H.

Braakhuis Artificers of the days: Functions of the howler monkey gods among the Mayas In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 143 (1987), no: 1, Leiden, 25-53

This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl

H. E. M. BRAAKHUIS

ARTIFICERS OF THE DAYS: FUNCTIONS OF THE HOWLER MONKEY GODS AMONG THE MAY AS*
Car j'installe, par la science, L'hymne des coeurs spirituels En 1'oeuvre de ma patience, Atlas, herbiers et rituels. (Mallarm, ProsepourDes Esseintes)

1. INTRODUCTION In his study entitled 'Supernatural Patrons of Maya Scribes and Artists', M. D. Coe has been able to establish that the gods Hun Batz and Hun Choven, 'One Howler Monkey' and 'One Artisan', repeatedly occur as the subjects of funerary vase representations, dating from the Late Classic period (600-900 A.D.) of Mayan civilization. An important sixteenth-century Quich-Mayan source, the Popol Vuh, presents these deities as the malicious elder stepbrothers of its heroes, Hunahpu, 'One Blowgunner', and his companion Xbalanque. In accordance with some of their functions in the Popol Vuh, the simians, or figures substituted for them, are depicted in the acts of writing and carving. In 1981, the article of M. D. Coe was followed by a chapter on scribes in the catalogue raisonn of codex-style vase paintings published by F. Robicsek and D. M. Hales. Although adding quite a few pictures of Howler Monkeys and other writing and carving gods, the authors did not present any new points of view but stayed within the confines of Coe's earlier explanations. Only these, therefore, will be considered here. From his paper, it does not become clear how Coe would account for
I wish to thank Dr. Cl. Baudez, G. Houtzager, Dr. J. Oosten, R. de Ridder, J. van der Vliet and especially Prof. Dr. R. A. M. van Zantwijk for their comments on this study. Dr. A. Baxter's observations have considerably improved the wording of the text. The encouragement of Father F. J. Braakhuis, C.M., and of my good friend, A. M. J. Zijlstra, has been invaluable. H. E. M. BRAAKHUIS is an M.A. graduate from the Centre of Anthropology and Sociology of the University of Amsterdam with a special interest in Mayan ethnology and religion. He may be contacted at Amstel 292-C, 1017 AN Amsterdam.

26

H. E. M. Braakhuis

the occurrence of the Artisan Gods in a funerary context. The title of his study would suggest that he sees the explanation for this in the former profession of the occupants of the tombs in which the vases were probably found. It is, however, remarkable that the author does not confine himself to a brief mention of those aspects of the roles of Hun Batz and Hun Choven which demonstrate their patronage over the fine arts. Instead, he proceeds to set forth in detail the story of the conflict between elder and younger brothers, even though no sign of this is apparent in the vase representations in question. It would appear that here again Coe's theory that all vase representations together would constitute a kind of 'Book of the Dead', or an extended version of the Popol Vuh twin myth, has to supply the explanation implicitly. In this case, the Howler Monkey Gods would not be so important in themselves, but instead would function primarily as references to the socalled 'Book of the Dead' and to the heroic role in it of their stepbrothers. Here we will follow a different path. A positive result of M. D. Coe's study which has not been mentioned yet is the identification of a frequently occurring variant of the day-unit in the Long Count as a Howler Monkey (Coe 1977:341). By taking a lead from this important calendarial value of the Howler Monkey God and by surveying all his functions and associations, it may eventually be possible to transcend that seemingly inextricable and inescapable association of Howler Monkey and Blowgunner which the Popol Vuh would impose upon s. Indeed, we should then be able to determine whether the Howler Monkey Gods can stand on their own feet. 2. CALENDARIAL AND HIEROGLYPHIC FUNCTIONS OF THE HOWLER MONKEY 2.1 Xlth day Chuen/Batz within the framework of the mantic cycle 2.1.1 Significance of the name and structural position The head of the Howler Monkey sporadically occurs as a hieroglyphic variant of the Xlth day, called Chuen in Yucatan and Batz elsewhere (e.g., Palenque 96 Gl., B6, in Thompson 1966:fig. 8 no. 42). According to Thompson, Yucatec Chuen is identical with Quichean Choven (Thompson 1966:80). This is not improbable, since chov means 'whiten, beautify, embellish' in Quich (Edmonson 1965) and ah chuen 'artffice oficial de algn arte' in Yucatec (Motul). In any case, the C/iwen-glyph (T 520) once occurs as the main element in the name-compound for a Howler Monkey writer (Coe 1978:96).1 Batz means 'howler monkey', according to Thompson (1966:80), which agrees with the terms for the howler monkey found in Chiapas, baadz, ahbaadz or hbaadz (Martin del

Functions of the Howler Monkey Gods among the Mayas

27

Campo 1961:30). For the Quich of the eighteenth century, this is further confirmed by Father Ximnez, who gives as the primary meaning of the day Batz: 'name of the one that turned into a monkey (mico)2; and thus some very fierce ones with large beards that are found in the Verapaz are called Batz' (Ximnez 1965:120 = Cap. XXXVI)3, a description which only fits the howler monkey.4 The name of the Howler Monkey God in the Popol Vuh is provided with the numeral 'One', which appears to indicate the role of the Howler Monkey as Lord of the Xlth 13-day unit, just as in the parallel case of Ce Ozomatli 'One (Spider) Monkey' in the Mexican calendar. Given the structure of the calendar, this role is an automatic consequence of the association with the Xlth day. From a mere calendarial point of view, the first day Imix and the eleventh day Chuen/Batz are antipodean: either of these can function as initial days of alternate halves of the uinal (20-day) and the 260-day cycles. The first point is adduced by LaFarge as an explanation for the identical association of Imux and Batz with the soil (LaFarge 1947:177), the second point is borne out by the mantic diagram of the Madrid Codex (LXXV-LXXVI), where 1 Chuen and 1 Imix, in the upper right- and lower left-hand corners respectively, are diametrically opposed, Chuen taking over the usual starting position of the count (if not the world direction) from Imix.s In some parts of the Guatemalan Highlands, the count of the mantic days is started with 1 Batz instead of 1 Imix, a point which we shall want to return to in due course. 2.1.2 Mantic values and aspect The mantic values of the day Chuen/Batz 'Artisan'/'Howler Monkey' agree with those of the Aztec day Ozomatli '(Spider)'Monkey'. For Ozomatli we read: 'And he who was then born they regarded favourably . . . And he would be, perchance, a singer, dancer, or scribe; he would producesome workof art' (Sahagn 1957:82). For the Quich we have: 'There is then some singing. There is then some flute and drum [sic], carving, painting [under which writing is probably subsumed6], silverwork, weaving, spinning - very good days (Chol povallAhilabal q'ih of 1722, see Edmonson 1971: n. 1726). For the Yucatec it is: 'Wood carver. Weaver is its sign. Master of all crafts - very rich his whole life; very good everything he does; judicious' (U mutil chuenil kin sansamal, see Barrera Vasquez and Rendon 1972:122). The aspect of this day among other Mayan groups is up until recent times in full agreement, the emphasis always being laid on wealth and abundance (e.g., Ixil, see Colby and Colby 1981:232; Kanjobal, see LaFarge 1947:174; Mam, see Oakes 1969:250, 253). On this level of mantic practice - as opposed to that of theological classification - the primary meaning of the name of this day can give place to meanings based on the mantic values of the day.7 In Quich, the

28

H. E. M. Braakhuis

word for howler monkey is identical or nearly identical with the word for thread8; Ximnez (1965:120) already gives 'thread' as the second meaning of the day-name Batz.9 Since working with thread, or weaving, is one of the mantic values of this day, this partial value apparently has undergone a considerable extension in meaning, so that 'spinning', batz'inic, together with the related notion of 'rolling up', botz'ic, has come to indicate metaphorically the general positive aspect of this day (cf. B. Tedlock 1982:116-7).
2.2 Yaxal Chuen as the patron deity of a katun

In some of the Books of Chilam Balam, the god Yaxal Chuen is described as a singer - one of the functions of the Howler Monkey God.10 When this deity adopts the role of patron god of katun 12 Ahau, the aspect of this katun turns out to be similar to that of the day Chuen: mild, generally accepted rule, pleasure, abundance (Chumayel, see Roys 1967:158-9; Tizimin,see Edmonson 1982:145-50, showing the same predominantly positive aspect, but with an admixture of various negative factors).
2.3 Time-unit within the framework of the Long Count

2.3.1 Day-unit As Coe has shown (1977:341), the head of the Howler Monkey is a frequently occurring variant of the day-unit in the Long Count.11 This Howler Monkey varies in at least three different ways. Firstly, it occurs with or without the typical wreath-like headgear.12 If the headgear is lacking, the brow is generally accentuated and the skull may have a scallop or curl starting from its upper edge.13 Secondly, the face of the Howler Monkey may display an animal form (snub nose) or an old, humanized form (aquiline nose)14 - two types that, within one and the same vase representation, are kept clearly separate (cf. Robicsek and Hales 1981: no. 68). Thirdly, the Howler Monkey is often assimilated to the water-serpent heads of the higher time-units: e.g., Pusilha O (Thompson 1966: fig. 47 no. 3)/Quirigua A, C, D/Piedras Negras 36. In all three cases, the attribute (as distinct from a zoological trait) of an elongated ear, usually sticking out, is added to the Howler Monkey's head. Even more than in the case of the day Chuen/Batz, occurring rather infrequently in monumental inscriptions (Thompson 1966:91), the Howler Monkey Gd as a personification of the day-unit occupies a strategie position: in his sign stands the final, precise fixation of a date, first within the mantic cycle, giving the day its mantic content, and next

Functions of the Howler Monkey Gods among the Mayas

29

within the solar year, fixing its position in relation to the regular feasts. 2.3.2 Higher time-units The calendarial role of the Howler Monkey God is not entirely limited to the day-unit. The heads of the higher time-units may occasionally betray features of the Howler Monkey (especially his sliteye), the Howler Monkey type of the higher unit being somewhat different from that of the lower, or day-unit. E.g.: a) katun: Palenque Palace Stone (see fig. 1. = Acosta 1979: fig. 4); more doubtful: Copan J, 2 (Morley 1975: pi. 15, p. 190); note the three dots; b) baktun: Leyden Plate.

Fig. 1. Source: Acosta 1979.

2.4 Count-indicator Apart from his function as a time-unit personifier, the Howler Monkey God (or his likeness) can be found as a constituent of calendarial notations or clauses. E.g.: embedded in a calendarial clause: Vase, KI (Clarkson 1978: fig. 5); - in between '1 Sun-at-horizon' - Lunar Series: Xcalumkin Stela or Door Jamb, B5 (Closs 1979:44). 3. AUTONOMOUS MYTHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS OF THE HOWLER MONKEYS 3.1 Creation of space 3.1.1 Hun Batz and Hun Choven as artisan creators The Popol Vuh sums up in pairs the following functions of Hun Batz and Hun Choven: flautists and singers (ah zuv-ah bix); writers and carvers (ah tz'ib - ah k'ot); jewellers and silversmiths (ah xit - ah puvaq) (Edmonson 1971:1721-6). This choice from among the professional activities probably concerns the ones most highly esteemed. Of these 'fine arts', those consisting in the working of hard, solid objects appear to play a special role. 3.1.2 Artisan titles of the gods creating mankind In all, the Popol Vuh describes for creations, each of these having the

30

H. E. M. Braakhuis

same purpose: to create beings that will worship the gods. The first creation does not go beyond animals incapable of reasoning. The second does call man into being, but it is a man of confused speech, who is moreover not viable. Only the third creation results in a viable human generation gifted with sufficient reason to speak coherently (PV 627-8). These creatures, however, prove to be unmindful of the gods and are therefore virtually destroyed by a flood. The survivors are transformed into (spider) monkeys. After a long epic interlude, the fourth, successful creation is described as that whereby the four tribal ancestors of the Quich people come into being and human history proper can begin. The first actual creation of mankind, which is the second one in the hierarchy of creation as a whole, consists in the moulding of earth. Only the subsequent creation, however, is emphatically described as an artistic one: a human head (u chi u vach 'his mouth, his face', PV 565-6) ls is carved from wood under invocation of the creators, referred to here by a series of eight paired titles, three pairs of which are names of craftsmen working hard materials, viz.: Gem Cutter, Jeweller {ah q'uval - ah yamanik); Carver, Sculptor {ah ch'ut-ah tzalam); and Incense Maker, Toltec {ah q'ol-ah toltecai) (PV 541-56). 3.1.3 Hun Ahan and Hun Cheven as autonomous creators of the world and mankind The conflict of elder and younger brothers in the Popol Vuh only implicitly concerns the creation of the world. The Howler Monkey Gods, Hun Batz and Hun Choven, are defeated by their younger brothers, the Sun Deity Hunahpu and his companion, and are changed into dancing q'oy monkeys, in all probability Spider Monkey Demons.16 Apparently, it is the pipers and the singers worshipping them that are intended with the expression 'former people' {ri 'oher vinaq, PV 2887), but this qualification would be equally valid for the Howler Monkeys themselves, both being prototypical pipers and singers. Indeed, the elder brothers have shared the fate of the people of the preceding creation, carved out of wood by artisan gods, people who were subsequently changed into q'oy monkeys.17 On the other hand, the younger brothers are brought into relation with the successful last creation. They ascend to heaven and so make possible the dawn on Mount Hacavitz following the creation of human beings out of maize - a creation they had prefigured by being burnt, ground 'the way fresh corn is ground' (PV 4183), and mixed up with water. In various recent stories of the struggle between younger and elder brothers from the Guatemalan Highlands - some of which closely resemble the Popol Vuh - the theme of creation is far more explicitly present (LaFarge 1947: 50-9; Colby and Colby 1981:205-16; cf. Wagley 1949:51-2). As a consequence, the elder brothers' jealousy is aroused not so much, as in the case of the Popol Vuh, by the fact that they

Functions of the Howler Monkey Gods among the Mayas

31

are being supplanted as their father's successors and as owners of the house, as by their younger brothers' superior creative powers. The theme is succinctly related in an Ixil version from Nebaj, where the elder brothers have a first try at modelling man out of clay but cannot get beyond snakes and frogs, after which 'Our Father', that is, the young Sun (or Christ) Deity, successfully creates the first human being from the same clay (Colby and Colby 1981:206). After their pursuit of the young Sun Deity, the elder brothers are locked up in a chilly room with three closed windows, an unmistakable symbol of the Underworld. A precursor of this Ixil version, probably stemming from the Pokoman area (Miles 1957:736), is found in de las Casas' work18, which, however, presents a crucial divergence. The myth is rendered by de las Casas as follows: Thus, about creation they held the opinion that before it there was neither heaven nor earth, and no sun, no mon and no stars. They stated that there existed a divine husband and wife, whom they called Xchel and Xtcamna. These had once had a father and a mother, who had thirteen sons.19 It was said that the eldest, and some of the others, became presumptuous and wanted to make creatures against the will of his parents but could not do it, because what they made was some cheap crockery such as jugs and jars and the like. The youngest sons, called Huncheven and Hunaham, asked their father and mother permission to make creatures. They gave it them, saying that they would succeed at this since they had humbled themselves. And so they first made the heavens and the planets, fire, air, water and earth. It is said that next they formed from the earth man and woman. The others, who had been so proud as to presume to make creatures against the will of their parents, were cast into heil' (de las Casas 1967:505 = L. III Cap. CCXXXV). The younger brothers bear the names Hunaha/n, or (elsewhere on the page quoted above) Hunaha, and Huncheven. Coe gives Hunhan and Hunchevan, apparently the forms in the first edition (that of 1909) he consulted. Like others before him (e.g., Recinos 1969:130 n. 11; Thompson 1970b:322), he assumes that Hunhan should be read as Hun Ahau, which would then correspond to Hun Hunahpu (Coe 1977:329). Such an emendation is unnecessary, however. In the same way as choven probably sterns from chov 'whiten, beautify, embellish', -han, a contraction of ahan, may be derived from ahanik 'work wood' (Edmonson 1965). The same verbal stem, ah- 'elaborate'20, designates the carving of the head of the first human being (third creation) in the Popol Vuh (PV 563), this human being himself being repeatedly referred to as ri poy aham chee 'the puppet carved from wood' (PV 620ff.). The geographic proximity and close affinity of Pokoman and Quich - both belonging to

32

H. E. M. Braakhuis

the Quichean group of languages (Kaufman 1974:85) - support this explanation from the Quich. 'Wood carver', furthermore, is the first artisan to be mentioned in the chuenil kin for the day Chuen (see 2.1.2 above). To conclude, in the paired Pokoman gods Hun Ahan (Hunhan) and Hun Cheven (Hunchevan) we have another instance of the parallelism found so often in Mayan texts, and especiallly in the Popol Vuh. As patrons of the arts, they are to be equated with the Quich gods Hun Batz and Hun Choven, who fulfil the same function in the Popol Vuh. Comparing the Popol Vuh and Ixil myths with the Pokoman one, two points are noticeable: (a) the younger brother is identified with the Sun Deity in the Popol Vuh and Ixil myth, but with the Artisan Gods in the Pokoman myth; (b) the elder brothers are left unnamed in the Ixil and Pokoman myths, but are identified with the Artisan Gods in the Popol Vuh. Let us try and gain some insight into these divergences. First of all, in the myths describing an antagonism between younger and elder brothers, the younger brother as a rule represents the positive pole, the elder brother the negative one. If the theme of creation is emphasized, the act of creation that proves successful is connected with the younger brother. It is from the perspective of this protagonist that the myth is apparently told. To define the god who is to play the antagonistic role of elder brother is a matter of secondary importance. As a consequence, the elder brother's identity is often left vague, or he may be referred to in rather a general way as a '(former) sun'21, in line with the association of elder brother and preceding creation found in the Popol Vuh. This scheme can be filled out in different ways. In itself, the fact that the Popol Vuh has given a specific meaning to the 'elder brother' category is rather exceptional. It cannot imply a decisive verdict on the gods picked out for this role, but serves instead as an indication of the author's bias against 'lazy' artisans who let their 'younger brothers' do the real work for them. The artificiality of the procedure clearly transpires at the point where even this source has to admit the outstanding positive qualities of its specific 'elder brothers', viz. their mastership and prescience. On the basis of approximately the same qualities, the authors of the Pokoman myth have formed an entirely different view. Here, there is np mention of the Howler Monkeys' self-indulgence, nor are they relegated to a former creation. True enough, the myth makes the Howler Monkey Gods redo, as it were, what according to the Popol Vuh would be the first creation of mankind itself (see 3.1.2 above). But this creation failed, since the upper gods had not fired their earthenware properly. In the Pokoman myth, there is no hint of such a mistake and the creation from clay stands by itself, subsequent to the Flood, just like the final creation in the Popol Vuh. If the cosmogonic potentiality of the gods of the arts is only reluctantly admitted by the Popol Vuh - i n some of the titles of the

Functions of the Howler Monkey Gods among the Mayas

33

upper gods in their previous attempt at creation -, the Pokoman myth has realized it to the full. Evidently, its authors saw no reason whatsoever to punish the Artisan Gods by making them act as 'elder brothers'. On the contrary, they have made these very gods into the younger party instead of the Sun Deity. By the same token, the myth proclaims them the legitimate creators of the world and mankind. Thus, just as the Popol Vuh gives us the myth of the young Sun Deity Hunahpu and his companion, the Las Casas myth is essentially the myth of the Howler Monkey Gods. It is in terms of this, their own myth, that we shall attempt to elucidate their functions. The reason for the deviant choice made by the authors of the Pokoman myth can be deduced from the context in which de las Casas places the tale: the pre-existent native knowledge of Genesis, or the creation from clay. For information about this sort of creation, he turns towards the caste-like group which pre-eminently incorporates the knowledge of origins (as he defines this group): 'First of all, I want to touch upon the view they held of creation, and also of the deluge, and to this end it should be known that in all the republics of those extended territories and kingdoms of New Spain, and in the other ones, there were, amongst other offices and officials, those who served as chroniclers and historians. They kept a record of the origins of all things..." (Casas 1967:504). After a long digression about this exalted office, to which we shall return further on, the bishop then reverts to his point of departure, viz. 'Thus, about creation they held the opinion that. . .' (Casas 1967:505), whereupon follows the myth. In this context, 'they' can hardly refer to anyone else but the chroniclers and historians, functionarieswho were dependent on the art of writing. The myth serves as the creation myth of all 'ingenious craftsmen (oficiales)\ of whom the 'painters' amongst whom writers are probably included are mentioned first. De las Casas praises their profession as a 'fine and subtle craft', and it is to be supposed that the gods of the crafts, often represented on the funerary vases of earlier reigns as writing, feit particularly at home amongst these painters and writers. In other words, the myth of Hun Ahan and Hun Cheven in all probability was the version of the story of the creation of the world that was connected with those writers at court who served as chroniclers and historians. For them, both gods are 'younger brothers'. The Popol Vuh's violent subjugation of these same gods - this time, however, viewed as 'elder brothers' - may reflect something of the tensions between the strategically located, very influential 'caste' of writers - in all Maya accounts recruited from among the nobility (Miles 1957:768; Thompson 1972:13) - and the other princes, in particular the warriors, at the Quichean court. Be this as it may, considered in terms of cosmology, the metaphor of

34

H. E. M. Braakhuis

the artificer for the creative god is almost a tautology, so that the characteristic representation of the 'caste' of writers may easily have been put to use as a general representation, too. 3.2 Creation of time 3.2.1 Hun Batz and Hun Choven as diviners Among the arts and crafts also belongs the art of divination, called chuenil kin in Yucatec, 'artifice' or 'elaboration' of the days. In the Popol Vuh, Hun Batz and Hun Choven bear titles that appear to indicate a function as diviner. They are called 'magicians' {navinak, PV 2622) and 'sages' (etamanel, 'they who know the signs', PV 2614,2628). The word navinak had, amongst others, the meaning 'diviner' in the eighteenth century (Edmonson 1965), while etamanel summarizes the qualities of Xulu and Pacam as augurs ('Hol) and far-seers (nik' vachinet) (PV 4137-42). This is the kind of science the Popol Vuh appears to allude to, since the aforementioned qualities of the Artisan Gods are explained by the statement that 'they understood that they were born' (PV 2621) and that 'they knew everything immediately when their younger brothers were born' (PV 2632-3). Edmonson interprets the first statement, and presumably the second also, in the same way (PV 2621 n.). The diviner is consulted at birth, as only he knows the signs under which the birth occurred.22 The exposition of the character of the Artisans is introduced by the following strangely emphatical passage: 'For they had grown up in great suffering. They underwent pain; they were tormented. So great men and sages they became thn' (PV 2609-14). This could be explained away as a result of the lack of a father and mother, but if the Artisan Gods are at the same time diviners, another possibility arises: typifying many diviners in the Highlands of Guatemala is shamanistic vocation through disease (e.g., LaFarge 1947:149; Oakes 1969:91; Tedlock 1982:53ff.). For example, we find an inhabitant of Chichicastenango imploring Saint Peter, considered as the patron of the art of divination, to take away the disease which had been sent to induce such a calling (Bunzel 1959:328). 3.2.2 The day Batz as day of divination The feast of Saint Peter, patron of the art of divination in Chichicastenango, falls on the day 8 Batz, 'Howler Monkey' (cf. Bunzel 1959:268 n. 8). For the diviners this is an obligatory day of commemoration of the calendar (Bunzel 1959:285). On a day 8 Batz, old and young diviners perform rituals on two mountains in Momostenango in the presence of an enormous audience assembled from far and near (Goubaud 1935; see Thompson 1966:94-5). This is the initiatory feast of the young diviners

Functions of the Howler Monkey Gods among the Mayas

35

(Schultze Jena 1933:57; Tedlock 1982:58-71), although their actual divinatory practice commences only after a transition period of 40 days (or 'one step of the year') on 9 Batz (Tedlock 1982:71). In Chiquimula, too, 8 Batz is celebrated (Lincoln 1942:114), though here, of course, the custom could have been borrowed from Momostenango (Lincoln 1942: 114; Tedlock 1982:21). Also outside the Quich-speaking area, in the Ixil community of Nebaj, the day 8 Batz occupies a special place: it is a day of sexual abstinence for diviners (Colby and Colby 1981:312) and, together with 4 Batz, is one of the happiest days (Colby and Colby 1981:225). Schultze Jena (1933:30, 57) was told that in Chichicastenango the training of young diviners would start on 13 Batz and would last 260 days.23 The association of the day Batz with divination appears to constitute the most immediate reason for starting or ending the count on this day. In Chichicastenango (Bunzel 1959:276-7) and Joyabaj (Pena Ortega 1974:17), one starts the mantic count on 1 Batz (Hun Batz); the list of the twenty days drawn up for the Quich community of El Palmar begins with Batz (Benson Saler, in Tedlock 1982:95-6). According to Schultze Jena (1933:30, 33, 176-7), the day Batz functions as the first day of the reckoning of the 365-day year. In the Mam community of Todos Santos, Batz is the day immediately preceding the chief Year Bearer (Ee): on the evening of Batz the ritual of the installation of the new Year Bearer takes place. However, Batz not only serves as the true New Year's Eve for the chief Year Bearer, but also as a pseudo-New Year's Eve for the three other Year Bearers. On every fixed 365th day Batz, the diviners have their Great Feast during which they prpar to foretell the course of the coming year (Oakes 1969:191-2). The Day Lord Batz is referred to as Casalera del Mundo (Oakes 1969:137). Casalera designates an occupant of a Spanish type farmstead (casal), to be imagined as including the surrounding land. Apparently the image is that of the World (Mundo), i.e. the land of the community surrounded at its four corners by the mountains of the Year Bearers or 'Mayors of the World' (Alcaldes del Mundo). 'There has never been a time that the Casalera has not held the World in his hand' (Oakes 1969:137), i.e. the Day Lord Batz at all times precedes the Year Bearer, no matter which one. In Jacaltenango, Batz is denoted with a comparable term Principal del C'anil, Principal of the chief Year Bearer, the day C'anil (La Farge and Byers 1931:163), though here the Classic Year Bearer system prevails and Batz therefore can never immediately precede a Year Bearer. The expression is not explained by LaFarge. The principales of Jacaltenango are the priests. The term principal del C'anil appears to point to the Day Lord Batz as the priest of the chief Year Bearer - a kind of function that has been attested for the Ixil area, where the leading official maintained

36

H. E. M. Braakhuis

four private Dominical Day priests, i.e. priests of the Year Bearer days as they occur throughout the year (Lincoln 1942:120).24 3.2.3 Hun Ahan and Hun Cheven as gods of the priest-diviners Returning now to the creation myth of Hun Ahan and Hun Cheven: from the way in which de las Casas presents this myth it can be deduced that it probably stemmed from the circles of 'chroniclers and historians', officials who were basicajly writers. As court writers, they belong to the larger group of artisans and as such can be termed 'ingenious craftsmen' and 'painters'. At the same time, however, they constitute a class of intellectuals. In a general sense the bishop defines them as persons who bore knowledge of origins: of empires and kings, but also of the gods. More specifically, he describes them as functionaries who were consulted not only on historical, i.e. chronological, matters but also on ritual and thus, inevitably, on calendarial affairs. They 'kept the count of the days, months and years' and were especially informed on the order of the feasts of the gods. In other words, their expertise appears to have embraced at least: (a) the mantic day count, (b) the 18 monthly feasts of the solar year, (c) the arrangement of the solar years and of the 400-day years used in the chronicles. The quality of the writer-chroniclers as calendar-reckoners whose field probably inclded the mantic count, would in itself suffice to bring their myth into alignment with the other findings in this section. However, one should also notice the similarity of de las Casas' description of the so-called 'chroniclers and historians' and Landa's description of the priests. Landa's priests kept track of the origin of lineages (Landa 1966:41 = Cap. XXIV); i.e., they also were a kind of historian, keeping count of the years, months and days and being versed in the order of feasts and rituals. And, just Hke de las Casas' functionaries, they were writers (Landa 1966:14-15 = Cap. VII). In other words, it appears that we are dealing with priests in both cases. De las Casas emphasizes the priest's role as a historian, since it is a historical problem he is investigating: the origin of mankind. The first duty of the Yucatec priests mentioned by Landa (Cap. VII) is the reckoning of time; in particular, they profess the art of divination. The very word for priest in Yucatec, ah kin, appears to be related to verbs like kinyah and kintah 'to divine', as Lizana already observed (Pt. 1, in Tozzer 1941:27 n. 148; cf. Thompson 1970b: 168). The priest-diviners of today (for this dual function see B. Tedlock 1982:47-53), almost everywhere designated ah kin (or ah kij etc), are thus the representatives at the village level of the former priestly class of ah kines. The priest-diviners can themselves be considered as artificers and so be subsumed under the gloss for the Day Lord Chuen, 'master of all crafts' (see 2.1.2 above). On the one hand, the life-blood of the priestly

Functions of the Howler Monkey Gods among the Mayas

37

class was its art of writing and the hierarchical distribution of books, from the small group of upper priests down to the more parochial levels (Landa 1966:15 = Cap. VII). It was on this skill that all the other priestly sciences depended - the historiography mentioned by Las Casas as well as their divinatory art. Indeed, at their initiation, the local priest-diviners of these earlier times would have received not only their diviningbundles, but also their mantic books. On the other hand, the art of fortune-telling itself is referred to in Yucatec by a term similarly applied to the more material arts, viz. chuenil or 'art(ifice)'. In the compound chuenil kin or 'artifice of the days' it would denote primarily the manipulation of the days, either in the form of beans, maize kernels, and crystals, or in that of calendarial hieroglyphs and the books containing them. Seen within this framework, it no longer comes as a surprise to find that the gods of these priestly writers and diviners were themselves writers and diviners, or to discover that in the Guatemalan Highlands it is precisely on their day that the training and first professional performance of the priest-diviners begins. 4. DUALISTIC REPRESENTATIONOFTHE DIVINEARTIFICE 4.1 Duality of head and book 4.1.1 General characteristics and significance In various vase representations we can see artisans at work not just the Howler Monkey, but also other deities25, in particular the so-called Young Lord, as well as apparently non-divine artificers. The Young Lord is mainly found writing (e.g., Robicsek and Hales 1981: nos. 57-62); if this god is shown, the Howler Monkey pictogram may still figure among the glyphs accompanying the scne or in the rim-text of the vase (Robicsek and Hales 1981: no. 69; Schele and Miller 1986: pi. 44a). The artisans involved are sometimes characterized by a flowering plant-stem emerging from the arm-pit and, more often, by the attribute of an elongated, erect ear. In conformity with the purpose of this study, and since we cannot rely on a thorough previous study of the Young Lords26, we shall consider the way the arts are represented by reference exclusively to the Howler Monkey Gods. First of all it is important to note that we find only two activities depicted, to which two objects correspond: an anthropomorphic head and a book. Both functions or objects may occur independently, but, significantly, they may also be juxtaposed within one and the same representation (see fig. 2. = Robicsek and Hales 1981: fig. 33 A; cf. Coe 1977: fig. 6; Robicsek and Hales 1981: fig. 28 A and vessels nos. 67?, 69). The object corresponding to the act of carving is in every case a small,

38

H. E. M. Braakhuis

Fig. 2. Drawn by Vincent Boele.

somewhat flattened head of youthful or indefinite age. The head is either completely free of attributes, and then can be taken as simply a human head27, or it is provided with the minimal distinctive trait of a kind of wig (plus forehead-ornament) which is particularly characteristic of the so-called Young Lord and of the Maize God.28 In one instance (Coe 1977: fig. 6) we are unmistakably dealing with the Maize God. The object corresponding to the act of writing is a folding book in a jaguar-skin cover. It appears that the book is intended to represent some sortof calendar book. In one case (Robicsek and Hales 1981: no. 56), an aged god is shown pointing with his pencil to a book, while his speech scroll includes a series of numbers. This undoubtedly represents the process of counting (as Robicsek and Hales, 1981:61, have rightly observed).29 In two further cases, a uinal sign is conspicuous, the uinal (series of twenty days) being basic for divinatory counting (Robicsek and Hales 1981: figs. 28 A, on the throne of a writing prince, and 29 B, in the cartouche of a writing Howler Monkey30). The reduction of divine craftsmanship to a dualistic representation - to which correspond the functions of writing and carving mentioned in the Popol Vuh (see 3.1.1) can be explained by the two main mythological functions of the Howler Monkey Gods. The carving of a head then refers to their creation of mankind31 or, to use the apt equivalent of the Popol Vuh, to man's 'receiving mouth and face'.32 The occasional substitution of the heads of young divinities for the human head could be taken to symbolize the idea of man's renewal (see note 26). Similarly, the writing of the book comes to refer to the arts of counting and divining, which, in their turn, represent the creation of time. 4.1.2 Carving the head: creation of mankind Independent iconographic confirmation of the first part of this hypothesis comes from a section in the Mexican codices of the Borgia group,

Functions of the Howler Monkey Gods among the Mayas

39

where the carving of a head by a series of deities (cf. Madrid Codex XCV-CI and note 28) can be shown to have exactly the same significance as that inferred for the Mayas. As background, one may recall that the Aztecs, like the Quich in the Popol Vuh, liked to view the creation of man as an artistic process and to compare it to feather-inlay, singing, gem-cutting or writing, and the newly created man correspondingly to a precious feather, a song, a gem, a sign of writing or a book (Garibay 1964: XXI-XXV, 1968: II, III-2; Sahagn 1979:322 = L. VI Cap. X, 368 = L. VI Cap. XXIV-17). This conception has found expression, first, in a section of the Borgia Codex itself (pp. 15-17). It comprises three rows totalling twenty gods and goddesses, divided into four groups of five each. The members of each group are repeating the same action. In the first group, the god is putting his awl to the head of a small naked human figure whose eyes are closed; in the second group, he is lifting a small squatting human figure whose eyes are open on his hand; in the third, he is grasping the figure's umbilical cord while brandishing a knife; and in the fourth group, the divinity (female here) is nursing the little human being. Seen in this connection, the most plausible interpretation of the action of the first group is that here a human child is being carved, its eyes remaining closed as it has not yet been finished and come alive. The groups have been arranged in chronological order: the child which is being nursed follows after the child still connected to the umbilical cord, and the child which, with its eyes open, is somehow being 'dedicated', follows after the child which, with eyes closed, is still in the process of being made. The first group appears to indicate conception (in the doubl sense of impregnation and artistic design), and the third group birth or the moment immediately subsequent to it. The creator-gods use an instrument for carving the flesh, viz. the sacrificial awl (possibly a reference to the theme of sin and penance which is so intimately connected with that of creation) (contra Seler, 1904:238-41). It should be noted that the creator-gods concentrate their attention on the head to such an extent that the Fejrvary-Mayer Codex simply suppresses the rest of the human body. In this way an exact parallel with the ancient Mayan representation has resulted. If we now examine one of the Mayan representations in more detail, we shall find ourselves in the same sphere of mankind's divine creation. On one plate (Coe 1977: fig. 7 = Robicsek and Hales 1981: fig 28 A), the carving Howler Monkey God is twice assisted by a fox-like Animal Deity. In one of these cases, the Fox is actually seen to be sculpting, together with the Howler Monkey, above a book covered by a jaguar skin. Amongst the Mopan, Kekchi (Thompson 1970b:349) and Pokomchi (Mayers 1958:7-8), the Fox ranks as the discoverer of the mountain place where the maize is hidden. In some versions, animals resembling the Fox, such as the Mountain-cat, Wild-cat or Coyote, are

40

H. E. M. Braakhuis

mentioned, so that there is some latitude in identifying the fox-like animal on the plate concerned.33 In the Popol Vuh, the finding of the maize-food and creation of man are so closely related that man is created from his own food: the discovery of maize by Wild-cat, Coyote and two birds is presented as the discovery of 'the flesh of the formed people, the shaped people' (PV 4765-6), who immediately afterwards are created. Thus the rationale for the co-occurrence of Fox Deity and Howler Monkey God appears to be their common involvement in the creation of man, here depicted as the elaboration of a human head, significantly over a book. 4.1.3 W'riting the book: creation of the days Another iconographic comparison will help to bring out the second connection implied by our hypothesis, that of writing and time-renewal. In the Yucatec-Mayan Madrid Codex (LXV-LXXIII), the carving of a head is connected with the act of writing by means of the 260-day count. The units of this cycle have been distributed over 33 gods, each ruling eight non-consecutive days, except for the last one, who rules only four days, and these consecutive. The first day, 1 Imix, belongs to a god sculpting a human head; the last day, 13 Ahau - which, in the mantic cycle, again precedes 1 Imix - is assigned to a god dipping his pen into an ink-bowl. The way in which the last four days are arranged, counter-clockwise, deserves attention. The last two days (12 Cauac - 13 Ahau) have been included in the text accompanying the closing vignette; the two days preceding them (10 Caban - 11 Etznab) form part of the closing vignette itself: they are located in a well in the company of a writing Rain God. That this writing is an act of time-renewal - as Villacorta and Villacorta also assume (1977:371) - is immediately suggested by the fact that we have here the last four days of the mantic cycle, though it is also apparent both from the short accompanying text and from the vignette. The text locates the 260th day, 13 Ahau, on the 13th of the month of Cumku and mentions 13 tuns and a 'change' (T 573)-title with the numeral 13. Apparently the 260 days are to be taken as the last days of a series of 13 tuns, reckoning from 13 Ahau/1 Imix to 13 Ahau Period Ending/1 Imix first day of a tun. The well in the vignette can be related to the entering and re-emerging from 'the well and the cave' (tu chenil ti yactunif) mentioned various times within the framework of the revolution of the years of a katun 5 Ahau in the Books of Chilam Balam (Barrera Vasquez and Rendon 1972:105ff., cf. Edmonson 1982:67ff.). 'Well and cave' is a case of difrasismo: mostly the cave is at the same time a water place. The Rain God in the well thus acts as a calendarial creator-deity: his mouth pours out ciphers34, while his pen is dipped into the ink-bowl, ready to write down the new days.

Functions of the Howler Monkey Gods among the Mayas

41

So far, we have examined the acts of carving and writing separately.3S In developing the theme of time-creation, we now need to consider, in the next section, an attribute which carving and writing creator-deities may have in common. The significance of this attribute lies in its clear numerological aspect. I shall attempt to demonstrate that, in these cases also, the idea of creation, particularly creation of the day of birth, is somehow involved.

4.2 The plant from the arm-pit, a symbol of creative power

Both the carving and the writing personages - in one case at least the Howler Monkey God himself (see fig. 3. = Robicsek and Hales 1981:

Fig. 3. Drawn by Vincent Boele.

no. 67) 36 - are occasionally found associated with a flowery plant-stem which appears to emerge from their arm-pit. Typically, it is inscribed with numbers. The vegetative form, though unique in type, is reminiscent of such plants or trees as those belonging with the ancestral figures on the sides of the Palencan Sarcophagus, or of one of the trees of the patron of the month of Pax (Robicsek 1978: fig. 162). In those cases where the upper rim has been transformed into a vegetative 'squarenosed' serpent (Robicsek and Hales 1981: nos. 62,71; Schele and Miller 1986: pi. 44), a resemblance can be discerned to the branches of the World Trees on the Palencan Cross Group relifs. In view of the specific connection of the patron of writing and carving with the arts of divination and calendarial reckoning, the combination with a calendarial plant does not come as a complete surprise. The numbers suggest that the attribute may be a special form of the trees and plants which (together with their identifying birds) were connected with

42

H. E. M. Braakhuis

various calendar units, the most notable example being the World Tree of the Centre, raised on the first day of the Post-classic cycle of thirteen katuns. In the chuenil kin or divinatory art (Barrera Vasquez and Rendon 1972:185ff.) and in ancient Yucatec healing rituals (Roys 1965: xii-xiii), different trees indicated the twenty days. Calendarial trees were intimately connected with the birth of a living being.37 Indeed, it was from the World Tree of the Centre, in this case the ceiba, that mankind originated (Nunez de la Vega, in Thompson 1966:71; cf. Holland 1978: 74; Tozzer 1907:154). Moreover, on each of the twenty days, either a human being or a disease-bringing deity - whose precise relation to the tree is still unclear - could be born. A creation-myth from the Lacandons (Bruce 1974:19ff.; cf. Ratsch and Ma'ax 1984:31) can perhaps help us get a clearer picture of our subject, since in it a birth-plant is connected with the creative act of a deity. Briefly, the upper god, K'akoch38, here is said to create the other gods by planting, or even making, what would appear to be a nighthyacinth, from whose flowers they are born successively. A Tzotzil myth from Chamula, while substituting a food-plant for the birth-plant, provides us with a still closer approximation to the attribute under discussion. It presents the upper god, here the Sun Deity, as removing the arm-pit from his radiant body, whereupon the arm-pit becomes a maizeplant providing food for the first man and woman. Subsequently, the upper god teaches the first human beings how to make children, a practical lesson which constitutes the key moment of the myth (Gossen 1974:339 = Tale 169). In the Tzotzil myth, the origin of man's food-plant is put on a par with the birth of human beings. This association was a common one for the Mayas. For instance, on the sides of the Palencan Sarcophagus, we see a series of fruit-trees (Ruz Lhuillier 1958:102; cf. Schele 1976:22), in front of which ancestral figures are emerging from the earth. Moreover, in the Popol Vuh the maize-plant not only is the concomitant of birth, but simultaneously serves as its symbol, as the example of the heroic twins makes abundantly clear: their death and rebirth are reflected by the withering and tasselling of the maize-stalk they had planted on leaving for the underworld (PV 3431-54, 4614-48). To have man created out of his own maize-food then is only the final phase in this train of associative thought. At this point one should again note the assimilation of the arm-pit plant to the branches of the World Tree that is visible in several instances, since the World Tree, particularly that of the Centre, gave birth not only to the (maize) food of the first human beings (cf. Thompson 1966:71), but also to mankind itself. Indeed, a Tzeltal myth from Tenejapa (Stross 1977:2), varying the Tzotzil myth above, allows us to compare the generation of maize from the arm-pit with that of human beings. The myth has the first men vainly attempting to penetrate the

Functions of the Howler Monkey Gods among the Mayas

43

first women by way of their arm-pits and thus unwittingly demonstrates the potential of this part of the human body for giving birth to human beings. It is therefore a distinct possibility that the ancient Mayas made better use of this potential. On the basis of the above evidence we are in any case justified in assuming that the arm-pit plant in Classic Mayan art symbolized the idea of birth, whether of the food of the first human beings or of mankind itself. Apparently, the sprouting of the calendarial plant from the armpit of the writing and carving deities is meant to manifest their creative, birth-giving energy.39 As a matter of fact, there is a case of the arm-pit plant being shown bearing a maize-ear. It is well-suited, therefore, to exemplify our interpretation. The case in point, a vase from tomb 27-42 of Copan (Schele and Miller 1986: pi. 44a), has four personages sitting in a row with faces turned to the left. The foremost of these, shown in profile, is the carving creator-god, from whose arm-pit the nurturing branch of the birth-tree is sprouting.39 Two subtly differentiated Young Lord deities, also shown in profile, and making a saluting gesture towards the birth-tree40, follow, while a human being with uplifted hands closes the row. The involvement of this last figure in the ritual of creation is made clear by the attribute of an added ear, which he has in common with the carving deity himself and with the Young Lord immediately in front of him. Significantly, he has been represented frontally and is thus indicated as the person for whom the ritual is being performed41: he would appear to be the deceased, for whom a new body is being created and a new day of birth is emerging. Appropriately, the accompanying Primary Standard Text includes the pictogram of the Howler Monkey God.42

5. 'ARTIFICE OF THE DAYS': THE DOMINANT FUNCTION We have found the patrons of the arts to be represented in Classic Mayan art as the creators of head and book, a dualistic emblem for the creation of man, both of his body and of his day of birth. It is not unimportant to observe that, should the Mayas have intended to represent pictorially the rebirth of the soul, they could hardly have chosen a better way of doing so. In that case, the head would probably have functioned as a sort of receptacle for the soul, the soul itself being indestructible. Leaving this matter for further study, we may merely note here that our finding is in complete agreement with the myth of the Howler Monkeys, which presents them as the creators of mankind. As their calendarial birth-plant attribute tends to suggest, however, a further step remains to be taken. Although both in Mexico and in the Mayan area, man's creation can be ascribed to various kinds of deities, it is nonetheless the activity that is typical of the diviner, who, together

44

//. E. M. Braakhuis

with the birth-sign, creates the type of human being appropriate to it. In a system like the Mexican one this is immediately apparent, since here the individual bears the name of his day of birth and thereby becomes identified with it: his soul and his day of birth are designated by the same word (Nah. tonalli)43, the one who computes the birth-signs being the diviner (Nah. tonalpouhqui or 'reckoner of the tonallis'). Even if the Mayas do not seem to have used one term designating both man's soul and his day of birth, they still 'considered the human being and his day of birth to be parts of a single conceptual entity. In the mantic lists of the chuenil kin, with each 'dawn' or 'creation of the world' (y-ahalcab), i.e. birth-sign, a specific human type is created (Barrera Vasquez and Rendon 1972:190-1). The dualistic character of the art of divination is explicitly stated by the Popol Vuh in its description of the third creation (which is actually man's second creation). The old gods Xpiacoc and Xmucane, who by means of their divination with beans determine the moment for finding the wood and carving the 'mouth and face' of man out of it, are called in parallel terms 'diviners-creators' {ah q'ih-ah bit), and their art accordingly 'their divination-their creation' (u q'ihixiku bitaxik) (PV 509-10,491-2).44The divination corresponds to their use of tz'ite beans to determine the day of birth (PV 560)45 and the creation to that of the tz'ite wood out of which the male human being is eventually carved(PV677). 46 In view of the data presented above (section 3.2), it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the dualistic representation of the Howler Monkey's artifice is not only intended to symbolize the spatial and calendarial creation of mankind, but at the same time has the purpose of assimilating their demiurgical activity to that of the priest-diviners.47 The display of the calendarial birth-plant attribute should accordingly be considered as an indication of divinatory creation. Let us now return to the calendarial values of the Howler Monkey God we started with and take up his function as a personification of the day-unit in the Long Count. In order to determine the significance of this personification, it will be instructive to compare two exceptional fullfigure representations. The first of these, on Yaxchilan lintel 48 (Robicsek and Hales 1981: fig. 37 A), records '16 days' and does not simply juxtapose the heads of the number-deities and the Howler Monkey God personifying the day-unit (with his characteristic ear-attribute and headgear pattern)48, but places the lying head on the simian's hand extended in a dedicatory gesture and the standing head, tied up in a knot, on his foot. In other words, the numbers written by the creator-god in his book and emerging with the birth-plant from his body appear to have been transmuted into gods actively shaped by him, thereby simultaneously manifesting his quality of calendar-priest or diviner. The second, and contrasting, full-figure representation on Copan D (Robicsek and Hales 1981:fig. 37 B) records 'no (or zero) days-and consequently has the

Functions of the Howler Monkey Gods among the Mayas

45

Howler Monkey's arm transformed into a skeletal snake associated with sacrifice and death.49 Appropriately, it is held by a Death God embodying the zero-value.50 In this way, the arm has been rendered unfit for calendarial creation: the sure hand of the Artisan God has temporarily lost its life-giving power. Although the two full-figure variants (Yaxchilan lintel 48 and Copan D) stand alone, they nonetheless reveal the concept underlying the normal Howler Monkey A://z-variants. The fundamental notion of the chuenil kin51 or 'artifice of the days' first of all links the Howler Monkey God to the Calendar Round. In this connection, he may function as a kind of count-indicator. Especially, however, he personifies the unit of counting itself, the day or kin. In such a case, the god acts as an ah kin or diviner and may be given the aged appearance that is in keeping with his wisdom and experience. By the same token, the insertion of the uinalsign in the cartouche of the writing Howler Monkey not only serves to identify the book in his hand as a tonalamatl or 'book of the days', but also betrays the function of the writer himself-the uinal being the most persistent larger unit of the divinatory count, preserved even where all other elements of the calendar have already gone (Miles 1952:276, 284). The same Pokoman priest-diviners who probably transmitted the myth of Hun Ahan and Hun Cheven to Bishop de las Casas were versed in more than one count, however. Similarly, the Howler Monkey God may personify not just the day-unit, but also units of a higher order, particularly the katun. In fact, each katun originally had its own priestdiviner (Avendario y Loyola, see Roys 1967:184). Viewed from this perspective, the myth of Hun Ahan and Hun Cheven can be read as the creation of both the world and time. In an allegorical text found in the Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel, the so-called 'Creation of the Uinal' (Roys 1967:116ff.), the origin of the count of the days sets in motion a spatial creation of the whole world, mankind included, which again is correlated with the successive creation of each of the first twenty days.S2 In the light of a cosmogonical 'artifice of the days', one can similarly imagine the birth of the uinal itself as the simultaneous elaboration of the days and of the elements of the world by means of the parallel activity of writing and carving.

6. CONCLUSION For an explanation of the representation of the Howler Monkey Gods in Classic Mayan art, the Popol Vuh can only be regarded as a secondary source, since it gives a biased view of these deities by relegating them to the category of 'evil elder brothers'. A Pokoman myth transmitted by de las Casas, on the other hand, presents a view of these same gods which is

46

H. E. M. Braakhuis

entirely antithetical: here, they appear as younger instead of elder brothers, as beneficial instead of evil, and as active demiurges instead of idle pleasure-seekers. The myth probably sterns from a group of priestly writers, whose modern descendants still venerate the Day Lord 'Howler Monkey' as a god of divination. It is only in the perspective of this myth that the Classic representations can be properly understood. The autonomous funerary significance of the Howler Monkey Gods is a consequence of their role as artistic creators. As writing and carving gods, they reshape space (a human or divine head) and time (a mantic book). Together, carving and writing serve as an emblem for the creation of man man being constituted by the twin aspects of space (the body) and time (the day of birth) - and conceivably, for the reincorporation of man's soul. The idea of birth could be emphasized by adding the attribute of a plant-stem sprouting from the arm-pit of the creator-deities. At the same time, this dual emblem conveys the essence of the art of divination or 'artifice of the days'. In their written calculations, the priest-diviners could accordingly substitute the Howler Monkey God for various time-units, above all for the day-unit itself.

NOTES 1 In the 'Ritual of the Bacabs', Chuen (possibly a constellation) is described as the place where soot, or black paint (sabac), and the paint-brush (cheb) come from (Roys 1965:30, 55 = MS 84, 163-4). 2 Mono is the usual Spanish- American term for 'monkey'. For Ximnez, mico appears to denote the spider monkey into which the Howler Monkey God was transformed. Schultze Jena observes a difference in modern Ladino usage between mico = spider monkey and mono = howler monkey (Schultze Jena 1933, s.v. ba'ts and koy). Edmonson translates the name of the Quich dance Monos y Micos as 'Howler and Spider Monkeys' (Edmonson 1971 n. to 2877). Similarly, Whittaker gives 'howler monkey' fortheChol loanwordmono (Whittaker and Warkentin 1965:163). 3 Ximnez: 'el [dfa] 11 es Batz (...) nombre de aquel que se volvi mico; y asi unos que hay muy fieros con unas barbas largas en la Verapaz, se llaman Baty (; . . .)'. In all probability, Baty should be read Batz. The sentence ends by adding:'(. . .;) y el hilado', seesection 2.1.2. 4 The authoritative Popol Vuh edition of M. S. Edmonson (1971) incorrectly translates Hun Choven as 'One Howler' and Hun Batz as 'One Monkey'. Edmonson's dictionary (1965) contains similar errors on these points. 5 Thus, in the well-known instance of the diagram on the first leaf of the FejrvaryMayer Codex, Cipactli is in the right-hand upper corner, to the east. Cf. note 52 below. 6 Cf. Quich and Yucatec tz'ibah 'paint, write' (Edmonson 1965; Diccionario 1980). 7 Pace B. Tedlock, who, in her effort to assert the autonomous significance of the mnemonics derived by sound-play from the day-names, has gone to the extreme of claiming that Batz 'should not be glossed as "howler monkey"' (B. Tedlock 1982: 127). 8 Schultze Jena contrasts ba'ts 'howler monkey' with ba'ts 'thread' (1933:333), Edmonson correspondingly baatz' with batz' (1965). 9 The Spanish text in note 3 adds: 'y el hilado'. 10 This description is found in the Tizimin prophecy for a katun 11 Ahau (Edmonson

Functions of the Howler Monkey Gods among the Mayas

47

1982: lines 801-806; cf. Barrera Vasquez and Rendon 1972:49-50 and 49 n. 5), cf. note 22 below. 11 In the case of the Early Classic Leyden Plate, the day-unit appears to be represented by the Spider Monkey instead of the Howler Monkey. Note that the Mexicans substitute the Spider Monkey for the Howler Monkey in the Xlth day-sign. Cf. notes 2,16 and 48 above and below. 12 The pattern of the wreath is typical of the throne-cushion and temple-roof. Indeed, 'throne and temple' is the association one would expect for a god of priests and writers (see section 3.2.3). 13 A case of the Howler Monkey variant without headgear, probably Naranjo HS, Block 6, M2 (Thompson 1966: fig. 48 no. 2), serves as the prototype of T 755 (Monkey) in Thompson's Catalogue (1962), although it differs considerably from various other examples under T 755, which represent spider monkeys. 14 For the glyphic forms of this old, humanized type, see Palace Tablet, Palenque, '9 days' (Robicsek and Hales 1981: fig. 37); vessel no. 130, third column, '0 days' (Robicsek and Hales 1981). For free forms, see vessel no. 68 and vase, fig. 29 C (Robicsek and Hales 1981). 15 This parallelism serves here, as elsewhere (e.g., Schultze Jena 1933:75, 77, 99 and passim), as a pars pro toto. 16 'Coy: Affe i. A., als bestimmte Art: Klammeraffe, mico, Ateles vellerosus Gray' (Schultze Jena 1944:230). 'Q'oy: spider monkey (Ateles vellerosus) / koy: monkey (xm)' (Edmonson 1965). Actually, Ximnez speaks of a change into micos, a term which, when contrasted with monos, means 'spider monkeys' today (cf. note 2 above). In a Kekchi version, too, a brother is changed into a spider monkey, maax (Thompson 1930:123). While howler monkeys (Alouatta, batz) are generally represented as writers and sculptors, only spider monkeys (Ateles, maax) are normally shown as dancing in Classic Mayan art. In the modem Mayan feast cycle, and particularly at Carnival, the dancing Spider Monkey Demon is a familiar figure (Bricker 1973:93ff., 149-50; Gossen 1974:181). In folklore, the Spider Monkey Demon is found as a kind of abortionist (Guiteras Holmes 1961:105). 17 We have the more reason for making this comparison, since the monkeys into which the 'former people' are changed can be represented either as spider monkeys or, in dualistic fashion, as both spider and howler monkeys. In Mexican mythology, the monkey transformations of the 'former people' are spider monkeys (see Codex Vaticanus A 3738 pis. 4-7, Second Age), as in the Tzotzil mythology of Chamula (Gossen 1974:181) and in Chol mythology (Whittaker and Warkentin 1965:55-7). For the Chol, the spider monkey (max) is the punished Indian man from a former creation, contrasted with the howler monkey (bats'), the punished foreigner (Whittaker and Warkentin 1965:55-7). In the Tzotzil mythology of Larrainzar, the 'former people' are also changed into both spider and howler monkeys (Holland 1978:7 l)-recalling the Quich dance of the Howler and Spider Monkeys. In Chamula, the same duality can be observed with the Carnival Spider Monkey Demons, representatives of the 'former people': their conical headgear is made from the fur of the howler monkey (Bricker 1973:92; cf. Laughlin 1975 s.v. baf). 18 Coe, in his study of the Howler Monkey Gods, refers to this myth only in passing (Coe 1977:329). 19 At this point, the Spanish text is ambiguous. The relative clause introduced by 'los cuales' could only refer to 'Xchel y Xtcamna' [= Xt?amna] if we were to take 'stos habian tenido padre y madre' as a parenthesis. 20 Cf. Yucatecah- 'crear, despertar'; ahalkab 'ser el mundo creado, madrugada' (Diccionario). See note 47. 21 On the opposition unidentified elder brothers, younger brother Sun/Christ, see Colby and Colby 1981:205-16; Guiteras Holmes 1961:183-5; LaFarge 1947:50-7; Rubel 1964:51-2; Whittaker and Warkentin 1965:13-45. For elder brothers identified with (former) Sun see Becquelin Monod 1980:132-45 (younger brother Moon), 146-59

48

H. E. M. Braakhuis
(both brothers Suns); Helfrich 1972:134-6 (elder brother 'our holy father', i.e. Sun); Nash 1970:198-200 (elder brothers former Suns); Slocum 1965:7-18 (elder brother yax c'ahc'al, 'First Sun', cf. Thompson 1970b:361). Other versions identify the (New) Sun's opponents as Jews, whose behaviour is, however, difficult to distinguish from that of the 'elder brothers'. In the Tizimin manuscript, Yaxal Chuen, the patron deity olkatun 12 Ahau, is referred to as an ah kin (Edmonson 1982:11.4049-54). Both in the Chumayel and in the Tizimin manuscripts, the terms ah menil, ah itzatil and ah esil are connected with Yaxal Chuen, 'artisan/curer', 'wise man/seer' and 'sorcerer' respectively (cf. Edmonson 1982: 11. 4045-8; Barrera Vasquez and Rendon 1972:58; and Roys 1967:158). The person who is born on Batz acquires wealth without first having to undergo training as a diviner, as all other heads of households must in Momostenangq (Tedlock 1982:117). This shows how the association of the day Batz with divination lies at the root of its prognostic 'wealth' (see section 2.1.2): a precondition for the acquisition of riches is a knowledge of the correct time and place (or better, 'time-place') to invoke thegods. In Nebaj, the mountain at the fourth world corner, upon which any Dominical Day is worshipped in the year following its actual Year Bearership, is called Chax Batz = Yax Batz (Lincoln 1942:110). This mountain is associated with the tree of abundance and with the original acquisition of cultivated fruits (Lincoln 1942: 125 n. 14). Cf. note 22 above. The most important of these would appear to be the god D or Itzamna, who was considered to be the inventor of writing (Relacin de Valladolid, in Tozzer 1941, n. 707) and thefirstpriest (Anders 1963:303-6), cf. note 19. God D'sbreast-ornament is repeatedly found on a scribe (Berjonneau et al. 1985: pi. 365; Robicsek and Hales 1981: no'. 68; Schele and Miller 1986: pi. 46), and thus appears to mark the latterasa writer. and a priest, representative of Itzamna. Recently, K. Taube stressed the maize-aspect of the Young Lord deity. He also noted the Young Lord's functional similarity to the youthful Aztec deity of both maize and the arts, especially that of writing, Xochipilli. Xochipilli is the patron of the day Ozomatli, the equivalent of the Mayan day Batz/Chuen (Taube 1985:175). See my own forthcoming study on this subject. The typically flattened head also occurs as a material (funerary) object (e.g., Coe 1973: pi. 7) and as a hieroglyphje.g. Yaxchilan Str. 33, HS 2, Block VII, B2 (Graham 1982). For the (carving of the) head of a Young Lord, see Coe 1977: fig. 7; and Robicsek and Hales 1981: ho. 67 (two foreheads, or possibly a single cleft forehead, of a Young Lord). Other heads of deities, personifying numbers, are held by the full-figure Howler Monkey variant of the day-unit discussed in ch. 5. The dangerous ritual of the 'making of the gods' involved both the priest and the artisan. In all probability, its essence consisted in the creation of living beings rather than in a mere manufacture of idols (Landa 1966:101-102,72). The first scne on this vase is suggestive of divination, as are two of the scnes on the plate discussed at the end of section 4.1.2. Pace Coe (1977:337), who would seem to have confused T 520 (chuen) and T 521 (uinal). Cf. Miller, referring to a detail on Izapa 5: 'The suggestion is clear: scribes were present at creation, and they were instrumental in giving form to humans' (Schele and Miller 1986:140). The relevant passage of the Popol Vuh (PV 4913-6) contains the paired verbs chiinik and vachinik 'receive mouth, receive face' as equivalents for vinaqirik 'be created, become human beings'. Cf. Edmonson's note toPV 4915-6 and my note 15. Partially, the variation in the name of the discoverer of the maize may depend on the way yak is translated (cf. Schultze Jena 1933:391, under yak and yok, Edmonson 1965, and PV 4753).

22

23

24

25

26

27 28

29 30 31 32 33

Functions of the Howler Monkey Gods among the Mayas

49

34 The curious elongated 'tongues' of the Howler Monkeys on the vase in Coe 1977: fig. 7 may similarly have been intended as ciphered tapes, cf. Madrid Codex XXIIId2. 35 As has been noted, many of the arts of the Howler Monkey are not represented. The two statues flanking the so-called 'Reviewing Stand' of Copan, however, are clearly recognizable as Howler Monkey Deities shaking feathered rattles. Various data suggest that the rattle was shaken especially to mark calendarial transition. In such a context, the /&-glyph carved on the body of the rattles can hardly mean anything other than 'life'. The renewal in question may relate both to the date 9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumku and to the bust of the young (Maize?) Deity in between the two Howler Monkeys. Cf. note 47 below. 36 In two further examples, the Howler Monkey is located beside, or in front of, another god provided with this attribute (Coe 1978: pi. 16, where both gods display the same extra ear; Clarkson 1978: fig. 5). Other examples of the attribute are found in Robicsek and Hales 1981, nos. 61, 62, 71 and fig. 34. The attribute also occurs independently, as a cult object (Madrid Codex LXIX, cf. Dresden Codex LXVa2) and a hieroglyph (variants of T 767). 37 Here one may note the metaphor for 'offspring' among the Quich of Chichicastenango, viz. 'flowering branch'; it is equated with individual destiny, k'ijralxic (Bunzel 1959:93-99; 376ff.). Cf. note 46. 38 Ratsch derives the upper god's name, K'akoch, from k'o'och 'throat' and translates accordingly Two-[Howler] Monkey' (Ratsch and Ma'ax 1984:31 n. 1). The translatton remains entirely speculative, however; see Bruce (1974:367) for various other possibilities. 39 The maize food taken from the Sun's arm-pit is called xohobal 'beam of light, radiance' in Tzotzil (Gossen 1974:40; cf. Laughlin 1975), a term which is of some relevance in this context. 40 For the connection of the Young Lord with maize, see note 26. 41 Cf. the sculpted bench-panel from temple 11 of Copan (Schele and Miller 1986: pi. 36, text pp. 124-5): the previous 19 kings are all sculpted in profile, only the reigning one being shown frontally. 42 The pictogram (with ri-postfix added) occurs in eighth position, counting from the Initial Sign (T 229.1030 var.) above and immediately to the left of the carving deity (Schele and Miller 1986: pi. 44a, p. 150). 43 Tonalli, derived from the verb tona 'to radiate, to heat', has as its two main meanings (1) fery soul-substance localized in the head, and (2) birth-sign, destiny rationally intelligible by means of the day-sign (cf. Lpez-Austin 1980:223-52). The FejrvaryMayer representation of the carving of a human head closely follows these notions. 44 D. Tedlock (1985:80 and n. to 81) freely interprets the stem bit as referring to the grouping or 'mqdelling' of divination kernels. In Edmonson's dictionary, however, bit is found to have two distinct basic meanings: (a) scratch, rip, tear, de-flower, cf. bitiboxik 'be broken into bits'; (b) shape: make pottery, infant, embryo. Throughout the Popol Vuh, bit is used to indicate the moulding of human beings. 45 In the translations of Edmonson, Recinos, Schultze Jena and D. Tedlock, the artisan names occurring in the preceding passage (PV 547-54) are taken as invocations of the old diviners. Thus, in the persons of Xpiacoc and Xmucane, spatial and calendarial creation appear to have been joined in just the same way as in the persons of the Classic Howler Monkey Gods. 46 Modern Quich data support the connection of divination and the creation of human beings. The length of the mantic cycle is explained from the duration of pregnancy (Schultze Jena 1933:34-5; B. Tedlock 1982:93). The diviners in Momostenango 'sow and plant' the child in the shrines of the patrilineage (B. Tedlock 1982: 80, cf. 85). See section 4.2 and note 37 above. 47 At this point, one may recall the salient zoological characteristic of the howler monkey. lts extremely loud call is especially noticeable in the early morning and late afternoon (Walker 1978:431). Particularly its announcement of day-break calls to mind the term

50

H. E. M. Braakhuis
used in the chuenil kin for each day-sign, viz. 'dawn' or 'awakening' (y-ahal-cab), cf. notes 20 and 35 above. Since none of the specific features of the spider monkey are present (crest, an indication of the black-and-white pattern of the face), there is no compelling reason to adopt Coe's identification of the simian as a spider monkey (Coe 1977:346). Moreover, the agreement with the way in which the howler monkey is usually represented would remain, even if a spider monkey were intended here. The skeletal snake's sacrificial value is attested by its occurrence on bone perforators and spears and in the headgear of Death Gods. It emerges to the right of a victim being decapitated (Goe 1978: pi. 1), of a young writing deity and of a Howler Monkey (Robicsek and Hales 1981: nos. 68, 71). A writer or a writing hand may emerge from its jaws (Tikal bone perforator, Trik 1963: fig. 10; Copan Str. 9N-82, Schele and Miller 1986: fig. III.8), thus providing a counter-image to the writing hand impaired by the skeletal snake. It would seem that the calendarial Death God on Ouirigua D (east) has got hold of the Howler Monkey's chisel (see Thompson 1966: fig. 29-6). The photographs at my disposal are not sufficiently clear in this respect. The two curving lines which distinguish the hieroglyph of the Xlth day, Chuen, may be intended to represent the calligraphic strokes of a brush-pen or the mirrored tip of the brush-pen itself. The position of 1 Chuen in the Chumayel text would seem to be dependent upon the dominant 12-13 Oc symbolism (explained by Thompson 1966:248, and 1970a:2012). Partially, this text can be read as a kind of explanatory comment on Madrid Codex LXXV-LXXVI, upper right-hand corner. Cf. end of section 2.1.1 above.

48

49

50 51 52

ABBREVIATION USED PV: Popol Vuh, see Edmonson 1971.

BIBLIOGRAPHY For references to the codices see Villacorta and Villacorta 1977. Acosta, J. R., 1979, 'Excavations at Palenque, 1967-1973', in: N. Hammond (ed.), Social Process in MayaPrehistory, pp. 265-85, London: Academie Press. Anders, F., 1963, Das Pantheon der Maya, Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. Barrera Vasquez, A., and S. Rendon, 1972, El Libro de los Libros de Chilam Balam, Coleccin Popular No. 42, Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econmica. Becquelin Monod, A., 1980, 'Deux versions d'un mythe tzeltal: Une querelle de soleil et lune et ce qu'il en advint', Amerindia 5, pp. 123-65. Berjonneau, G., E. Deletaille, and J.-L. Sonnery, 1985, Art Prcolombien; Mexique, Guatemala, Coll. Chefs-d'oeuvre Indits, Boulogne/Paris: Ed. 'Arts 1357Payot. Bricker, V. Reifler, 1973, Ritual Humor in Highland Chiapas, Austin/London: University of Texas Press. Bruce, R. D., 1974, El Libro de Chan K'in, Coleccin Cientifica, Lingistica No. 12, Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia (INAH). Bunzel, R., 1959, Chichicastenango, a Guatemalan Village, Seattle: University of Washington Press. Casas, B. de las, 1967, Apologtica Historia Sumaria II, Mexico: Universidad Nacional

Functions of the Howler Monkey Gods among the Mayas

51

Autnoma de Mxico (UNAM), Instituto de Investigaciones Histricas (IIH). [E. O'Gorman ed.] Clarkson, P. B., 1978, 'Classic Maya Pictorial Ceramics; A Survey of Content and Theme', in: R. Sidrys(ed.), Papers on the Economy and Architecture ofthe Ancient Maya, Mon. VIII of the Institute of Archaeology, pp. 86-141, Los Angeles: University of California. Closs, M. P., 1979, 'An important Maya inscription from the Xcalumkin area", Mexicon 1-4, pp. 44-45. Coe, M. D., 1973, The Maya Scribe and Hls World, New York: The Grolier Club. , 1977, 'Supernatural Patrons of Maya Scribes and Artists', in: N. Hammond (ed.), Social Process in Maya Prehistory, pp. 327-347, London: Academie Press. , 1978, Lords of the Underworld; Masterpieces of Classic Maya Ceramics, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Colby, B. N., and L. M. Colby, 1981, The Daykeeper; The Life and Discourse of an Ixil Diviner, Cambridge (Mass.)/London: Harvard University Press. Diccionario, 1980, Diccionario Maya Cordemex, A. Barrera Vasquez dir., Mrida (Yucatan, Mex.): Ediciones Cordemex. Edmonson, M. S., 1965, Quich-English Dictionary, Middle American Research Institute (MARI) Publ. 30, New Orleans: Tulane University. , 1971, The Book of Counsel; The Popol Vuh of the Quich Indians of Guatemala, MARI Publ. 35, New Orleans: Tulane University. , 1982, The Ancient Future of the Itza; The Book ofChilam Balam of Tizimin, Austin: University of Texas Press. Garibay K., A.M., 1964, Poesia Nahuatl I, Mexico: UNAM. , 1968, Poesia Nahuatl III, Mexico: UNAM. Gossen, G. H., 1974, Chamulas in the World of the Sun; Time and Space in a Maya Oral Tradition, Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press. GoubaudC, A., 1935, 'El 'GuajxaquipBats';Ceremoniacalendaricaindigena',/lna/ejde la Sociedadde Geografia e Historia de Guatemala 12, pp. 39-52. [English ed. 1937.] Graham, I., ed., 1982, Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions 3, Part 3: Yaxchilan, Cambridge (Mass.): Peabody Museum of Harvard University. Guiteras Holmes, G, 1961, Perils of the Soul; The World View of'a Tzotzil Indian, New York: The Free Press of Glencoe. Helfrich, KI., 1972, 'Kurzgrammatik des Chol', Baessler-Archiv, Neue Folge XX, pp. 109-36. Holland, W. R., 1978, Medicina Maya en los Altos de Chiapas; Un estudio del cambio socio-cultural, Serie de Antropologa Social, Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista. Kaufman, T., 1974, Idiomas de Mesoamrica, Seminario de Integracin Social Guatemalteca Publ. No. 33, Guatemala: Pineda Ibarra. LaFarge, O., 1947, Santa Eulalia; The Religion of a Cuchumatan Indian Town, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. La Farge, O, and D. Byers, 1931, The Year Bearer's People, Middle American Research Series No. 3, New Orleans: Tulane University. Landa, D. de, 1941, Relacin de las cosas de Yucatan; A Translation Edited with Notes by A. M. Tozzer, Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology XVIII, Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University. , 1966, Relacin de las cosas de Yucatan, Mexico: Porrua. Laughlin, R. M., 1975, The Great Tzotzil Dictionary of San Lorenzo Zinacantan, Smithsonian Contr. to Anthrop. No. 19, Washington. Lincoln, J. S., 1942, 'The Maya Calendarof the Ixil of Guatemala', Carnegie Publ. No. 528 = Contr. to American Anthrop. and Hist. No. 38, Vol. VII, pp. 98-128. Lpez-Astin, A., 1980, Cuerpo humano e ideologia; Las concepciones de los antiguas nahuas I, Serie Antropolgica 39, Mexico: UNAM. Martin del Campo, R., 1961, 'Contribucin a la etnozoologia maya de Chiapas', in: Los Mayas del Sur y sus relaciones con los Nahuas Meridionales Villa; Mesa Redonda de la

52

H.E. M. Braakhuis

Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia (SMA), pp. 29-39, San Christbal de las Casas (Chiapas, Mex.). Mayers, M., 1958, Pocomchi Texts with GrammaticalNotes, Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) Linguistic Series No. 2, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Miles, S. W., 1952, 'An Analysis of Modern Middle American Calendars; A Study in Conservation', in: S. Tax (ed.), Acculturation in the Americas, Selected Papers of the XXIXth International Congress of Americanists, pp. 273-84, Chicago. , 1957, The Sixteenth-Century Pokom Maya; A Documentary Analysis ofSocial Structure and Archaeological Setting, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series 47-4, Philadelphia. Morley, S. G., 1975, An Introduction to the Study of Maya Hieroglyphs, New York: Dover. Nash, J., 1970, In the Eyes of the Ancestors; Belief and Behavior in a Mayan Community, New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Oakes, M., 1969, The Two Crosses of Todos Santos; Survivals of Mayan Religious Ritual, Bollingen Series XXVI, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Pena Ortega, P., 1974, 'Calendario de Joyabaj', Tradiciones de Guatemala (Revista del Centro de Estudios Folklricos) 2, pp. 15-26. Ratsen, Chr., and K'ayum Ma'ax, 1984, Ein Kosmos im Regenwald; Mythen und Visionen der Lakandonen-Indianer, Kln: Eugen Diederichs Verlag. Recinos, A., 1969, Popol Vuh; The Sacred Book of the Ancient Quich Maya, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Robicsek, F., 1978, The Smoking Gods; Tobacco in Maya Art, History, and Religion, ;Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Robicsek, F., and D. M. Hales, 1981, The Maya Book of the Dead; The Ceramic Codex; The Corpus of Codex Style Ceramics, Charlottesville (Virg.): University of Virginia Art Museum. Roys, R. L., 1965, Ritual of the Bacabs, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. , 1967, The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Rubel, A. J., 1964, 'Two Tzotzil Tales from San Bartolom de los Llanos (Venustiano Carranza), Chiapas', America Indlgena XXIV-1, pp. 49-57. Ruz Lhuillier, A., 1958, 'Exploraciones arqueolgicas en Palenque: 1953', Anales del INAHX-39,pp.69-U6. Sahagn, B. de, 1957, General History of the Things of New Spain, Books 4 and 5, Santa F. [Translated by Ch. E. Dibble and A. J. O. Anderson.] , 1979, Historia General de las cosas de Nueva Espaha, Mexico: Porrua. Schele, L., 1976, 'Accession Iconography of Chan Bahlum in the Group of the Cross at Palenque', in: M. Greene Robertson (ed.), Segunda Mesa Redonda de Palenque, pp. 9-34, Pebble Beach (California): Pre-Columbian Art Research, The Robert Louis Stevenson School. Schele, L., and M. E. Miller, 1986, The Blood of Kings; Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art, New York: George Braziller Inc. (in association with the Kimbell Art Museum). Schultze Jena, L. S., 1933, Die Quich von Guatemala; Leben, Glaube, und Sprache der Quich-Indianer von Guatemala, Indiana I, Jena: Gustav Fischer. , 1944, Popol Vuh; Das heilige Buch der Quich-Indianer von Guatemala, Quellenwerke zur alten Geschichte Amerikas II, Stuttgart/Berlin: W. Kohlhammer. Seler, E., 1904, Codex Borgia; Eine altmexikanische Bilderschrift der Bibliothek der Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, Band I: Berlin. Slocum, M. C, 1965, 'The Origin of Corn and other Tzeltal Myths'. Tlalocan V-l, pp. 1-45. Stross, B., 1977, Love in the Armpit; Tzeltal Tales, Museum Brief No. 23, Columbia: University of Missouri. Taube, K., 1985, 'The Classic Maya Maize God: A Reappraisal', in: M. Greene Robertson and V. Fields (eds), Fifth Palenque Round Table, pp. 171-81, San Francisco: PreColumbian Aft Research Institute.

Functions of the Howler Monkey Gods among the Mayas

53

Tedlock, B., 1982, Time and the Highland Maya, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Tedlock, D., 1985, Popol Vuh; Translation with Commentary, New York: Simon and Schuster. Thompson, J. E. S., 1930, Ethnology of the Mayas of Southern and Central British Honduras, Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History. , 1962, A Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. , 1966, Maya Hieroglyphic Writing; An Introduction, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. , 1970a, TheRiseandFallofMayaCivilization, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. , 1970b, Maya History and Religion, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. , 1972, A Commentary on the Dresden Codex, Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Tozzer, A. M., 1907, A Comparative Study of the Mayas and the Lacandones, New York: Archaeological Institute of America. , 1941, SeeLanda 1941. Trik, A. S., 1963, 'The Splendid Tomb of Temple I, Tikal', Expedition 6-1, pp. 2-19. Villacorta, J. A., and C. A. Villacorta, 1977, Codices mayas reproducidos y desarrollados, Guatemala: Tipograffa Nacional. Wagley, Ch., 1949, The Social and Religious Life of a Guatemalan Village, American Anthropological Association Memoir SeriesNo. 71 (= American Anthropologist 51-4, Part 2). Walker, E. P., 1978, Mammals of the World I, Baltimore/London: The John Hopkins Press. Whittaker, A., and V. Warkentin, 1965, Chol Texts on the Supernatural, SIL Publ. No. 13, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Ximnez, F., 1965, Historia de la Provincia de San Vicente de Chiapa y Guatemala, Biblioteca Guatemalteca de Cultura Popular Vol. 81, Guatemala: Pineda Ibarra.