ,
below). For all the certain knowledge we have, it must be con-
sidered an arbitrary symbol. The eighteenth symbol (r) stands
for the word "flint," It is quite a realistic picture of a double-
pointed flint knife of the type found in use among nearly all
uncivilized peoples. The design at the middle of the edge of
this knife is the remnant of a picture of a human face.^'^ The
nineteenth symbol, Rain, represents the face of the rain-god (see
page 385, below). More specific comment on the forms of these
symbols will be found in another part of this paper.
16 1900-1901, p. 14,
17 See figure 35, below.
308 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
The Numerals
The second principal factor in the calendar system is a series
of thirteen numerals. There are a number of interesting opinions
as to why the list of numerals should have been limited to thir-
teen. Some of thase opinions are noticed and compared in
another section of the present paper. The mere writing of these
numerals is a very simple matter. The value is indicated in
every case by a series of dots. Very little system is apparent
in the placing of these dots. They seem to be placed around
the day-sign according to the taste of the artist, in the position
which gives the best artistic effect, or where there is convenient
space (fig. 2). Other ways of indicating number than the rather
d e f
Fig. 2. — The Method of Writing Calendar Numerals
a, The day 12 Death (Nuttall (Zouche), p. 76); b, 13 Eain
(Nuttall (Zouche), p. 46); c, 6 Monkey (Nuttall (Zouche), p. 44);
d, 13 Cane (Nuttall (Zouche), p. 44) ; e, 6 Snake (Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 44); f, Motion (Penafiel, 1890, vol. 2, p. 288).
awkward method of writing down dots, were perfectly well
known to the Aztecs.^* In the "Book of Tributes" and other
places where considerable quantities of commodities are to be
enumerated, a number of devices are used. Thus "twenty" is
represented by a picture of a pantli, or battle-flag. A picture
apparently representing a feather stands for the quantity "two
hundred." There are other symbols for larger quantities. In
18 See Cyrus Thomas, 1897, pp. 945-948.
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 309'
the Bologne Codex, ''five" is indicated by a straight line, and
ten by two parallel lines. Such short-cuts were not customarily
applied to the writing of dates. We have in the two principal
factors just discussed, then, the raw materials on which the whole
writing-out of the calendar was founded: (1) a set of twenty
symbols or "day-signs," used with (2) a set of thirteen numerals,
indicated by dots.
The Method of Writing Dates
At this point there appears one of the curious features of the
Aztec system, to the existence of which reference was made above.
The Aztecs, in writing a series of consecutive dates, changed for
every date in the series both the day-sign and the numeral. More-
over, as soon as they came to the end of either list, they at once
began at the beginning, regardless of how far along they were in
the other list. Certain remarkable results follow from this, as
will be apparent when it is remembered that the list of numerals
was very much shorter than the list of day-signs. Suppose the
Aztec were writing our dates according to his own system. He
would represent January first by a name and a numeral. For
the next day, however, he would have written, not January-two,
but February-two. Thus, he uses throughout the symbols and
numerals in double progression. The twelfth day of our year,
according to the Aztec system, would have been written Decem-
ier-twelve, and the thirteenth, January -thirteen. The fourteenth
would, assuming that our names were to be used in the Aztec
fashion, however be February-one. February would be the
"sign," following January, and the given date would take the
numeral "one" because after the thirteenth numeral has been
used, it is necessary to begin again with the first. A good many
different illustrations of the Aztec system have been brought
forward from time to time.^^ As a matter of fact, there is nothing
complicated about it, though it would be the last thing probably
to suggest itself if one of us were inventing a calendar system.
Its difficulty is entirely due to the fact that it is utterly different
19 See Tylor, 1863. p, 239. Seler supplies complete tables of the dates
written out in the order in which they occur (1891, p. 1).
310 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
from what we happen to do ourselves. No reason for the Aztec
custom in regard to the numerals has so far been advanced.
The Tonalamatl, or "Book of Indexes"
Every day in the Aztec calendar, then, had what might be
called an index, consisting of a symbol used in conjunction with
a numeral. The twenty day-signs, every one of which could be
written with one of the thirteen numerals, make up a series of
20 X 13, or two hundred and sixty indexes, all told. This series
of compound terms for dates was known to the Aztecs as the
tonalamatl, literally "Book of Days." It has become customary
to use the native term tonalamatl in speaking of the series, since
the Aztec word has no exact equivalent in any of the European
tongues. This "Book of Indexes" is really the one important
achievement of the Aztec and all related calendar systems. All
the other features of the system (and many of them are both
curious and interesting) really follow in a perfectly mechanical
way from the application of these 260 day indexes, which is all
the Aztec had or could supply, to the solar year of 365 days.
The solar year is, in a sense, a "discovery," since it is based
on the actual revolution of the earth about the sun, but the
tonalamatl of 260 signs is apparently an artificial device. One
point demands decided emphasis in this connection. The 260
date symbols mentioned above do not correspond to any period
used in recording the passage of time. The time-periods are
(first) the year, and (second) its subdivisions, the "twenties."
One of the many things that make the literature on the Aztec
calendar hard to follow is the habit which authors have of
recognizing the point just emphasized, that the tonalamatl is
not a time-period, but meanwhile referring to it in a loose and
inconsistent way.^" The tonalamatl represents merely the number
of indexes or labels that the Aztec had at his disposal in writing
dates. It is precisely from this fact — that the tonalamatl was not
a period for reckoning time — that the most typical features of
the calendar system follow.
20 For example, Seler, 1901, p. 16, or Nuttall, 1904, p. 494.
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Mamiscripts 311
The *'Book of Indexes'' Applied to the Time-periods
Let us suppose, for example, that we are at the beginning of
an Aztec year. The dates, according to the Aztec custom, are to
run in one continuous series. The division into months is of no
significance as far as the writing of dates is concerned. The
tonalamatl of 260 symbols, as a little reflection will show, reaches
only two-thirds of the way through the year. At the end of 260
days we begin to use the tonalamatl over again. There is no
help for this, as there are no additional indexes for dates beyond
the 260th, on which the Aztec could draw. Certain indexes will
occur twice, then, in any given year. The 261st date in each
year, to go no further, will be exactly the same as the first. If
the Aztec wanted to distinguish between the two, he had to adopt
some indirect method.^^ If we began a year, then, with the begin-
ning of the tonalamatl, at the end of that year we would find
ourselves well embarked on our second voyage through the
tonalamatl. The first turn through the tonalamatl would take
us to September 17, and in the remainder of the year we would
use 105 of the 260 indices over again. It is a point for immediate
emphasis that at the end of the year the Aztec did not begin a
new tonalamatl, but went right on in the new year with the
remainder of the tonalamatl which he had already partly used.
Eternity for the Aztec consisted of an endless series of dates,
occurring in regular cycles of 260, irrespective of how these
cycles conformed or failed to conform to the actual year-periods.
We see, therefore, that the same principle is applied to the
tonalamatl as a whole, that was applied in the case of the two
factors mentioned above, the twenty symbols and the thirteen
numerals.
It must be remembered that the list of day-symbols, and the
numeral series, are used over and over again in two independent
cycles, ad infinitum. It is obvious, therefore, that in a year of
365 days the list of twenty day-symbols will be used eighteen
times, with the addition of five signs out of the nineteenth
revolution (365 = 20X18, plus 5). If a given year begins
with the first day-symbol, then the next year will begin with
21 See page 314 of the present paper, note 23.
312 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
the sixth. The next year after that must begin with the
eleventh, and the year after that with the sixteenth. All this
follows mathematically from our premises. The year after the
one last mentioned (that is, the fifth j^ear reckoning from a
given point) begins with the sixth day -sign succeeding the one
last mentioned, which is again the first of our series of twenty.
It must be remembered that there is no twenty-first in the
series. The sign following the twentieth is of necessity the
first. Hence, no matter how often the tonalamatl is used, the
only symbols which will appear on the initial days of years are
the first, the sixth, the eleventh, and the sixteenth of our list.
This follows as a mathematical result merely of applying a series
of twenty day-signs in rotation to a year of 365 days. The
Aztecs were accustomed to name the year after its initial day.^^
There were, therefore, only four of the twenty signs which could,
in the nature of the calendar, stand at the beginning of the year
and serve for year-names. It might be well to follow an estab-
lished custom and call these four the dominical day -signs. As a
matter of fact, the Aztecs named their years after the thirteenth,
the eighteenth, the third, and the eighth symbols of the list as
it is given above. Every year must begin either on the sign
Acatl (cane), Tecpatl (flint), Calli (house), or Tochtli (rabbit).
If we assume that the year begins with one of these signs, the
other three follow mechanically. The reason for the shift from
the use of the first, sixth, eleventh, and sixteenth day-signs as
dominicals, to the third, eighth, thirteenth, and eighteenth is not
known. The facts concerning the beginning or initial day-signs
were first rendered absolutely certain, I believe, by Mrs. Nuttall
at a meeting of the International Congress of Americanists at
Huelva, Spain, in 1892. It must simply be admitted that the
first sign in the list, according to the usage of the Aztecs at the
time of the Discovery, never fell on the first day of the year.
Applying to the numerals a procedure similar to the one
we have just applied to the day-signs, it becomes evident that
22 Nuttall, 1903, p. 13. Seler (1893, p. 142) advances the opinion that
they named the year after the first day of the fifth month. Without dis-
cussing this point, it is a fact that in general the Aztecs called the year
after the index of one particular day in that year. It seems altogether
likely that they would select the first day for this purpose.
1916] Waterman : Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 313
the whole series of thirteen numerals would be used twenty-
eight times in a year and still have one day unaccounted for
(28 X 13 = 364, only, while there are 365 days in the year).
Remembering the Aztec principle of reverting to the first as soon
as a series is exhausted, it is evident that if the first day of a
solar year had the numeral 1, the last day of that year would
also have the numeral 1. The next year would therefore begin
with the numeral 2. This second year, like the preceding one,
would end on the same numeral as the one it began with; and
hence the third year in the series would begin with the numeral
3. Thus the years in their flight begin with the various numerals
in order — a very curious thing, depending on the fact that (1)
the year has 365 days, and (2) the numeral series is contained in
the year a certain number of times with a remainder of one.
Assuming that the Aztecs, before their calendar system was in-
vented, were familiar with the length of the year, it is almost con-
ceivable that they chose thirteen numerals on account of the very
consideration that every successive year would in that way begin
with a different numeral. Fourteen numerals, however, would
of course have served this particular purpose quite as well as
thirteen. Such a reason for the selection of thirteen is about as
good as any so far offered. To recapitulate : The Aztecs had for
calendrical calculations twenty day-signs, thirteen numerals, and
a certain number of year-signs, the latter consisting of the
indexes which fall on the day on which the year begins. There
are only four day-stgrws which fall on the beginning days of
years, according to the Aztec system of revolving the calendar;
but each of these four signs combines in regular order with one
of their thirteen numerals. The total number of indexes which
can fall on the initial days of years is therefore four times
thirteen, or fifty-two.
It might be well to take some definite examples of the work-
ing of this system. Let us assume that the first year of a period
begins with the date 1 Cane; the next must begin with the date
2 Flint ; the next with the date 3 House ; and the next with the
date 4 Rabbit; and so on, until every one of the four signs has
occurred with each of the thirteen numerals. It will be remem-
bered that the Aztecs named the year after its initial date (see
314 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
page 312, above). The Aztecs could with propriety speak of the
day 3 House, in the year beginning with 4 Rabbit. Such a com-
bination ' ' 3 House, 4 Rabbit ' ' could not occur again until a whole
series of fifty-two years was passed over.^^ As a matter of fact,
the Aztec dates were written in precisely this manner, naming
both the day-index and the year in which it occurred. The index
falling on the beginning day of a year is regularly found asso-
ciated with a peculiar "year" sign, looking like a monogram
composed on an incomplete A and O (fig. 3). It is obvious that
at the end of fifty-two years there are no new "year" signs to
a h
Fig. 3. — The Year-symbol or Year-sign
a, 7 House (Nuttall (Zouche), p. 52) ; 6, 6 Cane (Nuttall (Zouche), p. 44).
be employed, since all the possible initial day-signs have com-
bined with all thirteen numerals. It becomes necessary after
fifty-two years to begin with the first again. At the end of such
a fifty-two year period the Aztecs celebrated what is called a
"tying of the years." The priests kindled new, clean fire with
the fire-drill, which was distributed broadcast, and a fresh start
in reckoning was taken. Such a fifty-two year period is called
a "cycle" (in the Maya calendar of Central America, a "calendar
round"). There seems to have been no way known to the Aztecs
of distinguishing the dates in a given cycle from those in other
cycles. The Aztecs, then, had no fixed point from which they
reckoned, and every fifty-two years really represented a new
calendar. Their records could hardly be said to cover a longer
period than this. Tradition or legend might go back enormously
further, but a point never to be too much insisted upon is that
23 Bearing always in mind the proviso that there might, in certain
cases, be two dates "3 House" in the same year. If the Aztec had
wanted to be specific in such a case, he could do so only by stating how
much time had elapsed since the beginning of the year, or by putting with
the day-index a picture of the special divinity who ruled over that day
and no other (Seler, 1891, p. 18).
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Mamiscripts 315
when the Aztec chronicler spoke of what had happened a couple
of centuries before his own time, he was imparting essentially
mythological information, and was not dealing with historical or
chronological facts. In spite of their complex calendar system,
the Aztecs, at the time of the Conquest, were a people without
a history.^* It seems entirely probable that the archaeologist will,
within the course of the next few years, know vastly more about
the history and antecedents of the peoples and tribes known
collectively as the Aztecs, than they ever knew themselves. This
history will be reconstructed from their archaeological remains,
not from their writings.
This calendar system would, therefore, seem in a sense to be
a failure. In justice to the Aztecs, however, it must be remarked
that their calendar was not devised for the purpose of keeping
chronological records. If an Aztec knew in a general way that
a given event happened in the time of his grandfather, he seems
to have considered himself amply informed. Their calendar was
a matter, not of the past, but entirely for the present and the
future. Certain combinations of signs used in dating were held,
for reasons we can no longer fathom, to imply good fortune.
Certain other combinations spelled disaster and woe. The
calendar was very generally employed, in accordance with this
notion, as a means of soothsaying or divination. Every date had
a meaning of its own, irrespective of its relation to other dates.
It was in this aspect of the calendar that the Aztec found himself
most vitally interested. Their attitude is brought out very nicely
by the fact that they gave a man, for his personal name, the index
of the day of his birth.^'* This date served him for a name until
he won so much distinction and honor that he deserved a better
one — an attitude that in general is quite in line with the customs
of the American Indians in other parts of the New World. The
260 indexes of the tonalamatl, then, appear quite commonly in the
Aztec manuscripts as the personal names of heroes. So far as I
know, however, they kept no record of how old any individual
was. The fact that he was born under certain auspices was
important. Nobody cared about his actual age. The calendrical
24 Brinton in his various works insists on this point.
25 Codex Magliabecchi (Nuttall, 1903), p. 12.
316 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
achievements of the Aztecs, then, are not to be measured by their
success in writing chronological history. There are certainly not
to be adjudged as having made a failure of something which they
after all rarely dreamed of attempting.
CORRECTIONS OP THE CALENDAR
We saw above that the Aztec year had a length of 365 days.
The actual length of our solar year is appreciably greater than
that — 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 46 seconds, to be exact.
The ancient Mexicans, then, made the mistake every year of
beginning the new year more than five hours too soon. Such a
habit as this leads in the long run to some confusion. In the
course of four years the accumulated error makes a difference of
practically a full day. At the end of a century of such continual
and unrectified miscalculation, the New Year's festival, assuming
that one exists, will be celebrated almost a month before the
proper time. Such matters take on an appearance of some im-
portance when we reflect that the Aztecs were, above everything,
an agricultural people. If conditions found to-day among the
agricultural Indians of the United States (for example, in the
Southwest) are any criterion, it seems rather likely that the
ancient Aztecs took a fanatical interest in the maturing of certain
crops. To the sedentary Indian of the United States the center
of everything is his cornfield. That the attitude of the ancient
peoples of middle America was, as a matter of fact, not essentially
different is shown by a passage in the famous "Franciscan
Chronicle"^* referring to the Cakchiquels of Guatemala:
If one looks closely at these Indians, he will find that everything
they do and say has something to do with maize. A little more, and
they would make a god of it. There is so much conjuring and fussing
about their cornfields that for them they will forget wives and children,
and any other pleasure, as if the only end and aim in life was to secure
a crop of corn.2T
It seems entirely probable that the most important religious
festivals in Mexico, as among the recent agricultural Indians in
26 Cronica de la S. Provincia de Guattemala, etc. See bibliography at
end of this paper.
27 Op. cit., chapter vn, quoted by Brinton, 1885, p. 14.
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 317
eastern and southwestern North America, were connected with
the crops.^® The religious symbolism of the ancient Aztecs is
almost as thoroughly pervaded with references to corn-deities
and rain-gods, as are the rituals of the modern Pueblo Indians.
The festivals of a people so interested in crops must necessarily
have reference to certain fixed seasons of the year. It seems
likely, therefore, with regard to the Aztecs, that very serious
discrepancies arose at a very early period between the time for
the ceremonies, as shown by the progress of the calendar, and
the occasion for these observances, as indicated by the state of
the crops. The calendar system, it must be remembered, in
the form in which we know it, has a history of many centuries
behind it. Its symbols occur on some very ancient monuments.
Time enough had elapsed, therefore, by the period when our
record opens, for such discrepancies to have become acute. The
Aztecs, owing to this ''precession" of their calendar, might well
have found themselves at times celebrating harvest-home festivals
before the crops were so much as put into the ground. Each
generation must have discovered, from its own experience, that
their year of 365 even days was too short. From what we know
of Aztec life, then, we should expect to find some provision in
their calendar for corrections of some sort or other.
No marked success, however, has met the numerous efforts
which have been made to prove that a system of periodic correc-
tions or ' ' intercalations ' ' really existed. The present writer, more-
over, cannot but feel that all the theories so far advanced concern-
ing the Aztec system of correction have been founded more or less
frankly on the knowledge which civilized students have of what
the correction ought to have been. Our system of adding a day
every four years produces a calendar very nearly correct. The
error between the time of Julius Caesar and the year 1752
amounted to only eleven days all told. "We can say at once, how-
ever, that the probabilities are all against the Aztecs having made
this correction of one day in every four years, or any equivalent
interpolation. Lacking instruments of precision and chrono-
metric appliances, and being also without real written records,
28 See, for example, the Codex Magliabecchi (Nuttall, 1903), pp. 63,
79, etc.
318 University of California Fuhlications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
such an interpolation on their part would have been a most
surprising accident.
All the theories and commentaries written by modern scholars
on the question of Aztec intercalation are based on relatively
few original sources. By an original source is meant, in this
connection, accounts obtained by people who were actually in
contact with the Aztecs before their calendar lore was lost. The
following list represent a few of the most frequently quoted of
these "original" authorities (page 319, upper half).
On the soil afforded by the sources named, a number of curious
and interesting theories have blossomed. The theories concerning
intercalation are distinguished, first, by their variety, and
secondly, by their ingenuity. No one of them seems to my mind,
under the conditions given, to be plausible. It is only fair to
state that the most ancient accounts exhibit about as much
diversity as the most recent critiques. In the case of Sahagun,
for example, we find the original author virtually contradicting
himself.^* The variety of the modern opinions in the matter of
intercalation is brought out quite clearly by putting them side
by side in the form of a tabulation (page 319, lower half).
So much for the evidence of intercalation on the positive
side. There is certain evidence, however, that seems to indicate
that the Aztecs must have been unacquainted with the whole
principle of calendar correction. Of first importance |s the
curious fact mentioned by Seler^^ that when Sahagun talked with
certain ' ' old men, the most skilful possible, ' ' at Tlaltelolco, forty
years after the Conquest, their reckoning of the events of that
Conquest were already ten days in error. It seems impossible
to over-emphasize the importance of such evidence as this. It
is of vastly more significance than any number of statements
from the Indians as to what their custom was or was not. The
hard facts in the case seem to partake of the nature of a
demonstration, either that they had no intercalation, or, if any
such principle was employed, that they applied it only to periods
of over forty years duration. Another bit of negative evidence
28 Compare the doubtful statements in the second book, chapter 19,
with the vigorous ones contained in the Appendix to the fourth book.
81 1891, p. 19.
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Astec Manuscripts
319
CO p
2- (=
W <- M JH
P- SB o, g
P.<!S1
MP?
£. i_i *
1 p P
B ^
£ 5*
a "< p 80
2 P W «
S >• -
- f 5- S ^ ^
o tr B 2 3
° "^ V- P S
Da o p Qo o
-3 S3
8
- B B
"^ n S
►i o e»
P 00
o o
S. £?
■d Ej
p. Pi
o <B P-
B <
a a
-d M, vj
» p
2 "^
10 M M
Pi p.
P. P.
P< P-
a P"
*< (» p, i_i
o
w
a\
**.
P'
2
*>■
M
ts
;3
<j
p'
V!
^
o
P'
P
P
P
p
<i
•<
H
O
a
w
>
p
M
to
o*
O
5]
!0
O
B
p.
p*
p
B
M
5*
*>■
S«
H
w
W
><
*-*,
V
M
p
v
o
Bs
-i
to
M
§
P
(6
><_
5'
p
B
P
?
CO
0}
W
o
1— 1
00
CO
C P
h3
(6
o
2
P
c
CQ
(0
a
K&!
?g
l_i 00 tj
- f s
►1
f>
2
M
i-«
3
p
SL
S^
H
B
P
to-
&
t
5'
s*
B
P<
S
5
Pi
o
o
?
A
o
o
pi
i
w
B!
Pi
(B
-»
(6
o
B
*"*
►
CO
►U'
(B
<
B, P
s
2 X
P 5- *^-°
CO 'T' >-• (D
P Pi
o.
B M
S- ". *
M to
P pj ^
g* « P o
I
I
5?
H B 00
00 L_J
o Co
09
00 £. ^
S* B
I g
o
^ 5
p- 00
C0
H3
>
^ 2
S^
w o
gs
o
M
Q
O
lb
00
1
-1
g°
HI
S
w
S ^
b'
03 M
w
to
fd W
o
>1
a
1^
o
o
W (H
p
>-».
"■"^ o
B-
^
<y
o
t;<
5t
•^
o
a
p>
O
n
B t! I-
00 c^
w ?
i-" B
320 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
is of an equally uncompromising nature: None of the ancient
manuscripts show any trace of intercalation, though some of
them involve rather longer periods of time. This latter statement
applies with particular force to the Vatican manuscript 3738
(Vatican Codex A).^^
All the arguments for intercalation seem to involve one funda-
mentally wrong conception. There exists a school of thought
which sets up, in this part of the New World, a strong centralized
government, with a king at its head, whereas there existed in all
probability merely a weak confederation of utterly democratic
Indian pueblos, directed by a war-chief who was elected to super-
vise military operations merely. Some of the ideas expressed con-
cerning the calendar seem to hinge on this misconception. Not
enough attention has been paid in this connection to Bandelier's
papers.^^ The works of many European writers on American
institutions still involves thrones and principalities, croAvns and
scepters, very much as though Bandelier had never written. The
usual assumption is that, granted the existence of an empire, there
must have been in ancient Mexico some one universal system of
calendar correction, and that it is our duty to find out what this
system was. There is, as a matter of fact, some reason to believe
that there was in the last analysis no fixed, authoritative calendar,
to say nothing of an official system for correcting it. Considerable
evidence is available that the whole Mexican system was in a
formative and somewhat chaotic condition. It may be well to
enumerate some of the points that would suggest this conclusion
Sahagun tells us, for example, that the beginning of the Aztec
year differed greatly in different places. When he himself wished
to find out with what day the year began, he had to call a
conference of "old men" and "scholars," and they disputed
over the matter "for many days." Finally, apparently as a
compromise, they decided on February 2.^* In other words, the
required date was not a matter of fact; it was a matter of
32 Consult Seler, in the passage just mentioned.
33 "On the art of war and mode of warfare of the ancient Mexicans";
"On the distribution and tenure of lands and the customs with respect
to inheritance among the ancient Mexicans"; "On the social organiza-
tion and mode of government of the ancient Mexicans." 1880.
34 1831, p. 192.
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 321
opinion, and involved the reconciliation of conflicting reckonings.
In this connection it is furthermore worth noting that even the
names for the day-signs varied apparently from pueblo to pueblo.
A very interesting list of day-signs from Mezitlan, quoted by
Seler,^' has a sign "Earth Goddess" in the place usually occupied
by Water-monster. This same list differs from that of Mexico
City in having "Young Maize Ear" in place of Lizard; "Mill-
ing-stone" in place of Vulture, and "Tooth" instead of Grass.
It seems probable that additional lists from independent locali-
ties, or from a number of different pueblos, would reflect even
greater variety in the names for the separate days. In view of
these facts, it does not seem proven that there was any universal
or regular system of calendar reckoning among the Aztecs. We
must remember, also, that intercalation is hardly more than a
novelty in Europe. Until the time of Julius Caesar, our own
European calendar was a very helter-skelter institution. The
pontiffs of republican Kome "squared" the calendar with the
seasons as the emergency arose« and as opportunity seemed to
offer. From what we know of Mexican civilization in general,
with its independent towns and distinct linguistic areas, it seems
highly unlikely that the ancient peoples there had any better
arrangement than the Roman one. The evidence and the proba-
bilities are vastly in favor of the idea that no regular system of
calendar correction existed in ancient Mexico.^"
ORIGIN OF THE CALENDAR SYSTEM
It remains to discuss the origin and basis of this series of
calendar symbols. Concerning the actual evolution of the signs,
nothing is known. To discuss the matter with any degree of
profit, access to considerable collections of the more ancient
Mexican monuments would be necessary. Perhaps with a study
of such monuments it would be possible to establish the evolution
of the system in a general way. It is also impossible to say why
the particular twenty objects which appear in the ordinary
35 1900-1901, p. 7.
38 Compare Preuss, in the Cyclopaedia of Eeligion and Ethics, article
"Calendar: Mexican," where similar conclusions are briefly expressed.
322 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
tonalamatl were chosen. Resemblances of a rather striking sort
exist between the calendars of Mexico and, for example, China.
The analogy embraces not only the arrangement of dates in
cycles, and the method of combining signs with numerals, but
in some cases even identity of the signs employed. For that
matter, there are undoubted points of analogy between the Aztec
signs and certain of the signs of our own zodiac. However,
to put forward the claim, which is occasionally heard, that such
resemblances are proof of contact, or of a migration from
China, is to run counter to the entire trend of the evidence of
Mexican archaeology as a whole. It becomes constantly more
obvious that the civilization of Middle America was really an
autochthonous development, though discussion on the matter is
still heard. It may be taken for granted, therefore, that we
must look for the development of the Middle American calendar
system on the spot. So far as I know, however, no one has tried
to treat the subject historically. The effort so far has been to
account for the development of the calendar, especially its
numerical elements, on a psychological basis.
The Reason for Twenty as a Factor
The one solitary point on which students of the Aztec calendar
agree concerns the reason for the selection of twenty day-signs.
This factor twenty is assumed to have its foundation in the
Aztec numeral system. The Aztecs, that is to say, like many
nations of ancient and modern times, had a system of numbers
based on twenty instead of on ten. A very interesting discussion
of this system may be found in Cyrus Thomas ' paper ' ' Numeral
systems of Mexico and Central America. "^^ It stands quite to
reason that their numeral system must have developed much
earlier than their peculiar calendar. No further explanation is
needed, therefore, in the opinion of many scholars, for the fact
that they chose twenty day-signs. It seems, on first glance, to
be just what would have been expected from a knowledge of
their arithmetic.
3T 1897-1898, ft.
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Mantiscripts 323
The Reason for Thirteen as a Factor
When we consider the fact, however, that the twenty day-
signs were combined with thirteen numerals we are confronted
by a genuine puzzle. Opinions about the reason for the exist-
ence of a series of thirteen numerals are almost as numerous as
the authors who have discussed the subject. If, as a matter of
fact, the existence of a vigesimal numeral system led to a selec-
tion of twenty symbols, we should certainly expect it to lead to
the selection of twenty calendar numerals. Why do we find only
thirteen ? The artificial character of most of the hypotheses con-
cerning this point is made evident by merely putting them side
by side.
Various Suggestions to Account foe the Element Thirteen
IN the Calendar
1. The factor thirteen appears because the most important parts of the
body are thirteen in number: namely, the ten fingers, one ear,
one eye, and the mouth. (F6r8temann.)38
2. Thirteen represents the period of the moon's waxing, or waning.as
3. Thirteen was chosen because the ancient Mexicans had a conception
of thirteen heavens. (Forstemann,)*o
4. The title-page of the Tro-Cortesian codex has a representation of
the four cardinal points, counting in both directions, followed
by the symbols for the zenith and nadir, and another one un-
fortunately obliterated. Above these are written the numbers
one to thirteen. Does this account for the thirteen of the
calendar? (Cyrus Thomas.)*i
5. The Aztecs established a year of 364 days, because they needed for
the year a quantity divisible by 4. The quantity (364) factors
into 4 X 91, also into 28 X 13. Hence 13, (Forstemann).«
6. Thirteen is derived from the fact that 8 solar years are equivalent
to 5 "Venus" years. The Aztecs, in devising their calendar,
chose a unit consisting of a combination of 8 and 5. Hence 13.
(Seler.)43
38 1893, p. 494.
39 This suggestion is mentioned by Preuss in his article on the Calendar
to which reference was made above (footnote 37), and by Bowditch
(1912, p. 266).
*oi893, p. 494.
41 1897-1898 6, p. 954.
42 1893, p. 494.
43 1900-1901, p. 17 (following Troncoso).
324 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
These suggestions, while more or less ingenious, are rather
obviously artificial. The points involved in the first suggestion,
for example, would, if logically carried out, have resulted not in
the selection of thirteen numerals, but of some other number.
If, in making up a list of the most important parts of the body,
they were to count all ten fingers, half at least of which are
exactly like the other half, and which are not individually organs
of supreme importance, they would certainly have counted both
eyes. As regards the second suggestion, considerations of fact
thrust themselves forward. The actual period of the moon's
waxing is not thirteen days. Besides, if the moon had had any
effect on the evolution of the Aztec calendar, we would certainly
look for some traces of a lunar month. Nothing is simpler than
to count from one full moon to the next. The Aztecs would
hardly have made half of the moon's period an element in their
calendar and ignored the full period. The next two suggestions
in the list involve what is probably a logical inversion. It seems
likely that if the Aztecs conceived of thirteen heavens, or thirteen
gods of the day, it was because, for calendric or other reasons, the
number thirteen was already uppermost in their consciousness.
The number thirteen seems, as a matter of fact, to be rather im-
portant in their institutions. Thus there were thirteen divisions
in the Mayan armies; there are thirteen serpents in the Tzental
mythology ; and to the Cakchiquel the thirteenth day was sacred.**
It is, however, as plausible to consider these ideas a derivative
from the calendar as to turn the proposition the other way about.
The most abstruse theory is that of Forstemann (number 5
in the list just given). He assumes that the Middle American
peoples began by having a year of 360 days. Finding it too
short, they increased its length not to 365 days, but to 364,
because for personal (and it must be added, quite mysterious)
reasons they wished the number of days in the year to be divisible
by four. But a year of 364 days naturally divides itself into
subdivisions of twenty-eight days, and there are thirteen of these
subdivisions. Hence the thirteen of the calendar. Aside from
its highly elaborate character, this theory does not account for
44 Cyrus Thomas, 1897-1898 h, p. 953.
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 325
the fact that the Aztecs selected the thirteen rather than the
twenty-eight, or for that matter, rather than ninety-one, which is
as much a factor of 364 as are the other two quantities.
If Forstemann 's theory is the most abstruse, the one advanced
by Seler enjoys the distinction of being the most complicated.
His hypothesis involves his favorite idea that the Mexicans laid
stress on a ''Venus" year of 584 days. He is struck with the
fact, which is in a sense a curious one, that five of these Venus
years make up a period exactly equivalent to eight solar years.
He then makes the assumption that the Aztecs chose, as the basis
of their calendar, a period consisting of these two periods taken
together, or 949 days. The greatest common divisor of 365 and
584 is 73 ; the solar year is five times, the Venus year eight times,
and the "basic" period thirteen times this factor. Hence the
element thirteen. If Seler 's theory is true, it must be borne in
mind that while these computations were being carried out in the
mind of the ancient inventor of the calendar, the days were still
nameless. They derive their names by the combination of certain
signs with these very thirteen numerals whose origin we are
discussing. Seler assumes therefore that the Aztec dealt with
such large numbers of days as 949, and traded such groups of
days about in their minds, before they had names for any of
them. In other words, he assumes that the Aztecs became skilled
mathematicians, noted carefully the length of solar and planetary
periods, and only after that sat down to invent names for
their days. There is no evidence in the whole of human history
that institutions develop in this way. The probabilities of such
a development having occurred with the calendar of the Aztecs
are, it seems to me, too remote to make the theory worth
elaborating.*^
Some scholars try to explain, not the occurrence of thir-
teen as an element in the calendar, but the occurrence of the
tonalamatl of 260 units. If for the first step the Aztecs recognized
260 as a fundamental quantity, and for the second step selected
twenty day-signs because the vigesimal character of their
numerals suggested such a course, they would derive the third
45 It is only fair to remark that Seler, judging from his phraseology,
seems to feel somewhat the same way about it himself.
326 University of California Puhlications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
element by dividing 260 by 20, thus getting 13. Several ex-
planations, as a matter of fact, have been advanced which account
for the element 260 directly. Someone has suggested that nine
was a sacred number, and that 260 represents the total number
of days in nine lunations. This hypothesis has been mentioned
favorably by Mrs. Nuttall.*^ Aside from other objections, nine
lunar months give, as a matter of fact, not 260 but approxi-
mately 2651/^ days. Another hypothesis, which dates from very
early times (possibly from Motolinia)*^ is based on the idea
that 260 days represented the period of visibility of Venus. This
hypothesis might at least be discussed if Venus really were
visible for 260 days. Unfortunately, nothing of the sort is
the case. As remarked by Beuchat,*® the 260-day period does
not correspond to the duration of any known astronomical
phenomenon. Still another hypothesis derives the importance
of 260 days, and the use of that period in the calendar, from
the fact that pregnancy occupies that time. This last suggestion
would perhaps be the most plausible of the lot if pregnancy lasted
for that period. It has been advanced by Mrs. Nuttall,*® before
her by Porstemann,^" and before him by Torquemada, Aside
from its relative simplicity, it seems to have little in its favor.
Goodman, whose monograph was probably the most important
single contribution to the subject,^^ holds the opinion that the
260 is not necessarily based on the combination of twenty and
thirteen, but that it became established because it was a unit
that divided up very conveniently in a number of ways.
Everything considered, I am inclined to advance the convic-
tion that the factors thirteen and twenty are the original ele-
ments in the tonalamatl. It would seem most plausible, other
things being equal, to suppose that these two simple factors
evolved in some way, and that the tonalamatl is the product of
them. Very likely there was a simple and practical reason which
led to the selection of these two factors in the first place. It may
46 1904, p. 495.
47 See Seler, 1900-1901, p. 16; Nuttall, 1904, p. 495.
48 1912, p. 334.
49 1904, p. 495.
eo 1895, p. 532.
51 1897, p. 29.
1916] Waterman : Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 327
safely be said, however, that this reason is not obvious at the
present time.
Derivation of the Calendar Symbols
Reference has been already made to the fact that the calendars
of all the more highly civilized peoples of Middle America have
many points in common, and are constructed along practically
the same lines. It is obvious at once, therefore, that there is
opportunity offered for the most interesting comparative study.
Such investigations have been carried out with gratifying results
by Professor Seler. Two of his works are of especial interest
from this point of view, namely, his ''Mexican chronology with
especial reference to the Zapotec calendar, ' '^^ and his monograph
on "The tonalamatl of the Aubin collection. "^^ Discussion as
to the probable place of origin of the calendar, and the deriva-
tion of its signs, is therefore unnecessary here. Of the two papers
mentioned, the latter in particular contains a systematic presen-
tation of the affiliations of the whole series of symbols, in order.^*
The matter may be dismissed in the present connection with the
remark merely that Professor Seler 's evidence in these two
papers is almost entirely of a linguistic character. Archaeological
evidence has never been applied to this question.
Prohahle Line of Evolution
There are really two types of explanation possible for the
existence of this complex calendar — gradual evolution or sudden
creation. Of the two hypotheses I vastly prefer the first, on
general principles. Discussion will be out of place, however,
until we have some actual data to discuss. Some of the most
distinguished Americanists, on the other hand, seem to regard
the calendar as a sudden invention. Seler, as quoted above,
views the calendar in its entirety as the product of some one
author or set of authors, working consciously toward the elabor-
ation of a system. Mrs NuttalP^ also voices the belief that the
52 1891.
53 1900-1901.
54 Op. cit., pp. 9-16.
65 1904, p. 494.
328 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
system had an inventor (not to describe him more definitely)
who actually had in view, and provided for, an epoch of 1040
years. He is supposed to have made provision in his calculations
for 260 Venus periods, rectified by 260 separate five-day cor-
rections, and to have provided for twenty intercalations. She
seems to regard the twenty day-symbols, the tonalamatl, the whole
complex institution, as the product of one tremendous cerebra-
tion. Though I profess myself unable to discuss the evolution
of the system in definite terms, I wish to register my profound
unbelief that it took any such line as this. The chances are, it
seems to me, that the calendar has an actual history — a history
of gradual accretion, change, and elaboration. I am inclined to
think that the Aztec calendar system frequently suffers from
being considered apart from its setting. It is important to
remember that it was the work of Indian tribes who had hardly
passed beyond the threshold of civilization. While elaborate,
it is, like many primitive achievements, rather awkward and
inefficient even in its perfected form. The operation of the Mex-
ican calendar system recalls the faults of their method of picture-
writing. Both institutions impress one with a sense of their
futile ingenuity. Any writer who treats of the Aztec calendar
ought, I think, to preserve in his mind a very lively picture of
the Indian pueblos in which it developed. It is certainly absurd
to put the Mexican calendar on a plane of equality with the
calendar systems of those nations of the Old World who had
written records, and at least the beginnings of science. Further
than to insist that the calendar probably has a history, it seems
impossible to go.
THE DELINEATION OF THE CALENDAR SYMBOLS
IN THE MANUSCRIPTS
We have seen that the various calendar symbols represent,
at bottom, actual objects or phenomena. A possible exception
occurs in the case of the "Motion" or Olin symbol, in which the
graphic element seems to be obscured, if it ever had one. A
good many tendencies operate in the case of most Aztec calen-
drical signs to change their original character. The simplest
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Maniiscripts 329
of these tendencies is perhaps the mere desire for ornamentation
or decoration. The native artist at times seems to regard the
calendar signs as an admirable field for the expression of artistic
taste. This is illustrated very well by the treatment of the
serpent's head, used as the day-sign Snake or Coatl. Figure 4
represents the various manners in which this design is elaborated.
In the drawings shown in the figure the general outline has not
been seriously modified. The various artists do, however, show
considerable discrimination in the choice of different styles of
ornament which they apply.
Fig. 4 — Different Styles of Ornamentation applied to the
Serpent Head
a, Vatican B, p. 4; &, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 4; c, Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 61; d, Vatican B, p. 4; e, Vatican B, p. 5; f, Vatican B, p. 81. »«
The same point is brought out very clearly in the case of the
different representations of Water-monster (Cipactli). This is
illustrated in figure 5. The head in every case is reptilian in
contour, possesses a prominent eye-plate, and is characterized by
the presence of a row of enormous triangular teeth. The surface
of the head is elaborated into spots, vertical lines, bars and dots
in a variety of arrangements.
The first point in the study of the day-signs, as they are
delineated in the manuscripts, is therefore that there is evident
considerable play of the artistic impulse. As a result, many
fanciful modifications of the original idea are in each case to be
looked for.
Another point deserving emphasis is this: that the native
artists, in delineating day-signs, were dealing with subjects per-
68 See note 15, p. 305.
330 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol, 11
feetly familiar to themselves and their audience. They were at
liberty therefore to reduce their pictures to the most naked
symbols without danger of being misunderstood. Moreover, the
signs in many manuscripts occur in a regularly established
sequence, and in many cases the identity of a symbol may be
Fig. 5. — Ornamental Elaboration in the Decoration of the
Water-monster Head
a, Vatican B, p. 4; 6, Vatican B, p. 7; c, Vatican B, p. 67; d, Vatican B,
p. 71; e, Vatican B, p. 1; f, Vatican B, p. 2.
determined as readily by its place in the series as by its appear-
ance. In many cases, accordingly, we encounter symbolism run
rampant. The symbols occur, in fact, in all stages of denudation.
It would be easily possible, on the basis of the material in the
manuscripts, to ''trace the development" of the more simple and
conventionalized designs from the more complicated and realistic
ones, by the old device of putting the realistic at one end of a
series and the conventional at the other. It is, however, worthy
of note in this connection that we often encounter a highly com-
plex form of a sign and a highly simplified one, side by side, on
the same page (see fig. 6). In other words, the native artist
apparently had complete forms of these day-signs always in his
mind. Sometimes in writing down a given sign he would choose
one or two features only, and in other cases would put them all
down, with elaborate ornament in addition, if the space permitted
and the humor struck him. One thing is perfectly evident from
1916] Waterman : Delineation of Day -signs in Aztec Mamiseripts
331
a study of the available manuscripts : that in the execution of the
day-signs, a considerable part is played by caprice.
These conditions permit almost unlimited convergence in the
various designs, making it practically impossible in some cases
Fig, 6. — Two Forms of the Day-sign Eain (Quiahuitl),
representing the Kain-god, Tlaloc
a, Human face with a goggle eye and long teeth; 6, the same
simplified. (Both from Nuttall (Zouche), p. 9.)
to identify a symbol when taken from its context. This is illus-
trated in figure 7. There is general similarity between the first
two drawings (a and &), yet they represent quite independent
day-signs. Flower and Cane. An even more extreme case is
shown in c and d of this figure, c represents a human jawbone
surmounted by an eye, and the whole accompanied by a tuft of
grass. The whole composite figure represents the day-sign Grass.
Fig. 7. — Drawings Similar to Each Other but Standing for
Distinct Ideas
a, Flower (Xochitl), Vatican B, p. 7; 6, Cane {Acatl), Vati-
can B, p. 11; c, Grass (Malinalli), Vatican B, p. 18; d, Water
(Atl), Vatican B, p. 82.
332 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
<i is a conventionalized representation of a vessel of water with
a shell in it (see figs. 20 and 25) and stands for the day-sign
"Water. Yet the two symbols c and d certainly look as though
they were intended to represent the same idea. This variability
and convergence may be best discussed in connection with indi-
vidual studies of each of the day-signs, and the various forms
assumed by them. The tendencies just pointed out will be found
to operate in the case of each of the day-signs taken up in the
remainder of the paper.
THE TWENTY DAY-SIGNS: THEIR CHARACTERISTICS AND VARIATIONS
The effort has been in the following pages to collect the most
divergent examples possible of the twenty day-symbols and to
put them side by side for comparison. A good many Mexican
manuscripts have been omitted from the returns submitted in
this paper because they contained drawings of Europeans and
European objects, and were therefore obviously late. Prominent
among the manuscripts of this class which have not been con-
sidered are the Vatican Codex A (3738), and the manuscripts
mentioned above, published in facsimile by the Junta Colombina
in Mexico City^^ (the Codex Porfirio Diaz, the Codex Baranda,
the Codex Dehesa, etc. ) . A good deal of material has thus been
passed over as too inexact for the present purpose. Conspicuous
in this category are the reproductions in Lord Kingsborough 's
enormous Mexican Antiquities already mentioned. Here the
day-signs are so imperfectly drawn that any discussion of their
forms would be wasted effort. The drawings in the Aubin
manuscript, some of them reproduced below, are much worse
than any of those in Kingsborough. The peculiarities of the
day-signs in it are obviously the mere effect of ignorance and bad
draughtsmanship. The Loubat edition of this manuscript con-
stitutes a perfect copy of a defective specimen. The variant
forms it contains have therefore a certain interest.
Wherever possible, the day-signs illustrated below have been
compared with realistic drawings of corresponding objects.
Study of these graphic drawings throws considerable light on
57 See Chavero, Antigiiedades mexieanas, 1892.
1916] Waterman : Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Mamiscripts
333
features of the day-signs which might otherwise be obscure. It
is only fair to assume that the day-sign, where it is not realistic,
is a simplified and conventional version of the graphic represen-
tation. It will in some cases be seen that the drawings which
appear as day-signs are curious, not purely because they are day-
signs, but because the Aztec artist had limitations even where
he tried to be realistic. The realistic drawings which appear
below are selected in every case from the list of original manu-
scripts which supplied the day-signs illustrated.
^OwVsW
wv
Fig. 8. — a-o, The Day-sign Water-monster (CipactU) ;
334 University of California Fuilications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
Water-monster {Cipactli)
Sources of drawings (fig. 8):
a, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 76 t, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 47
ft, Vatican B, p. 47 j, Vatican B, p, 80
c, Nuttall (Zoucne), p. 35 fc, Vatican Jb, p. 50
d, Vatican B, p. 87 I, Vatican B, p. 59
e, Vatican B, p. 73 m, Aubin, p. 13
f, Bologne, p. 3 n, Vatican B, p. 58
g, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 4 o, Vatican B, p. 5
h, Tejervary, p. 28 p, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 75
The drawings in figure 8 represent various forms of the day-
sign Water-monster (Cipactli). The final drawing in the series
(p) gives what must be regarded as an attempt at representing
this animal realistically. This latter drawing (p) was selected
from a page of the Codex Nuttall (Zouche manuscript) which
represents a group of warriors moving in canoes to the assault
of an island town. In the scene as given in the manuscript
there is drawn a lake, containing in its depths, in addition to
the present figure, a fish, several shells, and a snail (Codex
Nuttall (Zouche manuscript), p. 75). The resemblance between
the different forms of the first day-sign and this realistic draw-
ing of a monster in the water, lend ample color to the name
Water-monster applied to the day-symbol. The word CiparMi,
the Aztec name of the day-sign, seems to mean first of all
** prickly. "°* It is applied in the old vocabularies to an animal
described as a "big fish like a cayman" (alligator). The
corresponding day-sign of the Zapotecs of southern Mexico has
a name defined as "great lizard of the water." It seems
rather likely, all things considered, that the realistic drawing
shown below (p, fig. 8) and the day-signs which so closely
resemble it, are all intended to represent some of the American
crocodilia. A glance at figure 8, p, however, will show that it
is possible for even the realistic drawings of the animal to
represent him as lacking a lower jaw. This absence of the lower
jaw is quite a constant feature of this day-sign wherever it
occurs. Other prominent features of the day-sign are a large
eye-plate, which occurs quite uniformly, and large sharp teeth.
In the realistic picture the creature is represented with spines
68 Seler, 1900-1901, p. 9.
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 335
along his back, and on top of his snout. The spines along the
backbone are a counterpart of those which occur on the actual
animal. Those along the nose and head, however, are artificial
additions. A study of figures c, f, and p of figure 6 makes it seem
rather likely that these latter ' ' spines ' ' are in their origin merely
additional teeth which have wandered up from the lower part
or mouth part proper. On the other hand, they may be additions
suggested to the Mexicans by their familiarity with homed
lizards or "horned toads," which, barring size, are animals
somewhat like the alligator but possessing horny or spiny heads.
The teeth shown in the different forms of this day-sign are
worthy of remark in a general way. Figure 8, d, comes nearest
to representing realistically true crocodilian dentition. The
triangular teeth shown in h, a more usual type in the manuscripts
than the others, seem to be merely conventionalized forms. The
Water-monster signs have in their outlines at least a family
resemblance to the sign Snake, or Coatl (see fig. 13). This
resemblance has apparently affected the dentition given to the
Water-monster, who is often provided not only with teeth, but
with serpent fangs. The distinction between the two types of
teeth is clearly made in the drawings lettered a, e, f, figure 8,
and is perhaps suggested in p. In m we see not only a snake-
like fang, but the forked tongue of the serpent as well. These
points, suggested by or accompanied by an approximation in
general form to the serpent type, seem to be purely a case of
borrowing.
In a few of the drawings a nose-plug is exhibited {g and m).
This is a purely human article of adornment, and one that is
seen in many warrior and priestly figures in the manuscripts.
In figure 8, I, the combination of a spine and an eye-plate looks
almost like a sort of cap. The tail in figure 8, p, terminates in
a flint knife, or a figure very much like the flint knives illustrated
in figure 35.
In connection with the symbol Water-monster, Seler makes
a remark which is in my opinion a sample of what ought to be
avoided. He observes that the spikes on the top of the Water-
monster's head are intended to represent stone knives. He
"proves" that this is their original meaning by referring to a
336 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
page in the Codex Borbonicus, in which the spikes have the form
of stone knives. There is a logical weakness here. In some manu-
scripts we find the Eagle's feathers also taking the form of flint
knives (fig. 32, g). That does not prove that the feathers were
originally drawn as flint knives. There is in general so much
arbitrary simplification and elaboration in the representation of
all the signs, that to light on any one variant and call it the
original form is a waste of time. The only means we have of
judging what the original form may have been is to find a rep-
resentation of a given object which is evidently intended to be
graphic. When, for example, the artist in the case of the
CipactU sign, which we are discussing, draws a monster in the
midst of a lake surrounded with realistic representations of fish,
snails, and bivalve shells, as in the case with the original of
figure 8, p, it is only a fair guess that he intends his drawing to
be realistic; and such a drawing probably represents his idea of
what the animal really looks like. It is at least plausible to refer
to the features of such drawings as the original ones. Even this
is not really conclusive. The characteristics of the graphic
representation may be affected by features borrowed from the
familiar day-symbols. It would certainly be more plausible in
the case of Seler's flint knives to make an assumption directly
the contrary of Seler 's, and say that his flint knives of the Codex
Borbonicus are elaborated and re-interpreted teeth or spikes. It
is hard to believe that the day-sign Water-monster could have
begun its career in a form so peculiar as that of an animal set
about with stone knives.
Seler's papers show another tendency which deserves com-
ment. He often refers categorically to certain traits as char-
acteristic of a given day-symbol. If one deliberately collects as
many variant forms as possible of one day-sign, it is hard indeed
to find any one feature which occurs in all of them. To give a
specific example, Seler says that in representations of CipactU
' ' a row of spikes runs . . . along the vertical line of the head. ' '^*
The drawings a, b, e, g, h, and i in the present figure, all six of
them very beautifully drawn, are without this feature. The
50 1900-1901, p. 9.
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 337
absence of hard and fast rules of this sort will be emphasized in
discussing others of the signs below.
One other feature of the Water-monster designs is worth men-
tioning. I refer to the artistic value of most of the heads as
decorative objects. Most of these heads present a thoroughly
picturesque appearance. The eye-plate is nearly always more or
less flamboyant, as is, in many cases, the figure as a whole.
Figure 8, a-i, are more typical in this respect than are the others.
Wind
{Ehecatl)
%rc
es of drawings (fig. 9) :
a,
Vatican B,
p. 52
j, Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 1
&,
Vatican B,
p. 7
fc, Vatican B,
p. 71
c,
Bologne,
p. 1
I, Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 16
d,
Vatican B,
p. 71
TO, Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 16
e,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 5
n, Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 18
f,
Vatican B,
p. 3
0, Fejervary,
p. 35
9,
Vatican B,
p. 1
p, Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 3
h,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 62
q, Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 65
i,
Vatican B,
p. 87
The various forms of this day-sign represent the wind-god,
Quetzalcoatl, a name meaning literally, "Feathered Serpent."
The symbol is associated however with the word ehecatl, or
** breeze." Figure 7, q, gives an idea of the way in which the
deity is represented realistically. He has here the form of a
human being, running, and carries on his left arm a shield, with
javelins, and in his right hand the atlatl,^° or spear-thrower. His
straight hair and a full beard are shown in the picture. His nose
is prodigiously elongated, and the parts of his face around the
mouth have the form of a bird's beak. It is rather hard to tell
by inspection whether these two features are supposed to repre-
sent the actual facial peculiarities of the god, or simply a mask
worn by him. On his head is a pointed cap, represented in many
places as made of tiger skin, and at the back of his neck is a
very characteristic fan-shaped ornament. The remainder of his
60 Consult Nuttall, 1892.
338 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
Pig, 9. — o_p^ The Day-sign Wind (Ehecatl) ; q, Eealistic
Drawing of the Wind-god
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 339
costume is of the usual Aztee sort, consisting of a breech-cloth
and sandals. The present drawing, however, shows in addition
a necklace and a conspicuous ear-ornament. When we turn to
the day-symbols shown in this figure, it is noticeable that they
represent only the head of the divinity. A good many of
the day-symbols in the manuscripts represent the head as de-
scribed, with the hair, beard, cap, and mask or snout. Some
of the manuscript drawings, on the other hand, are very much
simplified. It would be quite easy to see in the present figure
a ' ' descending series ' ' of drawings. Figure 9, a, for example
which is a complete representation of the god with all the fea-
tures, might be considered to represent the beginning of a process
of degeneration, and figure 9, p, which is denuded of almost
everything, the end of the process. It is even possible to fill in
all of the steps between these two extremes, and to show how one
by one the features might have dropped off. Figure 9, a, for
example, has cap, beard, eye, ear-ornament, and snout. Figure
9, e, has lost the cap ; i lacks the cap, and in addition has lost the
ear-ornament. Figure 9, g, has lost, in addition to the foregoing
the pupil of the eye ; m has lost the eye altogether, retaining, of
the original features, only the snout and beard. In o and p even
the beard vanishes, and of the whole god nothing but the snout
is left. The mouth of a degenerates in p to a mere line.
Such a series has, however, very little real meaning. The
elaborate head shown in e was drawn by the artist who drew the
simplified form shown in p, and the two drawings are on adjacent
pages of the original text. Our text-figures therefore do not
represent actual genetic series. It does seem possible, however,
to interpret certain of the features present in the signs by a
process of comparison. For example, some of the realistic draw-
ings of the god represent him with a fang at the corner of his
mouth. It seems likely that the fang is elaborated from a notch,
which often occurs in exactly the same place and has very much
the same appearance. If an " original ' ' form is to be looked for,
the notch might be interpreted as the down-curved mouth, which
is the usual sign of old age, shown for example in figure 10, h.
The fang form is especially clear in figure 9, c, d, and I. It
seems rather likely that the notched disk below the corner of the
340 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
mouth in figure 9, o, represents this mouth-notch or fang, which
has in this drawing wandered out of its proper place.
The eye in these representations of the Wind symbol does
some curious things. In h, figure 9, it wanders out on the beak,
and in d mounts up on a stalk. In drawings / and h this stalk
becomes much elongated. The beard, too, shares in these changes.
In figure 9, /, it loses its likeness to hair, retaining however its
outline. In g the hair is replaced by speckles, and in h and k
the whole beard degenerates into a mere sausage-shaped tag.
Such series as are shown in figure 9, whether they represent
Fig. 10. — a, The Face of the Wind-god, showing down-curved mouth
(Nuttall) ; 6, a face with a curved mouth, a
feature signifTing old age
accurately the origin of the simpler forms of the day signs or
not, at least enable us to recognize in the simpler forms many
of the elements which make up the more complicated ones. A
person, for example, who in examining a text encounters a form
like q, figure 9, would certainly have some trouble in recognizing
it as a form of the wind-god. Yet, by comparison with the more
complicated figures it is possible to recognize in the simpler
drawing the various elements which stand for the hair, the snout,
and the beard. The proportions and the positions of the various
parts merely are changed, while the identity of the figure remains
unmistakable.
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manv^cripts 341
/^^^=\ r^ ^
<HII1lli||iiiiiiiiiiy' '
i
^
" 11
OQO
BZJ
I \
lEZI
H
n
c^
Pig. 1 1 . — a-p, The Day-sign House {Calli) ; q, Eealistic
Drawing of a House
342 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
House (Calli)
irc
es of drawings (fig. 11):
a,
Vatican B,
p. 87
*,
Vatican B,
p. 5
&,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 56
3,
Vatican B,
p. 4
c,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 20
k,
Fejervary
p. 30
d,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 34
I,
Vatican B,
p. 64
e,
Fejervary,
p. 18
m,
Vatican B,
p. 3
f,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 31
n,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 84
9,
Aubin,
p. 1
0,
Vatican B,
p. 71
h,
Vatican B,
p. 8
V,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 6
There are probably few day-signs in which the original forms
are so completely obscured as in the case of the day-sign House.
In its extreme form the day-sign appears merely as a hook (fig.
11, m), on a sort of a pedestal. The drawings in k, I, m, seem
to show how this *'hook" appearance evolves, /c is a fairly con-
vincing picture of a stone structure, I should say, with a thatched
roof. If the evidence of the manuscripts is good for anything,
this is the usual form of architecture in the Aztec or Plateau
region, even for ceremonial edifices. Comparison with figure
11, q, brings out the principal features of such a structure. This
latter represents, like a, e, and k-p, a cross-section through such
a temple. To the right is the stairway leading up to the temple
doorway. The doorway was made up of two uprights, either
stones or timbers, with a third lying horizontally on them for a
lintel (see fig. 11, h-d). According to Seler,°^ these posts and
lintels are of wood. The artist, it seems, wished to exhibit this
doorway but was not equal to drawing it in perspective, so he
compromised by dragging it around to one side, and represent-
ing only part of it; that is, with only one of the uprights in
place. The front wall of the temple, or at least the position of
this wall, he represented by a mere thin line. The thatching,
however, is plainly and quite correctly represented, for the
temples had, as here indicated, ' ' hip ' ' roofs, thatched on all four
slopes. The ridge seems to have been elaborated into some sort
of ornament. This is shown at the top of figure 11, q. On the
base or pyramid of the structure we see an earthquake or olin
symbol (for which see fig. 34), In figure 11, k, the roof is rather
61 1900-1901, p. 10.
1916] Waterman : Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 343
bulging or convex. In I the "peak" effect is reduced to a rudi-
ment, and the drawing as a whole is more cursive in style. In
figure 11, m and n, the artist seems to have had in mind not the
original idea of a house, but such degenerate symbols of it as I,
figure 11, which he permitted himself to reproduce in still more
cursive fashion. In fact, in m, I, n, o, and p the likeness to a
house is almost or entirely lost.
In h, figure 11, the front view of the house, or calli, is repre-
sented. We see here the thatched hip-roof, and the doorway of
dressed stones or timbers. The artist, however, was apparently
not equal to drawing a stairway in front view, so left it out.
In d this doorway is drawn still more plainly. Here the artist
seems to have tried to draw at the same time both the front and
the gable ends of the roof, giving up, however, without being
successful. In g the structure has been reduced to a remnant.
We see here apparently a side view showing half of the door
construction (compare a) and a line representing the back wall.
Figure 11, h-j, represent this same front view of the structure,
drawn, however, in cursive lines. The T-shaped inclosure seems
to represent the outside line of the door construction, the open-
ing having vanished. In this case, a study of the more compli-
cated forms readily explains the simple ones such as g.
Lizard (Cuetzpalin)
Sources of drawings (fig. 12):
a, Nuttall (Zouehe), p. 56
g,
Vatican B,
p 16
6, Nuttall (Zouehe), p. 49
h,
Fejervary,
p. 37
c, Nuttall (Zouehe), p. 13
i,
Vatican B,
p. 7
d, Vatican B, p. 3
J,
Bologne,
p. 2
e, Nuttall (Zouehe), p. 5
k,
Aubin,
p. 19
f, Vatican B, p. 64
h
Vatican B,
p. 70
This is probably the least interesting of all the day-symbols,
for the reason that it is nearly always carelessly drawn, and does
not exhibit much variety at best. It is usually a sprawling figure
with an uncertain number of legs straggling about, and a tail,
I should say that the most characteristic thing in the drawing
of the lizard is the loose-jointed way in which it sprawls on the
page. One feature is noticeable in the drawings of lizard when
344 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
they can be examined in color. Half of the animal is normally
red, the other half a sky blue. The division into two colors is
represented by the line across the lizard's body in figure 12,
a, b, c, e, and g. Seler's statement^^ that "the lizard symbol is
Fig. 12.
Jc I
-The Day-sign Lizard (Cuetzpalin)
normally blue" does not apply to all the manuscripts. The
arrangement of colors would possibly indicate that one of those
species is intended whose under-surface is bright blue. To
economize time, perhaps, the artists painted the animal half
reddish and half blue, without bothering to be more realistic.
At least this is a possible explanation of the curious arrangement
of colors.
62 1900-1901, p. 10.
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Bay-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 345
Fig. 13. — Qr-l, The Day-sign Snake {Coatl) ; m, Bealistic
Drawing of a Snake
346 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
Snake
(Coatl)
Sources of drawings (fig. 13):
a, Borgia,
p. 5
h,
Vatican B,
p. 67
ft, Aubin,
p. 18
i,
Vatican B,
p. 66
c, Bologne,
p. 7
1c,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 77
e, Bologne,
p. 4
I,
Vatican B,
p. 71
f, Vatican B,
p. 74
m,
Vatican B,
p. 45
g, Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 75
Figure 13, m, represents a realistic drawing of a serpent
chosen from a page in Vatican Codex B (manuscript 3773 in the
Vatican library). The scene, or whatever it may be called, rep-
resents a human figure holding a serpent in its outstretched hand.
The hand and part of the arm are reproduced in the present
illustration, the rest of the human figure being omitted. The
meaning of the device around the serpent just above the hand
is not clear. The snake in this drawing, as in many of the day-
signs, is plainly the rattlesnake. It is moreover quite accurately
represented. The head exhibits, however, in place of one fang,
a whole series of enormous ones projecting from the mouth. The
plate over the eye is elaborated also into a sort of crest. It is
interesting to note that figures of people holding snakes are
fairly common both in Aztec and Maya art.*'^ One can hardly
help thinking in this connection of the well-known Snake Dance
of the sedentary Indians of the southwestern part of the United
States, in which performers dance holding serpents.
Many of the day-signs representing the serpent show the same
characteristics as the realistic drawing just mentioned (for
example, a and &, figure 13). The former of these two has an
added feature, however, namely a plume at the end of the tail.
Figure 13, c and d, represent the same serpent-figure knotted up
in a sort of coil. In / the serpent is likewise complete, except
that his rattles have degenerated to a mere button, and his outlines
are not so conspicuously ophidian. In the remainder of the day-
sign figures there is represented only the serpent's head. (Heads
in general appear more frequently in the manuscripts as a day-
sign than whole animals.) Many of these heads are thoroughly
63 For the latter see Maudslay, 1889-1902, for example, vol. 4, pi. 33;
Spinden, 1913, p. 49.
1916] Waterman : Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 347
serpent in character. In one of them however (g, figure 13), we
find a human nose ornament consisting of a "plug" with a flow-
ing plume attached. In a few of the drawings the serpent head
is very much debased. The one shown in h, for example, might
well pass for the head of some other animal. In j we have only
a jumble of lines, so formless that it is hard to recognize in them
even such parts as the eye and the mouth. As a special instance
of ''debasement," attention is drawn to the figure shown in I
which lacks the fang, though the fang is perhaps the most char-
acteristic feature in the other serpent drawings.
Death (Miquiztli)
Sources of drawings (fig. 15) :
a, Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 79
i,
Vatican B,
p. 3
6, Borgia,
p. 4
3,
Fejervary,
p. 33
c, Vatican B,
p. 25
k,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 31
d, Vatican B,
p. 96
I,
Vatican B,
p. 54
e, Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 75
m,
, Bologne,
p. 4
f, Vatican B,
p. 52
n,
Bologne,
p. 2
g, Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 13
0,
Vatican B,
p. 63
h, Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 13
V,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 82
As already mentioned, the sign for death is a human skull.
This is drawn in many cases with some degree of fidelity to the
facts. It is, on the other hand, one of the symbols showing most
marked distortion. Figure 15 shows its principal variations,
p of this figure shows a realistic scene from an Aztec funeral
ceremony. The practice seems to have been to expose the body
until only the bones were left, which were then gathered and
burned. We have here the representation of such a cremation
scene. Piled upon a circular mat are the long bones tied up in
a faggot, and surmounted by the skull. Sticking up on each side
are decorated slats of wood. To one side stands the figure of a
priest, with black face and black body-paint, usual in the case
of people taking part in religious ceremonials. In his hands he
holds a torch with which he ignites the pyre. The fire may be
seen spreading to right and left in the drawing, and in the center
there mounts a thick column of smoke. The drawing of the
skull is the point of particular interest for us. There is con-
348 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
siderable realism in the sketch. The staring eye-orbit, the teeth
and jaw, and the zygomatic arch are shown, though not perfectly.
This type of drawing seems to have been the original model for
the day-symbol Death.
I should like to emphasize some curious points in the Aztec
artist's treatment of the lower jaw of the skull. Perhaps we
can discuss this best by calling to mind the outlines of the jaw
as it really is (fig. 14, a). We notice the teeth and chin on the
one hand, and on the other the ascending "ramus" with the
sigmoid notch at the top. On one side of this notch (to the left
in the sketch) rises the coronoid process, and on the other, the
hinge of the jaw, or ' * condyle. ' ' The Aztecs represent all of these
features in their jaw-bones, especially the sigmoid notch and the
hinge. The hinge itself they expand into a sort of circular tag,
very prominent in all jaw figures. "We can discuss the features
of their jaw drawings to best advantage by citing places where
the jawbone is drawn alone. For this we can turn to the
"Grass" symbols (fig. 28, below), in which a human jawbone
plays a conspicuous part. This is also shown in figure 14, b.
Here especial attention is drawn to the conspicuous "hinge"
portion.
Fig. 14. — Curious Features of the Drawings representing the Skull,
and a possible explanation of them
a, Drawing of an actual jaw-bone; h, a jaw-bone from a day-
sign, Nuttall, p. 79; c, drawing of an actual skull (Chinook Indian,
artificially flattened); d, Nuttall, p. 82, and e, Nuttall, p. 13, the
skull as drawn in day-signs.
1916] Waterman : Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 349
When we turn to the representations of the whole skull, with
brain-case and jaw, we find the delineation very much affected
by this fondness for emphasizing the hinge of the jaw. Figure
14, c, shows a sketch of an actual skull. An artificially flattened
Chinook (Columbia River) cranium was chosen for the sketch,
because it most nearly corresponds in outline to the Aztec draw-
ing. We have around the eye a bony ridge which fuses below
into the zygomatic arch, running across the sketch horizontally.
All of these features can be recognized in the corresponding
Aztec design (fig. 14, d), though rudely drawn in. I should like
to emphasize in this latter figure (d) the fact that when the jaw
is fitted by the artist into the skull, as shown in the dotted lines
(actually following the original drawing), the flamboyant treat-
ment of the maxillary condyle, or hinge process, leaves only
the back part of the cranium showing. The occipital part of
the cranium runs around the jawbone in the form of a hook.
When the artist draws a skull without the jaw he preserves this
hook, which leaves a space or socket where the jaw hinge would
fit if it were present. This hook in skulls which are drawn with-
out jaws becomes rudimentary and apparently loses its original
meaning. I am otherwise at a loss to account for the curious
hook which appears at the rear of many skull drawings (such as
e, fig. 14). In the collection of skull drawings used as day-signs
(fig. 15) many will be found (h, o) where the hook is quite mean-
ingless. On the other hand, in some of them (/, I) the skull is in
perfect shape for the reception of a jaw with an expanded hinge.
We have in the drawings standing for the idea "Death" a case
where, it seems to me, a very curious and puzzling feature of a
day-sign is really explained by reference to an original graphic
style of delineation.
Many minor variations will be noticed in the skull symbols.
For one thing, the skull often has, as an ornament, a flint knife
stuck in the nostril (fig. 15, d, i). This flint knife seems to
degenerate in other cases to a mere point or lobe (g, j, I). The
eye also becomes less realistic in certain drawings {g, j). In
k we find a jaw with the usual hinge, but there is no correspond-
ing notch in the skull. On several of the skulls are found lines
suggesting a cap, possibly representing a painted design {f, k).
350 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
P
Fig. 15. — Or-o, The Day-sign Death (Miquiztli) ; p, Eealistic
Drawing of a Skull
1916] Waterman: Belineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 351
The three last figures show a skull with ornament attached,
prominent among them in each ease an ear-ornament. The
absurdity of an ear-ornament where there are no ears does not
seem to strike the artist. The meaning of the curious tuft on the
top of 0 is unknown.
Deer
(Mazatl)
irc
es of drawings (fig. 16) :
a,
Vatican B,
p. 64
h,
Bologne,
p. 3
0,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 26
i,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 45
c,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 49
3,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 51
d,
Vatican B,
p. 1
Jc,
Fejervary,
p. 20
e.
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 48
I,
Fejervary,
p. 36
f,
Vatican B,
p. 67
m,
, Fejervary,
p. 13
9,
Vatican B,
p. 89
n,
Fejervary,
p. 26
Before discussing the illustrations which show the various
forms of this day-sign (fig. 16), it will be well to get certain
characteristics of the deer in mind. It is possible to form a con-
clusion as to which of the characteristics were most conspicuous
in the minds of the native artists by considering which are most
frequently in evidence in the delineations. The most important
one is the long, slender muzzle (fig. 16, a, b, c, d, e, g, i, j, n).
The next in importance is the antler. Another point which is
emphasized in many drawings is the deer's large incisor teeth in
the lower jaw, a trait which deer has, of course, in common with
many other ungulates. The cloven hoof is also very strongly
emphasized in some drawings. The realistic drawing at the
bottom of the figure (fig. 16, n) exhibits most of the deer's actual
peculiarities — muzzle, long ears, cloven hoofs, and short tail.
Neither teeth nor antlers are represented in n. The former occur,
however, very well drawn, in 6, c, d, and h. I think the deer's
antlers would be considered by ourselves his most distinctive
possession. These antlers appear in a, h, c, and d. The illus-
trations are here arranged in descending order, exhibiting a
successive deterioration of the antler. A series like this, whether
it accounts for the development of the simpler forms or not (and
it probably does not), enables us, at any rate, to identify these
simpler forms. The little excrescence in d can, for example, be
352 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
identified as an antler by looking at the more fully delineated
drawings in a and 6. Perhaps the next drawing worthy of remark
is h. Like many of the figures in the Bologne Codex from which
it is taken, it represents a well-drawn head, with a tiny leg
^/
Fig. 16. — a-m, The Day-sign Deer (Masatl) ; n, Kealistic
Drawing of a Deer
1916] Waterrnan : Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 353
attached. In this ease the head has teeth in the upper jaw, and
there might be some difficulty involved in identifying it as deer,
if it were not for the presence of the antler. It will be noted
that in the drawings of the deer the ears assume all sorts of
shapes and configurations, from erect to drooping (fig. 16, *).
"We shall revert to this point in a moment. In k the artist drew
not a deer but merely an antler, which passes as a symbol for
the whole animal. In I and m he drew the cloven hoof merely.
RaUit (Tochtli)
Sources of drawings (fig. 21):
a,
Vatican B, p. 61
g,
Aubin,
p. 18
b,
Fejervary, p. 42
h,
Vatican B,
p. 27
c,
Vatican B, p. 96
h
Vatican B,
p. 60
d,
Nuttall (Zouche), p. 80
3,
Bologne,
p. 2
e,
Vatican B, p. 68
k,
Borgia,
p. 8
f,
Vatican B, p. 49
The Mexican artist, if he set about the task seriously, found
no difficulty in drawing the rabbit in a very realistic fashion
(witness figure 21, k). Here the animal is given a characteristic
rabbit-posture — sitting on its haunches. The drawing moreover
shows the elongated ears, the abbreviated tail, and the large and
prominent incisors so characteristic of the rabbit in life. It is
worth noting that the rabbit 's big incisors are drawn in the upper
jaw, in this respect offering a contrast to the drawings of the deer.
In figure 21, g, teeth are entirely omitted. Certain curious ten-
dencies, however, show themselves in the delineation of these
teeth. In a they are conspicuous, but more like fangs than is really
necessary. In c and d they are unduly prominent; in the latter
figure, indeed, notably exaggerated. In e the two teeth have been
fused into a sort of ribbon hanging out of the mouth. In / this
ribbon takes on the appearance of a tongue, and may have been
so interpreted by the artist. In h we have a tongue plainly
shown, but it comes out over the upper teeth. How the artist
reconciled this drawing with his knowledge of the facts cannot be
explained. Figure 21, j, is another figure from the Bologne
manuscript — a head with tiny legs attached. It might be worth
354 University of California Puhlications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
mentioning in connection with these two plates that some of the
drawings of the deer are hardly to be distinguished from some
of the pictures of the rabbit. Compare, for example, g of figure
16 with / of figure 21. The many points of identity between
different drawings of these two figures deserves some further
illustration.
We have said already that the most characteristic (or at least
the most constant) thing in the deer drawings is the represen-
o bed
Fig. 17. — Day-signs representing Four Different Animals,
all resembling the Deer
a, Deer, Vatican, p. 52; 6, Eabbit, Vatican, p. 52; c, Dog, Vatican,
p. 55; d, Ocelot, Vatican p. 71.
tatlon of the deer's long muzzle. Stated baldly, the top line of
the deer's head is, in the pictures, concave. The rabbit, on the
contrary, has a short, rounded snout, and the top line of his head
is usually rounded over toward the nose. These traits are
brought out clearly in the realistic pictures (fig. 16, n; fig. 21, k).
It is now important to recognize that even such a constant dis-
tinction is often forgotten by the native artist. Figure 17, a, for
example, represents the deer, but h of the same figure, with
entirely similar outlines, represents not the deer but the rabbit.
For the sake of comparison a picture of dog (c) and ocelot (d)
are added, which, from the general outline, might be taken just
as readily for rabbit or deer. In other words, there is no type
to which the drawings of one animal necessarily conform.
c d
Fig. 18. — Day-signs representing Four Distinct Animals,
all resembling the Eabbit
a, Eabbit, Nuttall, p. 47; &, Deer, Vatican, p. 61; c, Dog, Vatican,
p. 6; d. Ocelot; Nuttall, p. 23.
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Astec Manuscripts
355
It is quite as easy to pick out a series of animals all drawn
on the model of the rabbit. Figure 18 shows such a series. Here
the same four animals, rabbit, deer, dog, and ocelot ("tiger")
are represented, but they all have the form of the rabbit. The
drawing of the deer in h, figure 18, would certainly be interpreted
as the rabbit, except for the horns. If the deer's horns were
always delineated in representations of the deer, there could, of
course, be no confusion, but as often as not they are omitted.
The same point might be made about the ears of the two
animals. The deer's ears are often erect, while the rabbit's often
cling close to the head, or drop down. Figure 19, a, shows what
Fig. 19. — Day-signs representing the Deer and the Kabbit,
showing the commingling of traits
a, Eabbit, Nuttall, p. 53; 6, Deer, Vatican, p. 3;
c, Kabbit, Vatican, p. 57.
might be regarded as a very characteristic drawing of the rabbit.
Figure 19, h, however, represents the deer, though the ears droop.
On the other hand, c in this same figure, though the ears are
erect, represents not the deer but the rabbit. In other words, I
should like to make the point that statements such as those made
by Seler,^* to the effect that absolute critera can be set up by
which each figure can be recognized, are not borne out by a study
of the manuscripts. If it were not for the occurrence of the
day-signs in regular series, it would be quite impossible in many
cases to distinguish one from another.
Fig. 20. — Day-sign Deer drawn with the Incisor
Teeth belonging to the Eabbit
Vatican, p, 4.
To the zoologist the point most worthy of emphasis would be,
I think, the fact already referred to, that the rabbit has large
64 1900-1901, pp. 9-16.
356 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
incisor teeth in his upper jaw, while the deer has them only in
his lower jaw. This is associated, of course, with the distinction
Fig. 21,
, The Day-sign Eabbit (Tochtli) ; Jc, Eealistic
Drawing of a Eabbit
between rodents and ungulates. "While this difference is noted
by the artists in most of the figures, we find occasional breaches
of the rule. For example, in figure 20 we find a representation
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Bay-signs in Aztec Manuscripts
357
of the deer, with the large upper incisors proper to the rabbit.
The point here discussed will come up again in connection with
some of the other day-signs.
Fig. 22.
r s
The Day-sign Water (Atl)
Water
Sources of drawings (fig. 22) :
(Atl)
a,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 44
b,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 25
c,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 35
d,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 53
e,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 66
f,
Bologne,
p. 6
.<7,
Fejervary,
p. 42
h,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 18
t.
Aubin
p. 20
3,
Vatican B,
p. 24
h,
Fejervary,
p. 40
I,
Vatican B,
p. 6
TO,
Fejervary,
p. 17
n,
Nuttall (Zouche)
p. 44
0,
Nuttall (Zouche)
p. 9
P,
Nuttall (Zouche)
p. 76
q,
Nuttall (Zouche)
p. 81
r,
Nuttall (Zouche)
p. 8
s,
Nuttall (Zouche)
p. 32
358 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn, [Vol. 11
Fig. 23. — a-l, The Day-sign Water (Atl), additional forms;
m, Eealistic Drawing of a Lake
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Asiec Manuscripts 359
Sources of drawings (fig. 23) :
a,
Vatican B,
p. 71
h,
Vatican B,
p. 54
&,
Vatican B,
p. 47
i,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 58
c,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 72
3,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 13
d,
Fejervary,
p. 35
Tc,
Bologne,
p. 30
e,
Vatican B,
p. 49
I,
Vatican B,
p. 70
f,
Vatican B,
p. 25
m,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 74
9,
Vatican B,
p. 4
There is a rather greater variety of forms of the symbol
"Water" than is the ease with most day-signs (figs. 22 and 23).
The most graphic of these represents a dish of some sort, full of
water, with foam or waves on the surface and a shell in the
center. For such a drawing the reader is referred to figure 22, a.
The same details come out in the scene or landscape at the bottom
of figure 23 (m). The principal thing in this latter representa-
tion is a lake with waves on top, a river flowing out of it, a fish
in its depths, and on the shore a temple. The scrolls represent-
ing the ripple or foamy surface of water are a very common
feature of the drawings.
Turning now to some of the variations of the water drawing,
we find a good deal of shifting and lack of uniformity of design.
In some of the designs, as might be expected, the waves are lack-
ing, others lack the shell, and others lack the containing vessel
mentioned above as very common. The drawings in the figure
are arranged in order according to the degree of completeness
with which these vessels or containers are delineated. This
method of arrangement, as before, serves merely for convenience
in identifying the simpler drawings. It is interesting to see how
rude and merely suggestive of the original elements some of the
figures are. Figure 22, r, for example, has lost all external
resemblance to a dish full of water; the dish has been reduced
to a rudiment, and the water has taken on the appearance of a
solid object of some sort. Comparison with the more perfect
representations (figure 22, a-r) will show, nevertheless, that all
the essential features of the graphic drawing are present. In
figure 23, c, the containing dish, which no longer actually "con-
tains" the water, is itself bordered with water or wave symbols.
In the case of some symbols we see the whole drawing turned
upside down. This has happened in figure 23, e, in which the
360 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
water seems to stream down from a sky. Figure 23, /, is a still
more extreme case of the same thing. Even in this latter case,
however, the original dish and shell may be recognized. We
have finally, in the water symbol as shown in figure 23, h, merely
a formless collection of lines.
A few curiosities come to light in making such a collection of
water-symbols. For example, the dish and the escaping water
take in figure 22, p, almost exactly the form of an animal's head
with an eye, a fang (the leg of the pot or dish originally), and
two ears. The scroll designs representing the wavy or foamy
surface of water take on at times the forms of other objects.
Thus in figure 22, e, we have springing up on the surface of the
water a semi-circular knob. In figure 22, /, this excrescence takes
on the appearance of the ''Flower" symbol (see fig. 32, below).
In figure 22, h, it assumes another and very different form, but
one unlike any object the present writer can name. In figure
23, k, the excrescence becomes almost exactly like the Aztec
symbol for smoke. In figure 23, I, finally, we have the vessel
under the shell clearly drawn, but the water has shot up out of
this vessel and hangs in the form of disks above it.
The form shown in figure 23, i, is something of a puzzle.
There is scarcely any resemblance to water left, but the curious
patterns around the edge correspond to the marks around the
margin of the water in the realistic picture illustrated in m,
figure 23. Identification of the various water-symbols is made
easier by the fact that in the manuscripts the part representing
the water itself is normally painted blue. This aid to identifica-
tion is of service only in the case of colored reproductions of the
original manuscripts.
Dog {ItzcuintU)
Sources of drawings (fig. 24):
a,
Nuttall (Zouehe),
p. 57
i,
Vatican B,
p. 90
h
Bologne,
p. 1
h
Fejervary,
p. 44
c,
Nuttall (Zouehe),
p. 79
k,
Fejervary,
p. 36
d,
Nuttall (Zouehe),
p. 82
I,
Bologne,
p. 8
e,
Nuttall (Zouehe),
p. 3
m,
, Vatican B,
p. 68
f,
Vatican B,
p. 66
n,
Bologne,
p. 3
Q,
Vatican B,
p. 51
0,
Nuttall (Zouehe),
p. 72
h,
Fejervary,
p. 41
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 361
0
Pig. 24. — a-n, The Day-sign Dog {Itecuintli) ; o, Eealistic
Drawing of a Dog
362 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
Comment has already been made on the fact that the symbols
for Dog, Eabbit, Deer, and Ocelot are so drawn as to be very
much alike. Perhaps the most distinguishing feature of the dog
head, as it is usually drawn, is a black patch around the eye.
This patch appears in figure 24, h, c, d, e, h, n, and o. The
fact must however be noticed that ocelot ("Tiger") is some-
times represented with this patch (fig. 25, a). Seler*"^ says
that a characteristic thing about the dog, drawn in the manu-
scripts, is a '* double-pointed" black patch about the eye. The
present figure will show at least that this patch is not uniformly
''double-pointed." Another trait usually found in the delinea-
tion of the dog is a sort of lip (fig. 24, a, n, o, etc.). This lip
is however often represented in the drawings of other animals.
( Compare the tiger and deer drawings shown in figure 25, a, and
6.) In figure 24, o, and appearing in a good many places in the
Fig. 25. — Various Day-signs, showing confusion or
commingling of traits
a, Ocelot, with an eye-patch usually characteristic of the Dog
(Vatican B, p. 66) ; 6, Ocelot, resembling the Dog in teeth, lips,
and form (Nuttall (Zoche), p. 80); c, a drawing of the Deer with
the lip which is characteristic of the Dog (Vatican B, p. 69).
manuscripts, is a sort of beard or fringe under the dog's chin.
Seler makes the additional remark that there were two varieties
of dog known to the Aztecs, and represented in the manuscripts
— one brown, and one spotted. Inspection of the present plate
makes one wonder whether they did not have some custom of
clipping their dog's ears. In c, d, g, h, i, j, I, and m of figure 24,
the dog is represented with a highly ornamental ear-flap. Seler
speaks of this ear as * * mangled, ' ' and calls attention to the very
interesting fact that dogs are represented in this way in the
Dresden Maya Codex.^® He is the only animal so represented.
85 1900-1901, p. 11.
86 Loc. cit.
1916] Waterman : Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 363
In k of fi^re 24, we have nothing left of the dog, except this
highly ornamented ear. Figure 24, n, is another of the Bologne
Codex figures, with a tiny leg attached. It will be seen that the
artist in o, figure 24, was unable to draw a dog's hind limb
properly. The animal has a leg quite like that of a human being.
This is true of most of the animals the Aztecs and the Mayas
tried to draw.®^ The drawings of the dog supply interesting
cases of convergence in the representation of animals. The
prominent and sharp teeth usually shown in the dog figures are
often represented in drawings of the rabbit.
Monkey (OzomatU)
Sources of drawings (fig. 27):
a, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 72 h, Vatican B, p. 8
6, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 79 i, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 8
c, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 44 j, Fejervary, p. 42
d, Borgia, p. 3 fe, Vatican B, p. 66
e, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 4 I, Fejervary, p. 20
f, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 38 m, Fejervary, p. 20
g, Vatican B, p. 3 n, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 76
The most nearly characteristic features of the drawings of
the monkey are: (1) a face with an elonsrated snout; (2) a stiff
crest of hair; and (3) a conspicuous ear-ornament. The first
two are elements derived from the actual characteristics of thf
Central and South American monkeys. The presence of the ear-
ornament can be explained, as is the case with many other fea-
tures of the day-signs, on the ground that they are borrowings
from human articles of dress or adornment. Probably such bor-
rowings are due, at least in part, to the vague feeling which is
quite common among savages that all animals are human beings
essentially, with a power which enables them, for their own pur-
poses, to assume a different likeness externally. Other creatures
in the day-signs are represented with ear-ornaments similar to
the one exhibited on Monkey. Compare, for example, with the
present designs, the drawings representing King- vulture (fig.
87 See Water-monster, Deer, Eabbit, and Ocelot in the present paper,
and, for example, the splendid figure of a jaguar from Chichen Itza in
Spinden, 1913, pi. 29, fig. 7.
364 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
26 and fig. 33, a, h, c, f, h, k) and Wind (fig. 9). In view of this
fact, it is somewhat surprising to find that in one or two places
(see fig. 27, I and m) the monkey is represented vicariously by
his ear-ornament, and nothing else. This ornament, although it
stands for the day-sign Monkey, is in nowise to be distinguished
from the ornament worn by the King- vulture (fig. 26). If it
were not for its position in a series, then, there would be no way
of telling whether the drawning shown in figure 27, I, should be
interpreted as Monkey or as something else.
Fig. 26. — Drawing of a Day-sign representing the King-
Vulture wearing an ear-ornament, the latter not to be
distinguished from those which represent or typify
the Day-sign Monkey.
(Fejervary, p. 37.)
The crest of the monkey in the present figure assumes several
different forms. Compare, for example, a with j. In some cases
the crest looks quite like the tuft of feathers surmounting the
head of the eagle (see figure 32). The realistic drawing of the
monkey (fig. 27, n) shows that all of these symbols representing
the monkey follow the original idea very closely.
Grass (Malinalli)
Sources of drawings (fig. 28) :
a,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 79
3,
Borgia, p. 26
h
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 79
Tc,
Borgia, p. 67
c,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 19
I.
Aubin, p. 17
d,
Vatican B,
p. 78
m,
, Aubin , p. 12
e,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 40
n,
Bologno, p. 6
f,
Vatican B,
p. 68
r,
Borgia, p. 50
g,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 24
0,
Bologne, p. 3
h,
Vatican B,
p. 16
P,
Nuttall (Zouche), p. 71
i,
Borgia,
p. 6
This is, in certain respects, the most curious of all the Aztec
day-symbols, for the reason that it is, in its usual form, a com-
bination of three elements that seem to have no logical connec-
tion with each other — a human jawbone, an eye, and a clump of
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Mantiscripts 365
Fig. 27. — a-m, The Day-sign Monkey (Osomatli) ; n, Bealistic
Drawing of a Monkey
366 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
grass, Penafiel,®^ quoted by Seler,^^ calls this grass zacate del
carbonero (because charcoal-burners or "carboneros" make sacks
of it) and states that the Aztec name malinalli, or ''twisted," is
c:^ ^C3
hT
Fig. 28. — a-o, The Day-sign Grass {Malinalli) ; p, Eealistic
Drawing of a Clump of Grass
68 1886.
69 1900-1901, p. 12
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 367
derived from the fact that the Aztecs were accustomed, as they
are still, to "twist" it into ropes and pack-straps. Such
etymologies are, of course, always open to suspicion. What the
specific botanical name of the zacate grass is, I have not been
able to learn. A realistic picture of a clump of this grass on
the side of a mountain, with leaves, seed-stalks, and roots, is
given in figure 28, p.
The first-mentioned element in the combination, the jawbone,
is usually quite realistically represented. It is ordinarily drawn
in profile, with the teeth in place, and with the sigmoid notch at
the top of the ascending ramus easily distinguishable. There is,
however, a peculiar and exaggerated representation of the condyle
or hinge already referred to in connection with the day-sign
Death (see page 349). Along the middle of the bottom edge of
the bone there is a curious collection of humps, either two or
three. Mrs. Nuttall says somewhere that these humps were put
wherever the artist wishes to express the idea of "roughness."
The basis of this idea, and the reason why the artist should wish
to indicate roughness on the bottom edge of a jawbone, are alike
uncertain. Seler''" suggests a "reason" (such as it is) for the
association of the grass with a jawbone, namely, that the bone
signifies that the grass is dry.
The first four drawings (fig. 28, a, h, c, and d) give what
might be considered four stages in the degeneration of the com-
plete sign. In a we have jaw, eye, a clump of leaves, and a seed-
stalk. In 6 we have, besides the jaw, two leaves and the eye ; in
c, the jaw and eye with no grass at all; and in d, plain jaw. Yet
the position of each of the last three signs in different series
makes it absolutely certain that they all represent the day-sign
Grass. It is rather curious to find a bare jawbone standing as a
symbol for vegetation, even vegetation of the driest kind.
Figure 28, e, f, g, and h, show a curious treatment of the
grass element. In the latter (h) all resemblance to grass is lost.
It is worth observing that in e, figure 28, the eye and eye-stalk
together take on an appearance identical with the ear-ornament
in the preceding figure (fig. 27). In the four figures just men-
70 1900-1901, p. 12.
368 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
tioned (e, f, g, and h, figure 28), there is progressive degenera-
tion of the eye-stalk, which in the last figure named is only an
empty bulb.
Figure 28, i, j, k, show the jaw in front view. The grass in
each of these cases receives a curious treatment, reaching a climax
in k, where it looks more like a phonograph horn than anything
else that could be readily named. The eye, which is quite realistic
in figure j, vanishes completely in k.
In I, m, n, o, the eyes are represented in combination with an
additional feature, an upper jaw. In w we have a curious thing.
The whole drawing assumes the form of a complete face with all
its features, holding a ball in its gaping jaws. Flourishing
around above this face we see the original eye and eye-stalk, with
which we started in a of figure 28. The meaning of the pair of
jaws biting on an object is a complete puzzle to the present writer.
Cane (Acatl)
Sources of drawings (fig. 29):
a, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 9 j, JS'uttall (Zbuche), p. 14
6, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 62 Jc, Vatican B, p. 47
c, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 1 I, Vatican B, p. 5
d, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 5 to, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 56
e, Vatican B, p. 65 n, Vatican B, p. 62
f, Vatican B, p. 51 o, Aubin, p. 8
g, Vatican B, p. 49 p, Vatican B, p. 60
h, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 32 q, Vatican B, p. 3
i, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 40 r, Borgia, p. 50
The symbols for the idea Cane (fig. 29) all represent, as
remarked in connection with figure 1, the cane shafts of javelins.
The first ten represent single missiles, the remaining seven
represent bunches of several at once. Seler'^^ calls the object in
question an arrow. I am inclined to think that in most cases
the object is a javelin (see fig. 29, r). It occurs universally in
the hands of persons who in the other hand brandish the spear-
thrower, or atlatr^ as in the present figure. Examples of this
combination are too numerous to quote. A device exactly similar
71 1900-1901, p. 12.
72 Consult Nuttall, 1891.
1916] Waterman : Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 369
^
^"
rig. 29. — a-q, The Day-sign Cane {Acatl) ; r, Bealistic
Drawing of a Cane-shafted Javelin
370 University of California Puhlications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
to the missile we are discussing occurs in one place (Codex
Nuttall — Zouche manuscript) ^^ grasped in a warrior's hand
along with a bow. The typical arrow, which appears in many
places in Vatican Codex A (3738), is nearly always represented
with a wooden fore-shaft, and has a series of barbs on one side.
This arrow is not the weapon which occurs as a day-sign. The
pictured accounts of Aztec combats^* represent the spear-thrower,
instead of the bow, as the important and universal weapon. In
the mere interest of accuracy, the device which symbolizes the
idea Cane ought to be referred to as a javelin, not as an arrow.
It is noticeable that in many of the drawings of the present
figure, the javelin shaft is represented, while the head or point
is omitted. Apparently, this point was of flint or obsidian, and
therefore of no particular interest to the artist who was writing
out a symbol for Cane merely. Those representations which are
made up of several javelins together are often hard to recognize
(see fig. 29, e, m, n, o, p, q), and, it must be added, are much
more frequent in day-sign art than the others. The very badly
drawn figure from the Aubin Codex (fig. 29, o) has more than a
passing resemblance to one of the symbols (fig. 37, d) for Flower,
The meaning of the sunbursts around the javelins in fig. 29, /
and g, is unknown to the present writer, unless they represent
missiles with blazing balls of cotton attached for setting fire to
assaulted villages. The drawings in question certainly resemble
the Aztec way of representing smoke. The resemblance of some
of the groups of these javelins to the symbol for Flower supplies
another instance of convergence.
Ocelot (Ocelotl)
Sources of drawings (fig. 31):
a, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 48
i, Bologne,
p. 2
6, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 71
j, Vatican B,
p. 80
c, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 53
k, Bologne,
p. 8
d, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 54
I, Vatican B,
p. 4
e, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 51
m, Fejervary,
p. 32
f, Vatican B, p. 51
n, Fejervary,
p. 36
g, Vatican B, p. 74
0, Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 82
h, Bologne, p. 7
ture.
73 p. 10.
74 See Bandolier, 1892 a, for description, and references to the litera-
1916] Waterman : Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 371
A certain impropriety is involved in applying to this Aztec
day-sign, as is usually done, the name "tiger," an animal un-
known in the New World. The use of the term has become, in a
way, a tradition. The animal in question is the ocelot, in Aztec
ocelotl, misnamed, like many American institutions, by the
Spaniards. These latter called the creature el tigre as a mere
convenience. He is characterized in the drawings by a cat-like
form, with talons and sharp teeth, and a handsomely spotted
skin. It might be supposed that the spots of the skin would be
the most characteristic feature in the delineation of this animal.
As a matter of fact, this trait is often represented in a very
spirited fashion (fig. 31, o). These spots occur not only on the
realistic drawings but on many of the day-signs : for example, in
a of figure 31. Like all other characteristics, however, they do not
appear consistently by any means. Thus in 6 the number of spots
has been reduced to two ; in c of the same figure, but one is left ;
in d, the spots have vanished entirely, and the animal head there
represented is hardly to be distinguished from that of the dog,
or even the rabbit as represented elsewhere. Curiously enough,
there is at least one case in the manuscripts where the day-sign
Babbit is actually represented with spots (fig. 30) . "We have here
Fig. 30. — The Day-sign Eabbit represented with the
Spots characteristic of the Ocelot
(Nuttall, p. 77)
still another illustration of the rule that a given animal's most
conspicuous characteristic may, in day-sign art, be lost or loaned
to some other creature. It is perhaps worth noting that in g,
figure 31, we have a drawing which, though really representing
the tiger, has an outline that might serve with equal propriety
for the deer. It is considerably more like the deer than are some
of the deer figures (see fig. 16). The drawing appearing in j of
figure 31 (reproduced from fig. 24, &), looks, on the other hand,
like the drawings of the dog.
Another feature of the ' ' tiger ' ' drawings which is apparently
realistic, is the black tip of the ear (see fig. 31, o). It appears
not only in the realistic drawing but in many of the day-signs
372 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
as well (fig. 31, c, d, e, g, h, i, j, k). The drawing lettered h in
this figure is one of the peculiar heads with tiny legs appended
to it which is characteristic of the Bologne Codex. In addition
to the legs, the animal in this drawing is provided with a nose-
Fig. 31. — o-n, The Day-sign Ocelot (Ocelotl) ; o, Bealistic
Drawing of an Ocelot
1916] Waterman : Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts
373
plug. In i of figure 31 the animal is represented with two erect
ears in the proper place, but hanging down the back of his head
is pictured a very complicated ear-ornament. The animal appears
also to have some sort of a head-dress. The nose ornament
appears also in figure 31, m. In I the idea * ' Ocelot ' ' is symbolized
by the drawing of an ocelot's paw merely, and in n by an object
which comparison with the other drawings will show to be an
ocelot's ear.
Pig. 32, — a-h, The Day-sign Eagle {Quauhtli) ; t, Eealistie
Drawing of an Eagle
a,
Vatican B,
p. 92
h
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 47
c,
Vatican B,
p. 50
d,
Vatican B,
p. 62
e,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 6
374 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
Eagle (Quauhtli)
Sources of drawings (fig. 32):
f, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 23
g, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 32
h, Vatican B, p. 2
i, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 69
The various drawings of the eagle are markedly realistic. The
drawing at the bottom of the figure is taken from a section of the
Codex Nuttall which represents an eagle in combat with an ocelot.
The characteristics of the bird usually chosen for emphasis in the
day-signs are his hooked beak, and a crest of feathers on his head.
The beak occurs in practically all the drawings, not only in those
illustrated here. In a few cases there is some degeneration.
Thus in /, figure 32, the beak is weakened and lacks the sharp
curve so well represented in most of the other drawings. The
crest is usually barred gray and white, but these barrings do not
show in uncolored figures. There is considerable variety shown
in the minor details of the treatment of the plumes of the crest.
In i, figure 32, they are fairly realistic, as they are in b and e of
the same figure. In a they take on the appearance of a series of
hooks, and in d they are much elongated. In g and h, as men-
tioned in connection with figure 8 (p. 336), the feathers take on
appearance of stone knives. The reason for this is rather hard
to fathom. The stone knife is itself one of the calendar symbols
(see fig. 35) standing for the idea "flint." Stone knives appear
occasionally on the head and back of the water-monster in place
of spikes. Perhaps in both cases the stone knives represent
merely a fanciful elaboration, A bird, however, something like
an eagle, whose plumage consists entirely of flint knives, is a
prominent mythological figure in the southwestern part of the
United States. So there may be some mythological idea behind
the drawing in the present case. In one or two cases the eagle
is represented with a tongue protruding from his mouth (c, d,
e, g, h, fig. 32). This tongue sometimes takes on the appearance
of a long scroll, as in figure 32, c.
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Mamiscripts 375
0
t
S
Fig. 33. — a-n, The Day-sign King-vulture {Cozcaquauhtli) ;
o, Eealistic Drawing of a Vulture
376 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
King-vulture ( CozcaquauhtU )
Sources of drawings (fig. 33):
a,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 54
6,
Vatican B,
p. 2
c,
Nuttall (Zouehe),
p. 28
d,
Nuttall (Zouehe),
p. 13
e,
Vatican B,
p. 6
f,
Nuttall (Zouehe),
p. 59
9,
Vatican B,
p. 92
h,
Vatican B,
p. 78
*,
Vatican B,
p. 62
3,
Fejervary,
p. 1
Tc,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 45
I,
Fejervary,
p. 40
m,
, Vatican B,
p. 1
n,
Aubin,
p. 3
0, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 74
The drawings of the vulture are rather more interesting than
those of the eagle, since they show a greater amount of varia-
bility, and have in addition certain curious features. Perhaps it
is best to notice first of aU the realistic drawing (fig. 33, o).
The bird is here represented with his wings outspread. The
most characteristic thing from the Aztec point of view seems to
be his long beak with the hook at the end, and his curious naked
head with fine hairs on it. Everyone agrees that the bird repre-
sented is the king-vulture or ringed vulture, called by the Mex-
icans of today the "Rey de Zopilotes. " In the day-signs he is
normally represented with an ear-ornament hanging at the back
of his head. Seler'^' advances the idea that this ornament is
intended to represent ideographically the idea of ornament in
general, meaning in the present case that the bird's neck is
ringed. It is, of course, hard to see why they should not have
drawn the creature with a ring instead of an ear-ornament if
that was the idea to be presented. It must however be observed
that the day-sign Vulture, as already pointed out (see fig. 26),
has, in some cases, exactly the same ear-ornament that is flaunted
by the monkey in the day-signs. The two animals moreover are
represented with very much the same sort of crest. It is entirely
possible that the similarity of the vulture 's crest to the monkey 's
has induced the appearance of similar ear-ornaments in both
animals. It is, however, not easy to state why the monkey should
have been so represented in the first place. At any rate, if the
ear-ornament is an ideogram for ' ' ringed ' ' here, what is it in the
case of the monkey symbol? The ear-ornament in connection
75 1900-1901-p. 13.
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 377
with the present day-sign takes on a variety of forms, but it
might be noticed that in each case it is readily distinguishable
from the ear-ornament worn by Quetzalcoatl (see fig. 9), another
important figure commonly wearing this article of adornment.
The vulture's head is in actual fact almost bare. The few
hairs or pin feathers which are represented in realistic fashion
in figure 31, o, take on quite elaborate forms in certain of the
day-signs. They are sometimes elaborated by the addition of
small disks or balls (fig. 33, a and k). Sometimes they are con-
nected by a continuous line, as in 6 and c. In e they take on the
appearance of rectangles or scales. In g we see a bare head with
a sort of aigrette or plume, which in h and i solidifies into a sort
of peak. It seems that the artist must have had some such form
as g vaguely in mind before he was able to produce such a form
as i. On the other hand, it would seem that the custom of rep-
resenting the vulture's crest with ornamental balls on top, as in
k, probably explains the curious drawing shown in I, where they
have become mere knobs. In m, from another manuscript, these,
or similar knobs, are represented in still more simplified form.
In n we have one of the degenerate forms from the Aubin manu-
script, which is simply unrecognizable. In j we have an abso-
lutely bare head, without even pin-feathers or the ear-ornament.
In d, on the other hand, we have a vulture head which is elabor-
ated until it is scarcely, if at all, to be distinguished from the
head of Eagle (see fig. 32).
Motion (Olin)
117 ces of drawings (fig. 34):
a, Bologne,
p. 1
h,
Vatican B,
p. 8
&, Aubin,
p. 19
h
NuttaU (Zouche),
p. 51
c, Aubin,
p. 8
h
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 45
d, Borgia,
p. 6
k,
Vatican B,
p. 70
e, Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 36
I,
Vatican B,
p. 93
/, Vatican B,
p. 46
m,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 35
g, Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 20
n,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 44
Figure 34, h, represents what is probably the ' * normal ' ' form
of this sign. This, at any rate is the form which is of most fre-
quent occurrence on the monuments. It consists of two figures
378 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
side by side which meet in the center and are, so to speak, bent
away from each other at the ends. At the middle of the outer
edge of these two sides there are a couple of ' * handles, ' ' or rings.
In the center of the whole there is a circular figure which, in the
present case, has taken on the appearance of an eye. In the
I m
Fig. 34. — The Day-sign Motion {Olin)
famous highly elaborated altar stone in the Mexican National
Museum, which usually goes by the name of the Aztec Calendar,'^^
this central figure is filled with a great face which represents the
sun. The meaning of this "motion" or olin design (fig. 34, &)
is more or less of a puzzle. It sometimes occurs in the form
shown in d, consisting of two angled figures fitted together or
76 Leon y Gama, 1790; Chavero, 1876; Pefiafiel, 1890, plates, vol. 2, p.
312, and corresponding portions of the text; Nuttall, 1901, p. 5; Maccurdy,
1910, p. 481 ff.
1916] Waterman : Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 379
interlocked. It would be entirely possible to derive the forms like
h, figure 34, from these simpler interlocked forms; but we know
nothing at all about the real origin of these latter, and so we would
be no nearer to a true explanation. It is worthy of remark that,
in a general M^ay, the normal form of this sign has something of
the form of an X. It is moreover true that while the symbol
stands for the word ''motion," it is also associated with the sun.
This fact may very likely be founded on a curious myth. The
Aztecs, like a good many other peoples, have a myth which tells
of a series of universal cataclysms. The first sun that was
created came to an end in one of these cataclysms on the day
Four-Wind. It was therefore named the ''"Wind" sun. After
it was broken up another one was created which, at the close of
the epoch, disappeared on the day Four-Tiger. This sun is there-
fore spoken of as the "Tiger" sun. Two more suns, disappear-
ing on the days Four-Water, and Four-Rain, followed in series
before our present sun came on the scene. In some mysterious
way it is known that the present sun will disappear on the day
Four-Motion, in which the sky will be broken up by an earth-
quake. It is therefore called the ' ' Earthquake " or " Motion ' ' sun,
or olin-tonatiuh. The present writer is inclined to see in this
myth^^ the real explanation of the association of this olin sign
with the sun. It is of course possible to assume that the design
stands for or directly represents the sun in some way, and that
the myth was invented to explain that fact. The myth gives us,
however, one definite reason why the sign should stand for the
sun, and it seems a waste of time to go further afield, until there
is more evidence. It would be easy to imagine half a dozen ways
in which a graphic symbol for the sun might have degenerated
into this sign. Imagine if you like that the original symbol for
the sun was a disk with rays, and that these rays were gradually
omitted until only four were left. These four, if skewed, would
give the olin sign. Such theories represent mere mental gym-
nastics, unless a series of forms derived from a study of the
monuments can be advanced to support them. The idea has
77 See Maccurdy, 1901, for a most interesting paper on these myths and
their representation on the monuments. Some of the most famous monu-
ments of Mexican antiquity are connected with this story. Maccurdy 's
paper supplies a number of references to the literature.
380 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
actually been advanced that the olin sign represents the "four
motions of the sun," that is, it stands for the four main points
established by the sun in his yearly journey — the points of sun-
rise and sunset at the summer and winter solstices. If these
points were plotted and connected diagonally by lines, we would
have something approaching the olin symbol. It is worth noting,
however, that the figure naturally produced would be a parallelo-
gram, not an X. The sun moves not from the point in the
southeast to the point in the northwest, but from the southeast
to the southwest. We mentioned just above that the normal
appearance of this sign represents an X. It is of some interest
that the kin sign among the Mayas, which is also an X, is asso-
ciated with the sun. Possibly a careful examination of the Maya
mythologies would unearth some legend there corresponding to
the Aztec story just mentioned.
If we take the sign shown in & as the complete or normal
form, an idea for which there is some support in the fact that
it is the most usual on the monuments, it is interesting to see
which of its features are the most persistent in its career as a
day-sign. It is obvious at once that its X-form readily becomes
obscured. In e, figure 34, we have the two sides coalescing into
a single figure with a straight line down the center. Seler^* is
inclined to see in this a picture of the sun disappearing into a
cleft of the earth, the circle in the center being the sun, and the
two sides day and night. This idea is based apparently on the
fact that in figures of this type the two sides are often differently
colored. It is somewhat hard to follow his reasoning here. It
is in the first place quite unnecessary to make this assumption,
as the figure can be plausibly explained in another way, and it
leaves us, moreover, in more of a predicament than ever to
account for the use of the sign to mean "earthquake" or
"motion," which is certainly its literal meaning. The division
of the sign into two differently colored surfaces is shown very
nicely in figure 34, /. It will be seen in this figure (&) that of
the original symbol we have the exterior outline, the circle in the
center and the handles still remaining. It is a point of some
78 1900-1901, p. 14.
1916] Waterman : Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 381
Pig. 35. — a-p, The Day-sign Flint (Tecpatl) ; q, Realistic Drawing
of a Sacrifice, showing the Flint Knife in use
382 University of California Fublications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
interest that it is precisely these handles that are most persistent
in all representations of the figure. They occur in simple form
in a, very much enlarged in e and h, and double in /. Even in
d, the interlocked figure, they appear as crinkles in a correspond-
ing location. In drawings like n, where the proper outline of the
figure even has disappeared, these two handles remain. In m,
which is a rectangular design, we have two perfect handles. In
k they are ornamented with scroll figures which look surprisingly
like the Aztec symbols for smoke. Certainly a person encounter-
ing for the first time a symbol like I, m, or /, would hardly asso-
ciate it with the designs shown in h. The symbol in question,
then, shows a great variety of form. I think we shall have to
dismiss the whole question of the reason why "motion" or
"earthquake" is represented by a double figure with a circle in
the center and handles at the sides, as a complete mystery.
Flint
(Tecpatl)
Sources of drawings (fig. 35):
a, Nuttall (Zouehe)
, p. 53
j, Nuttall (Zouehe),
p. 7
6, Vatican B,
p. 98
k, Nuttall (Zouehe),
p. 16
c, Bologne,
p. 1
I, Bologne,
p. 4
d, Nuttall (Zouehe)
p. 62
m, Vatiean B,
p. 1
e, Nuttall (Zouehe)
p. 56
n, Nuttall (Zouehe),
p. 24
f, Nuttall (Zouehe)
p. 32
o, Vatiean B,
p. 74
g, Nuttall (Zouehe)
p. 39
p, Aubin,
p. 16
h, Nuttall (Zouehe)
p. 34
q, Nuttall (Zouehe),
p. 69
i, Nuttall (Zouehe)
p. 32
The drawing at the bottom of figure 35 represents a scene
which is quite commonly portrayed in the Aztec manuscripts.
The subject is a human sacrifice. The barefoot victim, dressed
in the usual Aztec waist-cloth, is stretched on his back over the
altar stone. The officiating priest, his face covered with the
black paint which is usual in religious performances, bends over
the prisoner and cuts his heart out with a stone knife. The
priest himself wears a waist-cloth, has a large ear-plug thrust
through the lobe of his ear, and carries hanging on his arm a
pouch. In general, it must be said, pouches are quite usually
represented in connection with priestly rites. The scene here
represented is one of the best examples of Aztec draughtsman-
1916] Waterman : Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 383
ship. The victim's posture, his glazed, closing eyes, and the
blood streaming from the incision are all realistically presented.^'
The object of particular interest for the present purpose is
the stone knife in the priest's hands. A few of these sacrificial
knives for removing the heart in human sacrifices have been pre-
served to the present day. The best known specimen is the one
inlaid with mosaic work which is preserved in the Christy Col-
lection of the British Museum — a specimen which is a favorite
subject for illustration by writers on Mexican archaeology.^" A
sacrifice scene similar to the one represented in the present figure
is figured in the Magliobecchi manuscript.^^ The sacrificial knife
as actually used consists of a double-pointed blade chipped out
of flint, with one of the pointed ends fitted into a wooden handle.
A knife of the same pattern was selected by the authors of the
calendar to stand for the idea "flint." It was apparently the
most commonplace or most familiar object made of that material.
The various forms of the day-sign are shown in figure 35, a-n.
The first drawing, a, is perhaps the most typical. I am of the
opinion that the other forms are derived from this one. At any
rate, we find all the gradations from a knife with this appear-
ance to one with merely a few simple lines where the elaborate
design ought to be. The various drawings fit so well into a series
that it is hard to resist the temptation to regard them as steps in
an evolution. The most noticeable thing about a, figure 35, is
that we have there a flint knife with a human face, consisting of
eye, mouth, and teeth, represented along one edge. More peculiar
still, the face seems to represent that of the rain-god Tlaloc (see
figure 36 for the various forms). We have in the case of the
present figure the goggle eye and the mouth full of long teeth
which are so characteristic of the rain-god. As to why the rain-
god's features should be represented on the day-sign "Flint,"
I have never heard a suggestion.
I have said that a, figure 35, represents the usual form of this
face on the Flint day-signs. In figure 35, 6, however, we have
79 One of the most realistic and picturesque descriptions of such a
place of sacrifice is the one by Juan Diaz (the chaplain of the explorer
Juan de Cordova), quoted by Mrs. Nuttall. 1910, pp. 256-259.
soPenafiel, 1890, vol. 1, p. 123; Tyler, 1861, p. 101; Joyce, 1914, p. 194.
81 Nuttall, 1903, 58.
384 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
another and quite different form. Here we see the goggle eye,
but instead of the Tlaloc face, in which the lower jaw is uniformly-
missing, and the upper jaw armed with long, fang-like teeth, we
have a skeleton jaw with normal human dentition. It seems at
least conceivable that the Aztecs represented these teeth on the
edge of the flint-knife to symbolize the fact that the flint-knife
cuts or bites. On the other hand, the drawing may symbolize
especially the sacrificial knife, and the instrument may have been
represented with teeth because the Aztecs thought of it as eating
the heart of the victim. Figure 35, c, represents a degenerate
form of this same drawing. In figure 35, d, we have still the
knife, and we have the two lines across it transversely as in a.
Nothing else is present, however, except a round dot in the
center. It would seem almost necessary to conclude that this dot
stands for the face as shown in a. It would be most plausible to
assume that it is a remnant of the eye, all the rest of the face
having dropped off. In similar fashion, the curl in e, and the
still simpler curl in /, would seem to be the remnant of the mouth
shown in a. In g all the facial features have disappeared, and
we have nothing left but the two transverse lines. In h, i, j, k, n
we have a series of simple designs which occupy the place that
the face occupies in a, and which might easily be interpreted as
degenerate forms of the face. There has, however, been more or
less arbitrary elaboration and simplification of these designs.
Perhaps the simplest is k. At the bottom of n, we see a curious
curved design that possibly represents part of a haft or handle.
Figure 35, I, is another of the fanciful drawings which are
rather usual in the Bologne manuscript. We have here the flint-
knife with its face, but in this case a mannikin body has been
fitted to it, and we have a complete person in a curious attitude,
with both hands raised. The mannikin is dressed in waist-cloth
and sandals, with long ornaments of a flexible sort attached to
his wrists, and his body is painted black like that of the priest
in sacrifices. We spoke a moment ago of the curious curl design
which seems (fig. 35, e, f) to represent the mouth of our first
original drawing. It is worth noting that if this is the real mean-
ing of it, the artist in the case of m, figure 35, forgot that original
meaning. He has drawn two of them, one on each side of the
1916] Waterman : Delineation ofVay-signs in Astec Manuscripts 385
blade. These two curls appear again in the case of o, although
this latter is a realistic drawing of a flint-knife, with its handle
and hilt plainly shown.
I should like to draw special attention to p, figure 35. This
design represents the idea "Flint." There is no question about
its identity, which can be determined from a consideration of the
original series in which it occurs. Moreover, it is only a com-
paratively slight variation from some of the designs which rep-
resent the knife quite realistically (see h, i, etc.). The curved
design at the edge of the blade has simply been expanded rather
unduly. However, the drawing in p has gone so far from the
original that it approaches very close to the Aztec representation
of the ear of maize.
Bain (Quiahuitl)
Sources of drawings (fig. 36):
a, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 37
i,
Vatican B,
p. 20
6, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 39
3,
Borgia,
p. 50
c, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 38
Tc,
Vatican B,
p. 75
d, Vatican B, p. 96
h
Bologne,
p. 2
e, Vatican B, p. 1
m,
, Aubin,
p. 3
f, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 46
n,
Vatican B,
p. 94
g, Vatican B, p. 58
0,
Vatican B,
p. 71
h, Vatican B, p. 1
P,
Nuttall (Zouche),
p. 37
As already noted in several places, the day-sign Rain is rep-
resented by the face of the rain-god. This divinity was called by
the Aztecs Tlaloc. A figure of the god is shown in p, figure 36.
There are several things in his appearance and costume in this
drawing that deserve special notice. In the first place he is very
elaborately dressed. He wears not only the customary sandals
and waist-cloth, but also a belt with some elaborate ornament
behind, and on his breast a necklace with a large circular pendant.
At the back of his head there seems to be an additional ornament.
Around his wrists are bracelets, and in his hand he holds what
may perhaps be considered a stalk of maize and a ceremonial
pouch. The head of this divinity, however, is the part of most
importance for our purpose, since the head only appears as a
386 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
r — T/i~^
e
Fig. 36. — a-o, The Day-sign Rain (Quiahuitl) ; p, Eealistic
Drawing of the Eain-god, Tlaloc
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 387
day-sign. The figure we are discussing seems to represent a
human being impersonating the god. We see in the drawing a
human face, with hair coming down to the ear, and in this ear
a complex ear-ornament. Part of the nose also is clearly visible.
The facial features, however, are in large part obscured by some-
thing suggesting a mask. The eye is covered by a sort of goggle,
and from this goggle a strip twists down over the face, running
along the upper lip. From this strip over the mouth there
depends a set of long tusks or fang-like teeth. This latter feature
is the most characteristic part of the Tlaloc regalia. On the
head, however, is a sort of cap surmounted by an ornament in
two parts, one projecting forward, and the other to the rear.
This ornament is also quite characteristic of the Tlaloc figure as
usually represented. Let us now examine some of the variations
of this figure when used as a day-sign.
The most complete delineation is shown in a, figure 36. Here
we have all the important features of the god realistically repre-
sented. We see the ear-ornament, the goggle eye, the strip or
mask with the tusks attached, and the cap with the two orna-
mental flaps. In the next drawing, however ( & ) , we have merely
the eye and the strip with its tusks. In c we have an even
simpler form than in b, and in d the eye looks like a simple ring,
and the teeth like slats. The strip that carries the fangs is also
clumsy in this drawing and much simplified.
The drawings in e, f, g, and h show different forms, and were
chosen with special reference to the ornamental flaps on the cap.
In e the teeth, eye, and strip are all present, but the two flaps
have become just a straight bar. We have a curious bar added
just above the teeth, the origin of which I cannot explain. It
appears, however, in / and h. In / the teeth look like a soft
fringe. In g we have just on the head a straight bar (representing
apparently the cap ornaments), a round eye, and the teeth. The
teeth are not, however, the fangs proper to a Tlaloc figure, as
usually represented, but are the triangular teeth characteristic
of the Water-monster symbol.
In h we see the eye, intersected by a bar, and a simplified set
of teeth. Whether this bar is the cap ornament, or the extra bar
which appears first in e, it is impossible to say.
388 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
In i, j, and k we have these same elements very much simpli-
fied and distorted. In i the teeth, lip-strip, eye, and another
design, perhaps representing teeth again, are all arranged to
form one horizontal figure. Recognition of this maze of lines as
Tlaloc symbols would be almost impossible, if we did not have
intermediate stages before us. In j the three most persistent
elements appear, teeth, eye, and cap ornament, but the teeth are
very degenerate, hardly more than a set of scallops. In k the
whole design is loose and formless, the teeth square at the end
instead of pointed, and practically all similarity to the realistic
drawing is lost. In I we have another one of the fanciful draw-
ings from the Bologne Codex. We have the various parts of the
Tlaloc figure, cap with flaps, ear-ornament, goggle eye, and
mouth. The whole takes on, however, an entirely new appear-
ance. On the face appears a large patch of black face-paint.
The mouth is without teeth of any kind, although the teeth are
certainly the most characteristic of all the Tlaloc features.
In m we have a curious design from the Aubin manuscript.
The goggle eye, the cap, and the fringe of long teeth are all there.
The artist has drawn them, however, upside down. In n again
we have all the parts, but arranged to give quite a different effect
from any of the other drawings. The teeth, moreover, are of the
Water-monster variety. In o we have a drawing that might
easily be mistaken for the Water-monster symbol. It would
almost seem that the artist had the Water-monster figure in the
back of his mind. The drawing shows the goggle eye and the
curved lip-strip. The teeth, however, have lost their long taper-
ing shape, and the artist has made them follow around up the
curve of the strip, giving almost exactly the effect of Water-
monster's upturned snout. We have, however, behind the eye,
an ear which would not be in place on the Water-monster design.
Altogether, there is none of the symbols which is more com-
plicated and distinctive than the representation of the Rain
symbol, and yet there is no design which shows more marked
variability or greater similarity to entirely independent symbols.
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 389
Fig. 37,
I, The Day-sign Flower (Xochitl) ; p, Bealistic
Drawing of a Plant in Blossom
390 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
Flower (Xochitl)
Sources of drawings (fig. 37):
a, Nuttall (Zouche)
6, Nuttall (Zouche)
c, Nuttall (Zouche)
d, Nuttall (Zouche)
e, Nuttall (Zouche)
f, Nuttall (Zouche)
g, Nuttall (Zouche)
p. 43 i, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 2
p. 53 j, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 15
p. 3 Tc, Aubin, p. 4
p. 43 I, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 76
p. 51 m, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 6
p. 52 n, Aubin, p. 6
p. 16 o, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 19
h, Fejervary, p. 17 p, Fejervary, p. 5
Figure 37 represents the various forms of the day-sign Flower.
There is considerable variety in these drawings, but they all rep-
resent obviously the same thing, namely a blossom. The most
usual outline is perhaps that of the fleur-de-lis. This appears,
for example, in a and &. In some cases, however, the blossom
is quite painstakingly portrayed with stem, petals and stamens.
(See, for example, e, /, and w.) In other cases this flower figure
becomes so simplified that it can scarcely be recognized at all.
The most extreme case of this is perhaps h, in which all likeness
to the flower is lost. In one or two cases in the manuscripts the
blossom is represented in a geometric fashion. An example of
this is shown in /. The most realistic forms are possibly e and
n, where the various parts of the blossom are shown in their
natural relations. In j, k, and o, however, the drawings become
quite grotesque and are hardly recognizable at all.
Figure 37, p, shows a plant in blossom. The similarity be-
tween these blossoms and those drawn to represent the day-sign
Flower is so marked that a case of identity seems to be estab-
lished. The plant represented in p is apparently a cactus, and
in all probability the ordinary "prickly-pear," in Aztec nochtli,
that is quite common on the Mexican plateau. This seems to be
indicated by the way in which the oval leaves are joined. That
the plant is the cactus is suggested also by the presence of the
long thorns. As in many cases, there is represented at the
bottom of the plant the root. It seems altogether likely, then,
that the Aztec day-sign Flower represents really the flower of
the prickly-pear cactus.
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztee Manuscripts 391
Fig. 38. — Drawings showing the Borrowing of Characteristics
between the Various Day-signs
Sources of drawings (fig. 38):
a, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 71
ft,
Borgia,
p. 64
6, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 12
♦,
Borgia,
p. 5
c, Vatican B, p. 88
3,
Bologne,
p. 3
d, Fejervary, p. 5
Jc,
Vatican B,
p. 21
e, Nuttall (Zouche), p. 11
I,
Vatican B,
p. 62
f, Fejervary, p. 9
m
Vatican B,
p. 96
g, Borgia, p. 57
n,
Vatican B,
p. 28
392 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
BORROWING OF CHARACTERISTICS
Mention has been made in so many places of the borrowing of
characteristics between different day-signs that the matter may
deserve special illustration. Figure 38 shows a number of draw-
ings in which this borrowing has taken place. These are par-
ticularly picturesque examples and will serve perhaps to conclude
the whole matter. In a and h of figure 38 we have two typical
day-signs. The first of these, a, represents the monkey quite
realistically. It will be seen at once, however, that he has bor-
rowed the flat two-flapped cap that is characteristic normally of
the Rain sign (&). Monkey, it will be remembered, is represented
normally with a crest (see e of the present figure). The presence
of the cap, then, in a is simply a case of outright borrowing. On
the other hand, in c, d, and e of figure 38, we have a case where
the monkey loans one of his features. The first of these draw-
ings (d) represents the day-sign Death and consists primarily
of a skull. The skull is topped, however, by a crest which has
been borrowed obviously from the monkey (see e of this figure).
The monkey is the only animal normally represented with this
feature. It will be remembered, too, that one of the characteristic
things about the monkey is the presence of an ear. This monkey
ear appears quite inappropriately on the skull shown in c. In
the Death symbol shown in d, an ear-ornament belonging to the
wind-god has been borrowed (see f, figure 36). In d, therefore,
the artist borrowed two features, the crest from the monkey and
also the wind-god's ear-ornament.
In g, k, and i we have a curious example of borrowing, g
represents the symbol for water, which is a dish with water pour-
ing out of it, and a little circular object in the center representing
a shell. In i we see a typical representation of rain-god, the
central feature of which is a semi-circular eye. Figure /i is a
representation, like g, of water. Instead of a shell, however, the
artist represents in its midst an eye which he has apparently
borrowed from the Rain symbol.
In j, figure 38, we have a representation of the wind-god. He
has the usual wind-god's snout with the opened mouth and an
eye. He has, however, borrowed from the skull sign (see k) an
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Astec Manuscripts 393
additional eye, and the hooked rear portion of the skull. We
have then in j a curiously complicated and rather meaningless
figure — a wind-god with beak and ear-omament topped by a
cranium and a loose eye borrowed from the symbol of Death.
In the last three drawings of the figures I, m, and n, we see
a curious case of interchanging of traits. Let us direct attention
first of all to the water-monster draAving (n). The important
things here are an upcurved snout ornamented with big tri-
angular teeth. In I we have a representation of the rain-god
standing for the day-sign Rain. In drawing this latter symbol,
however, the artist borrowed two things. In the first place he
borrowed the teeth from the water-monster, and in the second
place, the pointed cap or mitre from the god of wind. On the
other hand, the wind-god here represented (m) is shown with
an upcurved beak, obviously an imitation of the water-monster;
and this curved beak is ornamented with typical water-monster
teeth.
CONCLUSION
I should say by way of summary concerning the general ten-
dencies which operate in the delineation of the day-signs, that
there is, in the first place, wide variation in type. It must be
noted that this variation is not due to historical development;
on the contrary, it is due in large part to conscious elaboration
or abbreviation on the part of each artist. We sometimes find
two widely variant forms in one day-sign, one perfect, the other
degenerate, side by side on the same page of one manuscript.
The difficulty in recognizing the day-signs, where there is any
difficulty, arises from the fact that there are no hard and fast
criteria for the recognition of the symbols. One symbol may
gradually change imtil it closely resembles another. To render
this approximation still more marked, we have the curious bor-
rowing which has just been illustrated, in which perfect features
from one day-sign are transplanted and appear entire in the
drawings of another. The amount of variation is so great that
an almost unlimited number of examples could be chosen. The
day-signs as they are drawn in the manuscripts offer many
examples of divergence.
394 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AZTEC MANUSCRIPTS
Aubin Tonalamatl. [A facsimile manuscript issued as an addendum to
Seler's work of the same title.] 1900-1901. Cited as Aubin.
Codice Messicano di Bologna (Codice Cospiano). Manuscrito pietorieo de
Ids Antiguos Nauas que se conserva en la Biblioteca de la Uni-
versidad de Bolonia. Eeproducido en fotocromgrafia a expensas de
S. E. el Duque de Loubat. Eoma, 1898. Cited as Bologne.
Codice Messicano Borgiano del Museo Etnografico della S. Congregazione
di Propaganda Fide. Eeprodotto in f otoeromografia a spese di S. E.
il Duca di Loubat a cura della Biblioteca Vaticana. Eoma, 1898.
Cited as Borgia.
Codex Ferjervary-Mayer. Manuscrit mexicain precolombien des Free
Public Museums de Liverpool (M 12014). Published by le Due de
Loubat. Paris, 1901. Cited as Fejervary.
Codex Nuttall. Facsimile of an ancient Mexican Codex belonging to
Lord Zouche of Harynworth with an introduction by Zelia Nuttall.
Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 1902.
Cited as Nuttall (Zouche).
H Manoscritto Messicano Vatican o 3773. Eeprodotto in fotocromagrafia
a spece di S. E. Duca di Loubat a cura della Biblioteca Vaticana.
Eoma, 1896. Cited as Vatican B.
Zouche Manuscript (see "Codex Nuttall").
RECENT WORKS REFERRED TO IN THE TEXT
Antiguedades mexicanas. See Chavero, 1892.
Bandelier, a. F.
1880a. On the art of war and mode of warfare of the ancient Mexicans.
(Eeports of the Peabody Museum of Harvard University,
vol. 2, pp. 95-162.)
1880b. On the distribution and tenure of land and the customs with
respect to inheritance among the ancient Mexicans. (Eeports
of the Peabody Museum of Harvard University, vol. 2, pp.
385-449.)
1880c. On the social organization and mode of government of the ancient
Mexicans. (Eeports of the Peabody Museum of Harvard
University, vol. 2, pp. 557-700.)
Benevente, Toribio de. See Toribio.
Beuchat, H.
1912. Manuel d 'Archaeologie (Am6ricaine (Amerique prehistorique —
Civilizations disparues.) Paris.
BOWDITCH, C. P.
1910. The numeration, calendar systems and astronomical knowledge
of the Mayas. Cambridge.
1916] Waterman : Belineation of Bay-signs in Aztec Manuscripts 395
Brinton, D. G.
1885. The annals of the Cakchiquels. (Library of Aboriginal Amer-
ican Literature, number 6.) Philadelphia.
1893. The native calendars of Mexico and Central America. Phila-
delphia.
Chavero, Alfredo.
1876. Calendario Azteca. Ensayo Arqueologico. Ed. 2. Mexico.
1892. Antigiiedades Mexicanas (editor). Published by the Junta
Colombina. Mexico.
Clavigero, F. X.
1870-1881. Storia Antica del Messico. 4 vols. Cesena.
Cr6nica de la S. Provincia del SantIssimo Nombre de Jesus de Guatte-
MALA. Anonymous manuscript of 1683.
Enock, C. Eeginald
1909. Mexico. Its ancient and modern civilization, etc. London and
Leipsic.
Fabrega, 3ost Lino.
1899. Interpretation del Codice Borgiano. (Mexico, Museo Nacional,
Anales [first series], vol. 5.)
FORSTEMANN, E.
1893. Die Zeitperioden der Mayas. (Globus, vol. 63. Eeprinted in
Bull. 28, Bur. Am. Ethn., pp. 493-498.)
1895. Die mittelamerikanische Tonalamatl. (Globus, vol. 67, pp. 283-
285. Eeprinted in Bull. 28, Bur. Am. Ethn., pp. 527-533.)
Goodman, J. T.
1897. The archaic Maya inscriptions. (Biologia Centrali-Americana.
Archaeology. Appendix. See Maudslay, 1889-1902.)
Humboldt, A. von
1816. Vues des Cordilleres et monuments des peoples indigenes de
1 'Amerique. Paris.
ICAZBALCETA, J. GARCIA
1858-1870. Coleccion de documentos para la historia de Mexico. 3
vols. Mexico.
1885-1892. Nueva coleccion de documentos para la historia de Mexico.
5 vols. Mexico.
JoNGHE, Ed. de
1906. Die altmexikanische Kalendar. (Zeitschrift fiir Ethnologie, vol.
38, pp. 485-506.)
Joyce, T. A.
1914. Mexican Archaeology. London.
KiNGSBOROUGH, LORD
1831. Antiquities of Mexico: comprising facsimiles of ancient Mexican
paintings and hieroglyphics . . . together vrith the Monu-
ments of New Spain by M. Dupaix. ... 9 vols. London.
Leon y Gama, A.
1790. Descripcion historica y cronol6gica de las piedras que se hal-
laron en la plaza principal de Mexico. Mexico.
396 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
Maccuedy, Geoege Grant
1910. An Aztec "Calendar Stone" in the Yale University Museum.
(American Anthropologist, n.s., vol. 12, pp. 481-496.)
Maudslay, a. p.
1889-1902. Biologia Centrali-Americana, or contributions to the knowl-
ledge of the flora and fauna of Central America. Arch-
aeology. 4 vols, of plates, 1 vol. of text and an appendix.
London.
MOTOLINIA. See Toribio de Benevente.
NuTTALii, Zelia
1891. The atlatl or spear-thrower of the ancient Mexicans. (Arch-
aeological and ethnological papers of the Peabody Museum
of Harvard University, vol. 1, pp. 173-207.)
1901. The fundamental principles of Old and New World civilizations.
A comparative research based on a study of the ancient
Mexican religious, sociological and calendrical systems.
(Archaeological and Ethnological Papers of the Peabody
Museum of Harvard University, vol. 2.)
1903. The book of the life of the ancient Mexicans, containing an
account of their rites and superstitions. An anonymous
Hispano-Mexiean manuscript preserved at the Biblioteca
Nazionale Centrale, Florence, Italy. [Sometimes called the
Codex Magliabeechi.] Part 1, introduction and facsimile.
University of California, Berkeley, Cal.
1904. Periodic adjustments in the ancient Mexican calendar system.
(American Anthropologist, n.s., vol. 6, pp. 486-500.)
1906. Problems in Mexican archaeology. (American Anthropologist,
U.S., vol. 8, pp. 133-149.)
1910. The island of Sacrifieios. (American Anthropologist, n.s., vol.
12, pp. 257-295.)
Oeozco y Berra, Manuel
1880. Historia antigua y de la conquista de Mexico. 4 vols. Mexico.
Pe&afiel, Antonio
1885. Nombres geografieos de Mexico. Catalogo alfabetico de los
nombres de lugar pertinentes al idioma * ' Nahuatl. ' ' Estudio
jeroglifico de las matriculas de las tributos del Codex Mendo-
cino . . . Dibujo de las Antigiiedades Mexicanas de Lord
Kingsborough. Mexico.
1890. Monumentos del arte Mexicano antiguo. Ornamentacion, mit-
ologia, tributos, y monumentos. Berlin.
Sahagun, Bernardino
1829. Historica General [Universal] de las cosas de Nueva Espana.
Mexico. [An independent edition is printed in Kingsborough,
London, 1831, vol. 7. A French translation was edited by
Jourdanet and Simeon, Paris, 1880.]
1916] Waterman: Delineation of Day-signs in Aztec Mamiscripts 397
Seler, Eduaed
1891. Zur mexikanischen Chronologie mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung
des zapotekischen Kalendars. (Zeitschrift fiir Ethnologie,
vol. 23, pp. 89-133. Translated in Bull. 28, Bur. Am. Ethn.,
pp. 1-55. Eeprinted in 1902-1908, vol. 1, pp. 507-554.)
1893. Die mexikanischen Bilderhandschriften Alexander von Hum-
boldts in der Koniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin. Berlin. (Re-
printed in 1902-1908, vol. 1, pp. 162-300. Translated in
Bull. 28, Bur. Am. Ethn., pp. 123-230.)
1898. Die Venusperiode in den Bilderschriften der Codex Borgia
Gruppe. (Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft fiir
Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte. Reprinted in
1902-1908, vol. 1, pp. 618-667. Translated in Bull. 28, Bur.
Am. Ethn., pp. 123-229.)
1900-1901. The Tonalamatl of the Aubin Collection, an old Mexican
picture manuscript in the Paris National Library (Manuscrits
Mexicains No. 18-19). Published by the Duke of Loubat,
with introduction and explanatory text by Dr. Eduard Seler.
Berlin and London. English translation by A. H. Keane.
1902-1908. Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur amerikanischen Sprach-
und Alterthumskunde. 3 vols. Berlin.
1903. Die Korrekturen der Jahreslange und die Lange der Venus-
periode in den mexikanischen Bilderschriften. (Zeitschrift
fiir Ethnologie, vol. 35, pp. 27-49. Reprinted in 1902-1908,
vol. 3, pp. 199-220.)
Seena, Jacinto de la
1899. Mexico, Museo Nacional, Anales, vol. 5.
Spence, Lewis
1912. The civilization of ancient Mexico, Cambridge, University
Press. (New York, G. Putnam & Sons.)
Spinden, H. J.
1913. A study of Maya art. (Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of
Harvard University, vol. 6.)
Teenaux-Compans, H.
1837-1841. Voyages, relations, et m^moires origineaux pour servir a
I'histoire de la decouvert^ de PAm^rique. 21 vols. Paris.
Tezozomoc, Fernando de Alvaeado
Cronica Mexicana (see Kingsborough, 1831, vol. 9). Translated into
French by Ternaux-Compans, Paris, 1855.
Thomas, Cyrus
1897-1898a. Mexican calendar systems. (19th Report of the Bureau
of American Ethnology, part 2, pp. 693-819.)
1897-1898b. Numeral systems of Mexico and Central America. (19th
Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, part 2, pp.
853-955.)
Toequemada, Juan de
1615. . . . libros rituales y monarquia Indiana, etc. Sevilla. Ed. 2,
edited by A. Gonzales-Barcia, Madrid, 1723.
398 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 11
ToEiBio DE Benevente (called Motolinia)
Historia de los Indies de Nueva Espana (see Kingsborough, 1831, vol.
9, where parts of it are printed. Another edition, complete,
wUl be found in Garcia Icazbalceta, 1858-1870, vol. 1.)
Tyloe, E. B.
1861. Anahuac, or Mexico and the Mexicans, ancient and modern.
London.
Veytia, M. Fernandez
1907. Los calendarios Mexicanos. Mexico, published by the Museo
Nacional.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS- (CONTINUED)
Vol. 7. 1. The Emeryville Shellmound, by Max UMe. Pp. 1-106, plates 1-12, with
38 text figures. Jime, 1907 ...„ 1.26
2. Eecent Investigations bearing upon the Question of the Occurrence of
Neocene Man in the Auriferous Gravels of California, by William
J. Sinclair. Pp. 107-130, plates 13-14. February, 1908 „. .86
3. Porno Indian Basketry, by S. A. Barrett. Pp. 133-306, plates 15-80,
231 text figures. December, 1908 _... 1.76
4. Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Begion, by N. C. Nelson.
Pp. 309-356, plates 32-34. December, 1909 50
5. The Ellis Landing Shellmound, by N. 0. Nelson. Pp. 357-426, plates
36-50. AprU, 1910 75
Index, pp. 427-443.
Vol. 8. 1. A Mission Eecord of the California Indians, from a Manuscript in the
Bancroft Library, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 1-27. May, 1908 25
2. The Ethnography of the Cahuilla Indians, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 29-
68, plates 1-15. July, 1908 76
3. The Beligion of the Luisefio and Diegueno Indians of Southern Cali-
fornia, by Constance Goddard Dubois. Pp. 69-186, plates 16-19.
June, 1908 1.28
4. The Culture of the Luisefio Indians, by Philip Stedman Sparkman.
Pp. 187-234, plate 20. August, 1908 J50
6. Notes on Shoshonean Dialects of Southern California, by A. L. Kroe-
ber. Pp. 235-269. September, 1909 35
6. The Beligious Practices of the Dieguefio Indians, by T. T. Waterman.
Pp. 271-358, plates 21-28. March, 1910 80
Index, pp. 359-369.
Vol. 9. 1. Tana Texts, by Edward Sapir, together with Yana Myths collected by
Boland B. Dixon. Pp. 1-235. February, 1910 2.50
2. The Chumash and Costanoan Languages, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 237-
271. November, 1910 35
3. The Languages of the Coast of California North of San Francisco, by
A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 273-435, and map. April, 1911 1.50
Index, pp. 437-439. '
Vol. 10. 1. Phonetic Constituents of the Native Languages of California, by A.
L. Kroeber. Pp. 1-12. May, 1911 10
2. The Phonetic Elements of the Northern Paiute Language, by T. T.
Waterman. Pp. 13-44, plates 1-5. November, 1911 45
8. Phonetic Elements of the Mohave Language, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp.
45-96, plates 6-20. November, 1911 65
4. The Ethnology of the Salinan Indians, by J. Alden Mason. Pp. 97-
240, plates 21-37. December, 1912 1.75
5. Papago Verb Stems, by Juan Dolores. Pp. 241-263. August, 1913 25
6. Notes on the Chilula Indians of Northwestern California, by Pliny
Earl Goddard. Pp. 265-288, plates 38-41. April, 1914 30
7. Chilula Texts, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 289-379. November,
1914 1.00
Index, pp. 381-385.
Vol. 11. 1. Elements of the Kato Language, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 1-176,
plates 1-45. October, 1912 2.00
2. Phonetic Elements of the Diegueno Language, by A. L. Kroeber and
J. P. Harrington. Pp. 177-188. April, 1914 .10
3. Sarsi Texts, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 189-277. February, 1915.... 1.00
4. Serian, Tequistlatecan, and Hokan, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 279-290.
February, 1915 10
5. Dichotomous Social Organization in South Central California, by Ed-
ward Winslow Giflford, Pp. 291-296. February, 1916 05
6. The Delineation of the Day-Signs in the Aztec Manuscripts, by T. T.
Waterman. Pp. 297-398, March, 1916 1.00
7. The Mutsun Dialect of Costanoan Based on the Vocabulary of De la
Cuesta, by J. Alden Mason. Pp. 399-472. March, 1916 70
Index in preparation.
Vol. 12. 1. Composition of California Shellmounds, by Edward Winslow Gilford.
Pp. 1-29. February, 1916 30
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS- (CONTINUED)
Volumes now completed:
Volume 1. 1903-1904. 378 pages and SO plates $4.25
Volume 2. 1904-1907. 893 pages and 21 plates 3.50
Volume 3. 1905. The Morphology of the Hupa Language. 344 pages 3.50
Volume 4. 1906-1907. 374 pages, with 5 tables, 10 plates, and map „ 3.50
Volume 5. 1907-1910. 384 pages, with 25 plates „ 8.50
Volume 6. 1908. 400 pages, with 3 maps _ _ 8.60
Volume 7. 1907-1910. 443 pages and 50 plates 3.50
Volume 8. 1908-1910. 369 pages and 28 plates 3.50
Volume 9. 1910-1911. 439 pages 3.50
Volume 10. 1911-1914. 385 pages and 41 plates 3.50
2fote.— The University of California Publications are ofFered in exchange for the publi-
cations of learned societies and institutions, universities and libraries. Complete lists of all
the publications of the University will be sent upon request. For sample copies, lists of
publications or other information, address the Manager of the University Press, Berkeley,
California, U. S. A. All matter sent in exchange should be addressed to The Exchange
Department, University Library, Berkeley, California, U. S. A.
AGEICULTUEAL SCIENCES.— E. B. Babcock, J. W. Gilmore, and C. B. Lipman, Editors.
Price per volume, $3.50. Volumes I and II in progress.
ASTKONOMY.— W. W. Campbell, Editor. (Lick Observatory, Mt. Hamilton, Cal.)
Publications of the Lick Observatory. — ^Volumes I-XII completed.
BOTAlTSr.—W. A. Setchell, Editor. Price per volume $3.50. Volumes I (pp. 418), II (pp.
360), III (pp. 400), and IV (pp. 397) completed. Volumes V and VI in progress.
CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY.— Edward B. Clapp, William A. Merrill, Herbert 0. Nutting,
Editors. Price per volume $2.00. Volume I (pp. 270) completed. Volume II in
progress.
EDUCATION.— Edited by the Department of Education. Price per volume $2.50.
BNGINEEE.ING.— Edited under the direction of the Engineering Departments. This series
will contain contributions from the Colleges of Mechanics, Mining, and Civil Engi-
neering. Volume I in progress.
GEOGRAPHY.— Euliff S. Holway, Editor. Volume I in progress.
GEOLOGY. — Bulletin of the Department of Geology. Andrew C. Lawson and John O.
Merriam, Editors. Price per volume $3.50. Volumes I (pp. 435), II (pp. 457), m
(pp. 482), IV (pp. 462), V (pp. 458), VI (pp. 454), VII (pp. 504), and VIII (pp. 583)
completed. Volume IX in progress.
MODERN PHILOLOGY. — Volumes I (pp. 400) and n (pp. 373) completed. Volumes in
and IV in progress.
PATHOLOGY.— Frederick P. Gay, Editor. Price per volume, $2.50. Volume I (pp. 347)
completed. Volume II in progress.
PHILOSOPHY.— G. H. Howison, Editor. Volume I (pp. 262) completed. Volume II in
progress. Price per volume $2.00.
PHYSIOLOGY.— S. S. Maxwell, Editor. Price per volume $2.00. Volumes I (pp. 217),
II (pp. 215), III (pp. 197), and IV (pp. 228) completed. Volume V in progress.
PSYCHOLOGY. — George M. Stratton, Editor. Volume I in progress.
ZOOLOGY.— W. E. Ritter and C. A. Kofoid, Editors. Price per volume for volumes I-X,
$3.50; for volume XI and following, $5.00. Volumes I (pp. 317), II (pp. 382), III
(pp. 383), IV (pp. 400), V (pp. 440), VI (pp. 478), VII (pp. 446), VIH (pp. 357), IX
(pp. 365), X (pp. 417), and XI (pp. 538) completed. Volumes XII to XVI inclusive
in progress.
UNTVEESITY OF CALIFORNIA CHRONICLE.— An official record of University life,
issued quarterly, edited by a committee of the Faculty. Price, $1.00 per year. Cur-
rent volume No. XVIIL
Address all orders or requests for information concerning the above publications to The
University Press, Berkeley, California.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11