Content uploaded by Eleanor Harrison-Buck
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eleanor Harrison-Buck on Aug 11, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
7
Maya Religion and Gods
Relevance and Relatedness in the Animic Cosmos
Eleanor Harrison- Buck
Any discussion of ancient Mesoamerican “re-
ligion” and “gods” should probably begin by
questioning the relevance of these two Western
analytical categories. As general concepts, neither
actually seems to have existed in the past (Gra-
ham etal. ; Wright :). No direct trans-
lations of either term can be found in any of the
indigenous languages of Mesoamerica (Pharo
; Houston and Stuart ). Lars Pharo
() notes that the Yucatec Maya translation of
the word “religion” oered in the earliest Spanish-
Maya dictionaries was okol k’uh, which “can mean
‘to enter god’ [and] can refer to phenomena of
mysticism where the believer becomes a part of
the divine” (Pharo :). Here and in more
recent denitions, k’uh or c h’u oen is glossed
as “god,” but Stephen Houston and David Stuart
(: ) suggest that a more accurate transla-
tion is “sacred entity” (see also Stuart :).
I believe that this translation is still somewhat
problematic in that it oers a static view of what
may be better understood as a relational act cen-
tered on a conscious awareness of one’s position-
ing and activity in the world. is way of knowing
the world emphasizes one’s relationship with it
—
what Nurit Bird- David () has described as a
two- way conversation of “responsive relatedness”
in the world and what is sometimes referred to as
a relational ontology (as discussed throughout the
chapters of this book). Severin Fowles (:)
describes this as a complex interdependency rather
than a simple “cause- and-eect” relationship
—
“a
nonmodern cosmology. .. in which human doings
and the cosmos are consistently read in light of
one another.”
In this chapter I explore the nature of a Maya
relational ontology and the vital forces that con-
stitute what Tim Ingold () refers to as the
“mesh work” of entangled relationships within an
animic cosmos. Here I examine aspects of an en-
tity the Maya referred to as “Itzamnaaj,” who is
oen described by scholars as a “paramount god”
of Maya religion from Classic throughPost classic
times (Taube , a; ompson ). As a
dual- sexed composite of earth and sky, Itzamnaaj
is a generative life force who not only created ev-
erything in the world but also maintains the
cycles of time and the regeneration of life. In this
way, the dierent aspects of Itzamnaaj exemplify
the entangled relationships of daily human and
other- than-human experience and existence
in the world. In an eort to make sense of this
complex “meshwork” of the animic cosmos,
Meso american scholars tend to examine it as a
collection of related systems or “animic centers”
comprising a series of “animic entities” (López
Austin ) or “deity complexes” (Gillespie and
Joyce ). Most current studies have focused
on isolated aspects of Maya cosmology and pro-
vide only a limited understanding of the total sys-
tem (Vail :), eectively obscuring the two
fundamental components of an animic cosmos,
movement and a relational constitution of being
(Ingold : ). I show how these two distinc-
tive features of an ani mic cosmos are expressed in
Maya iconography and epigraphy. As the heart of
Buchanan Skousen text 2.indd 115 2015-03-30 8:58 AM
Chapter
the Maya animic cosmos and central generative
life force, Itzamnaaj
—
conated with other human
and non human entities
—
highlights this relational
ontology and the ongoing growth and movement
of this cosmic force through (not across) the
earth- sky.
The Maya “Pantheon”
as Relational Ontology
In Maya History and Religion J. Eric S. ompson
() suggested that a “pantheon” of gods was
represented in ancient Maya religion but that It-
zamnaaj was the preeminent deity, whose worship
approached something close to a form of Maya
“monotheism” (ompson :). is inter-
pretation was subsequently criticized for its colo-
nialist thinking, which implied that a shi toward
monotheistic religion signaled an increasing evo-
lutionary complexity (Farriss ; Freidel etal.
:–). Due in part to this negative critique,
alongside a virtual explosion of hieroglyphic
decipherment in the s and s, scholars
have since emphasized the polytheistic nature of
Maya religion and its multiple gods (Freidel etal.
; Schele and Miller ; Taube a; but see
Sachse :).
Despite the rejection of ompson’s earlier
notion of a monotheistic religion, most scholars
today still generally agree that Itzamnaaj repre-
sents a “paramount god” in the so- called Maya
pantheon (Bassie- Sweet :; Farriss ;
Freidel etal. :; Hellmuth ; Houston
etal. :; Stuart ; Taube a:). To
his credit, ompson () noted that the Old
World parallels implicit in the term “pantheon”
are problematic in the context of ancient Maya
religion. Current discussions of ancient Meso-
american cosmology, however, still commonly
describe the dierent personied forces of the un-
derworld, earthly, and celestial realms as a “pan-
theon of gods” (Bassie- Sweet :; Clark and
Colman :; Houston etal. :). West-
ern preconceptions of a “god” who is all- powerful,
infallible, and generally benecent to humankind
continue to be indiscriminately applied to the an-
cient Maya and other cultures of Mesoamerica but
are inaccurate portrayals of these deied essences,
who are born and can die and have “human- like”
vulnerabilities (Houston and Stuart : ).
Based on their epigraphic decipherments, Hous-
ton and Stuart (:, ) conclude that the
term “god” is inherently problematic because it
“distorts nuances of indigenous belief.” Yet the
vast majority of archaeological literature today
presents Maya “theology” as similar to other
world religions, centered on “ systematized doc-
trine” and the worship of almighty gods.
Here I argue that the Maya “pantheon” may be
more productively understood in the context of
a relational ontology, centered on the conscious
awareness of one’s positioning and activity in the
world, rather than a systematized theology char-
acteristic of most normative religious traditions
(see also Romain, this volume). is relational on-
tology is described by contemporary Maya not as
a set of beliefs but as “ways of living their beliefs”
(Molesky- Poz :). As a “bodily felt process”
(sensu Skora ), this animic ontology is heav-
ily reliant on human physiology and bodily sen-
sation (Furst ; Harrison- Buck a; Houston
etal. ; López Austin ). ese groups
“turned, not to theological pronouncements and
speculations to verify their ideas, but to experi-
ence
—
to what can be seen, touched, heard, and in
some cases, even smelled” (Furst :–). is
“theology of experience” (Molesky- Poz :–
) contradicts most normative religious tradi-
tions but best characterizes the physical aspects of
Maya spirituality and ritual practice documented
in ethnographic and epigraphic studies (Houston
and Taube ; Houston etal. ; Molesky-
Poz ; Stross ; Tedlock ). Among the
contemporary K’iche’ Maya in highland Guate-
mala, Jean Molesky- Poz (:–) describes
this as a distinct way of knowing that reects “the
profound sense of relatedness rooted in the per-
ception of a shared spiritual reality in all creation”
(Molesky- Poz :).
Elsewhere, Bird- David (:–) describes
the relational ontology of the Nayaka in South
India as “responsive relatedness,” a dierent way
of knowing the world that emphasizes one’s re-
lationship with it, which is perceived as “mutu-
ally responsive changes in things in- the-world
and at the same time in themselves” (e.g., Alberti
and Bray ; Fowles ; Harvey ; Ingold
; and chapters throughout this volume). In
many ways, Bird- David’s responsive relatedness
is analogous to Fowles’s () notion of sympa-
thy, which he discusses in his study of Pueblo re-
Buchanan Skousen text 2.indd 116 2015-03-30 8:58 AM
Maya Religion and Gods
ligion. “Sympathy is where ecology and morality
meet, where one walks gently on the earth be-
cause the earth is the mother” (Fowles :).
is kind of empathetic concern for another sen-
tient being (human or otherwise) aligns well with
what we know from both contemporary and an-
cient contexts about the Maya relational ontology,
which is centered on bodily feelings and a con-
scious awareness of one’s positioning and activity
in the world as a reciprocal and relational being
(Brown and Emery ; Harrison- Buck a;
Molesky- Poz ; Vogt , ; Watanabe
). Among the contemporary Maya, the rela-
tional self is described as a “dialogical interaction”
that defeats selsh individuality by spawning per-
sonal transformation through continuous inter-
action with others and, in this way, is “a process of
seeking personal responsibility and accountabil-
ity” in life (Arias :; for further discussion,
see Molesky- Poz :–).
In our quest to understand the relational self,
Marilyn Strathern’s () identication of the
“dividual” in her ethnographic study of person-
hood in Papua New Guinea has been highly in-
uential. As a result of her work, anthropologists
have become increasingly aware that conceptions
of the self as a unique and autonomous individ-
ual, oen attributed to “Modernist” society, are
not universal categories. Other conceptions of the
individual, oen attributed to “non- Western” so-
cieties, are dened in terms of a relational self,
that is, a shared sense of personhood based on
one’s role(s) and relationship(s) within a larger
social collective (Gillespie ). While many
chapters in this book, including my own, critique
the use and relevance of certain “Western” cate-
gories, it would be naive to suggest that any group
(Western or non- Western) is internally consistent
and without contradiction (Fowler ; Fowles
; Harris and Robb ). Julia Hendon (:
) points out that “to contrast Western individ-
uals with non- Western dividuals is really to con-
trast an ideology to a set of practices; the self is
more relational even in the West than philoso-
phy has allowed historically.” e point here is
that it is critical that we avoid homogenization
when taking on board the ontological project. If
we aim to elevate the status of indigenous theory,
then we must contextualize the relational self as
it pertains to the local context on a case- by-case
basis. e generalization of “indigenous ontol-
ogy” will only further the false divide that exists
between the “West and the rest,” which postcolo-
nial scholars have been working so hard to dis-
mantle (see Harrison- Buck a: for further
discussion).
According to my understanding of ethno-
graphic and epigraphic accounts, the Maya rela-
tional self undergoes a dualistic process of change
in both form and location (Stross :). As
Stuart (:) observes, this involves a life
cycle of transformation and renewal and the
“transmutation of certain ‘personas’ over time
and space.” is concept is captured in the terms
jal and k’e x used by the contemporary Maya of
Santiago Atitlan in highland Guatemala (Carlsen
and Prechtel :–). e dual process of
change constitutes a single system of transforma-
tion and renewal manifested in both a single life
cycle (from birth to death, young to old) and gen-
erational transference, which resembles a form of
reincarnation (Carlsen and Prechtel :). is
didactic change is manifest in the jal, meaning the
change in the thing or external receptacle- body
(e.g., the face as it gets old and wrinkled or the
corn husk as it dries and shrivels) and in the k’ex,
or “seed,” that regenerates life, “a process of mak-
ing the new out of the old” (Carlsen and Prechtel
:–).
e contemporary Zinacantan Maya refer to
this seed or essence of life as the ch’ul el, which is
considered a sacred coessence or life force (Vogt
, , ). According to ethnographhic
accounts, the ch’ulel contains multiple parts
and routinely engages singly or in combination
with other human and nonhuman agents in an
ongoing negotiation (Gossen :; see also
Monaghan ; Vogt ; Watanabe ). Eth
-
nographic accounts attest to the importance of the
ch’ulel in the Maya relational ontology, whereby
one’s coessence cannot be permanently destroyed
but its divisible parts can be displaced or remain
dormant (Vogt :). However, much like
a seed (or k’ex), if properly nurtured the ch’ulel
can regenerate and be reborn in another bodily
form. For both ancient and contemporary Maya,
these “bodies” are not exclusively living human
bodies but can also include valued materials
and important objects, such as domesticated
corn, musical instruments, wooden crosses, or
Buchanan Skousen text 2.indd 117 2015-03-30 8:58 AM
Chapter
stone monuments, among other precious things
(Harrison- Buck ; Stuart ; Vogt :).
While ch’ul el is a modern term, epigraphic
texts suggest that the root of the word ch’u or k’uh
references a similar “seed” of regeneration. is
vital inner life force is not a singular entity but
made up of multiple, distributed parts or coes-
sences that “inhabit the blood and energize peo-
ple and a variety of objects of ritual and everyday
life” (Houston and Stuart :). One of the
glyphs for k’uh is a monkey head (Figure .a) that
is consistently paired with a personied monkey
image in the Maya codices (Figure .b). e k’uh
glyph oen is found paired with other personied
images that contain specic “god” appellatives,
leading William Ringle (:–) and others to
suggest that k’uh signied a more generic con-
cept of “god,” “sacred,” or “holy” (see also Taube
a:–; Vail :–). Houston, Stu-
art, and other epigraphers have oered a similar
translation of k’uh as “sacred entity,” “holy object,”
or “a physical manifestation of the sacred essence
that occupies various spaces, people and things
throughout the world” (Stuart :). Linda
Schele and Mary Miller (:) were among
the rst to suggest that the k’uh glyph in an-
cient Maya texts depicts not only a monkey head
but a personied form of blood. ey suggest
that the circular, bead- like elements associated
with the monkey head depict owing droplets
of blood and other precious substances (Stuart
and Houston :; Figure .a, c–e), which in
some contexts may represent water (Figure .f;
see Bassie- Sweet :–). Stuart (:)
further observes that both yax (green) and k’a n
(yellow) signs oen are found in the owing k’uh
streams in ancient Maya iconography (Figure
.d–e). When combined, he suggests, the two
signs reference “unripe- ripe” or “immature and
mature maize” (Stuart :). us, rather
than a static “sacred entity,” k’uh may be best
understood as seeds of generative life (roughly
analogous to k’ex), brought into being through a
relational act, such as a ruler who lets blood and
scatters precious k’uh streams from his body on
another human or nonhuman agent (e.g., Stuart
:Figure .).
David Freidel and colleagues (:) note
that the term k’uh is closely related to itz, which
constitutes vital substances of life- giving power.
Itz refers specically to sacred liquids that were
thought to spawn life, such as bodily uids like
blood, milk, semen, sweat, and tears, as well as
other dripping liquids, like rain, dew, sap, wax,
and copal resin (Freidel etal. :n). Karl
Taube (a:) notes that according to Colo-
nial Yucatec dictionaries the word itz also refers
to divination or witchcra. Freidel and colleagues
(: n) conclude that itz signies “magic
stu brought forth in ritual and as secretions
from all sorts of things- living and (to us but not
the Maya) inanimate.. .and is related to ideas of
knowledge, magic, occult power.” e word Itzam
has been translated as “one who does the action
of itz” or one who “manipulates the magic world”
(Freidel etal. :n), which may be related
to the priestly title it z ’aat, or “wise one,” known
from Classic Mayan inscriptions (Graña- Behrens
). Itzam is closely associated with the name It-
zamnaaj (Figure .), who is identied as the prin-
cipal “shaman- priest” and “creator” of the cosmos
in both Postclassic Maya codices and Classic
Maya imagery and epigraphy (Barrera Vásquez
:; Freidel etal. :n).
The Movement of Vital Forces Through
(Not Over) the Animic Maya Cosmos
In this chapter I attempt to understand the role(s)
of Itzamnaaj using a relational model of an ani-
mic cosmos, dened by Ingold (). In an ani-
mic cosmos the focus is on the relations of earth
and sky as “indivisible elds” (Ingold :).
In this “world of perpetual ux” Ingold (:)
observes that movement and a relational consti-
tution of being are both accorded primacy. As he
notes, “e animacy of the lifeworld, in short, is
not the result of an infusion of spirit into sub-
stance, or of agency into materiality, but is rather
ontologically prior to their dierentiation” (In-
gold :). For the Maya, the indivisible earth-
sky is Itzamnaaj, also referred to as “Heart of Sky,
Heart of Earth.” As the heart or itz of the Maya
animic cosmos, Itzamnaaj is the sacred and vital
substance (rather than surface) of earth and sky
that fuels the regeneration of life. Taube (a:)
notes that the headdress of Itzamnaaj resembles
a ower (or nik) with an exaggerated stamen ap-
pearing as an outpouring of liquid or nectar. Ac-
cording to Colonial accounts, Itzamnaaj was the
nectar of owers, as well as the dew. One account
Buchanan Skousen text 2.indd 118 2015-03-30 8:58 AM
FI GU RE 7.1. (a–b) The k’u (monkey head) glyph and personied image. (c–e) Droplets in streams of blood and
other precious substances. (f) Droplets as dew or water in the form of a beaded scroll representing a cloud
(after Schele and Miller :Figure b, d–e; Stuart :Figure .b; and Bassie-Sweet :Figure c; re-
drawn by M. Brouwer Burg).
Buchanan Skousen text 2.indd 119 2015-03-30 8:58 AM
Chapter
relating to Itzamnaaj states: “I am the itz (dew or
substance) of heaven, I am the itz of the clouds”
(translation by ompson :, cited in Taube
a:).
e union of earth and sky is expressed at the
dawn of creation, as recorded in the Quiche Maya
Popol Vuh story. Initially, there is nothing existing
in the world, only sky and water (Tedlock ).
“At some point, Heart of Sky [Itzamnaaj] aban-
dons the spiritual dimension and enters the ma-
terial world as Tepew Gukumatz, or the Plumed
Serpent, the egg covered in quetzal feathers that
explodes giving initial life” (Cabrera :).
As a dual- sexed entity, Itzamnaaj as plumed ser-
pent brings forth life in both earth and sky and
sets in motion a generative life cycle for human
and other- than-human forces who “continually
and reciprocally bring one another into existence”
(Ingold :). e serpent body of Itzamnaaj
appears to serve as the material manifestation of
earth- sky (Figure .), where its sinuous path or
trail traces the ongoing movement and growth of
the animic cosmos. Ingold (:) notes: “ Every
such trail traces a relation. But the relation is not
between one thing and another
—
between the or
-
ganism ‘here’ and the environment ‘there.’ It is
rather a trail along which life is lived: one strand
in a tissue of trails that together make up the tex-
ture of the lifeworld.. .. It is a [relational] eld not
of interconnected points but of interwoven lines,
not a network but a meshwork.”
Ingold’s “meshwork” that constitutes an an-
imic cosmos may best explain the imagery of It-
zamnaaj as a serpent body. Maya iconography,
discussed further below, shows that illustrating
the serpent body’s movement through the earth-
FI GU RE 7.2 . A personied Itzamnaaj from page c of the Dresden
Codex (after Taube a:Figure f; redrawn by M. Brouwer Burg).
Buchanan Skousen text 2.indd 120 2015-03-30 8:58 AM
Maya Religion and Gods
sky was of prime importance. Equally important
is illustrating the serpent’s relational status with
other entities (shown riding or walking on its
back, emerging from its mouth, etc.). e move-
ment of the serpent body and its association with
other entities constitute the relational elds and
interwoven trails or “meshwork” of the Maya ani-
mic cosmos. Typically, in Maya iconography the
serpents or so- called sky bands oat up above in
what is oen described as a celestial realm, defy-
ing gravity and invariably shown associated with
one or more other beings (Figure .). e body
of the double- headed serpent, identied as Itzam-
naaj, contains planetary glyphs that led omp-
son (:) to identify it as the sky aspect of
Itzamnaaj (Figure .a). Yet the body is not always
a serpent, but sometimes an iguana or crocodile,
which have been linked to Itzamnaaj’s terres-
trial aspect (Taube ). Both serpent and earth
(cauac) imagery are associated with Itzamnaaj
and emphasize this sense of an indivisible earth-
sky (but see Freidel etal. :).
In some cases, this being is shown with ow-
ing precious liquid (itz) pouring from its mouth,
interpreted as a gushing ood of water, perhaps
signaling the onset of the rainy season (Milbrath
:–; ompson :, ). Fig-
ure .a shows a Late Classic period example of
this imagery framing the doorway of House E at
the Maya site of Palenque in Chiapas, Mexico. A
FI GU RE 7.3. Late Classic period examples of Itzamnaaj as double-headed serpent and caiman: (a) framing the
doorway of House E at Palenque in Chiapas, Mexico; (b) framing the doorway of Structure at Copan in
Honduras (drawings by Linda Schele, © David Schele, courtesy Foundation for the Advancement of Meso-
american Studies, Inc., www.famsi.org).
a
b
Buchanan Skousen text 2.indd 121 2015-03-30 8:58 AM
Chapter
similar image is found on page of the Postclas-
sic Dresden Codex (Milbrath :Figure .d).
In many cases, the serpent body of Itzamnaaj is
composed of S- shaped scrolls, which have been
interpreted as the cloudy substance or itz that
constitutes Itzamnaaj (Milbrath :). Addi-
tionally, I would suggest that these elements em-
phasize the undulation and ongoing movement
of this body as a manifestation of the animic cos-
mos. One good example is found on Structure
at the Maya site of Copan in Honduras. Here a
double- headed Itzamnaaj frames the doorway of
this Late Classic building (Figure .b). e reptil-
ian body of the earth- sky Itzamnaaj appears to be
a caiman consisting of a series of S- shaped scrolls
and an assembly of seven oating personied be-
ings who hang from these moving clouds. Susan
Milbrath (:, ) suggests that the series
of personied beings associated with Itzamna-
aj’s body may constitute the Sun, Moon, and ve
planets that are visible to the naked eye. Addition-
ally, weather- related phenomena, such as wind
(ik’) and lightning (chac), are commonly repre-
sented in similar scenes and are closely associated
with Itzamnaaj (Milbrath :).
Ingold (:–; see also Ingold and
) argues that meteorological phenomena are
of prime importance in the animic cosmos be-
cause it is the weather that moves and transforms
the energy or itz in the world, from stormy to
calm and from dark to light. Air is especially im-
portant not only because it enables us to breathe
and gives life but also because air or wind “aords
both mobility and sensory perception” in the ani-
mic cosmos (Ingold :). In the Maya codices
the wind or ik’ sign most commonly occurs with
Itzamnaaj (Vail :). ere is a close associa-
tion between ik’ and a series of personied glyphs,
including k’uh and nik, traditionally interpreted
as discrete “gods” in the Maya literature (for a full
discussion, see Gods C and H in Taube a). Ik’
is wind, as well as one’s breath or animacy, and
is tied to the concept of k’uh (discussed above)
in terms of life force, as well as the nik (ower)
sign, which is frequently found on Itzamnaaj’s
forehead (see Figures . and .). Nik references
the nectar or itz and appears in some cases to de-
note a sweet smell, although in other instances it
appears to reference the stench of death and de-
cay (Houston etal. :, Figure .). Together
the terms k’uh, ik’, and nik evoke immaterial do-
mains and share similar connections concerning
the soul, breath, and smell. It is worth noting that
all three of these elements are most oen associ-
ated with Itzamnaaj
—
the giver of life
—
and are
also frequently found in association with a per-
sonied manifestation of maize (commonly re-
ferred to as “God E”), highlighting the cycles of
agriculture and human life as central components
of the Maya relational ontology (e.g., the birth,
death, and regeneration of maize- people).
Transformation, replacement, and regenera-
tion are fundamental to the movement of the ani-
mic cosmos and permeate all aspects of Maya life.
FI GU RE 7.4. (a) Itzamnaaj with nose beads (jade or ower elements) denoting breath. (b) Late Classic form of
ik’ or wind showing associated beaded ower element and breath volute (after Houston et al. :Figures
.d and .; redrawn by M. Brouwer Burg).
a b
Buchanan Skousen text 2.indd 122 2015-03-30 8:58 AM
Maya Religion and Gods
“Death produces a separation of body and soul
in which the former is not simply an empty and
discarded vessel but one that harbors the germ
and material for future reproduction” (Martin
:). is partible self is relationally consti-
tuted in the cycles of birth, death, and regenera-
tion. A frequently cited example from the Maya
area is the birth, death, and resurrection (or rein-
carnation) of the personied Maize or “GodE”
(Taube ), delivered to the place of creation
by the double- headed serpent, Itzamnaaj. is
scene of creation is vividly depicted in the Pre-
classic murals of San Bartolo in Guatemala,
where a series of seven gures are shown walk-
ing (and another one oating) along the serpent
body of Itzamnaaj (Saturno etal. :Figure ).
is assembly of personied characters walking
along (or through) the serpent body is reminis-
cent of the seven celestial bodies identied by
Milbrath (:, ) in later Classic period
imagery (see Figure .). e protagonist in the
San Bartolo murals is identied as the “Maize
God,” who places a gourd in the birthplace of the
rst humans, a place of creation called “Flower
Mountain” (Saturno etal. :Figure ). Five in-
fants are born from the gourd, one in the center
and the others oating in the four corners of the
scene, attached to the gourd by four trails of blood
(k’uh/itz) that resemble umbilical cords as well as
breath volutes (ik’) rising from their bodies (Sat-
urno etal. :). Footprints along the serpent
body demarcate it as a path. e breath volutes
and streams of blood or umbilical cords, much
like the serpent body, are trails that emphasize
the movement and growth of the animic cosmos,
what Ingold (:) means by organisms (such
as maize and newborns) being constituted within
a relational eld.
Inverting the normative logic, Ingold (:)
suggests that the paths or movement of life are in
a state of becoming (rather than being). Viewed
as a medium rather than a surface, the intangible
domain can take many dierent forms, such as
wind, lightning, and thunder, as well as birds
(Ingold :; Pauketat ). e last form is
particularly important in the Maya animic ontol-
ogy, where birds embody swi movement and, as
a way or spirit coessence, are oracle messengers
that “pierced the membrane between dierent
worlds, underworld and ‘aboveworld,’ divine and
human” (Houston etal. :–). Houston
and colleagues (:) note that images of
birds as “embodied messengers” are a central mo-
tif in the Preclassic San Bartolo murals, discussed
above. Additionally, in the Classic and Postclas-
sic periods one of the most conspicuous “mes-
senger” birds of a composite type is the so- called
Principal Bird Deity, the birdlike avatar of Itzam-
naaj (Bardawil ; Bassie- Sweet :–;
Houston etal. :). e images vary, but
oen they depict the head of Itzamnaaj with the
wings and body of a bird (Figure .). ere is an
important association between bird messengers
and precious ikatz (“bundles” or “cargo” [Boot
: ; Houston etal. :]). In an unpro-
venienced Classic period painted cylinder vessel,
known as the “God D Court Vessel,” there is a de-
piction of a personied Itzamnaaj and his avian
manifestation, behind which sits a large bundle
with a glyph that Erik Boot (:) reads chanal
ikatz, or “Celestial/Of the Sky Bundle or Cargo.”
Boot (:) notes additional bundles in the
scene that are labeled bul uch k’a n, “ yellow; ripe;
precious.. .,” with the nal element of this com-
pound undeciphered. e connection between
precious bundles, bird messengers, and royal
courts remains poorly understood, but it seems
that Itzamnaaj in his avian aspect plays some role
in bestowing rulership on a king by delivering to
him a bundle of sacred power. Boot (:–,
Figure ) notes a parallel with the bundles seen in
two other unprovenienced painted vessels (Kerr
Nos. and ) that depict the royal court
of an entity referred to as “God L,” who also is
present on the “God D Court Vessel” and who I
believe represents the night- sun aspect of Itzam-
naaj (see discussions of “God L” and the closely
related “God M” as “travelers” in Gillespie and
Joyce , identied as the “Black Itzamnaaj” in
Vail :–, Figure ).
Timothy Pauketat (:) describes the bun-
dling practices among indigenous groups of the
Americas as deeply connected to travelers, whose
mission seems to have involved a combination of
mercantile activity, soul searching, and prosely-
tizing in their journeys to strange lands, where
bundles were transferred; then travelers “returned
home with new bundle- power” (see also Baltus,
this volume; Skousen, this volume). I believe the
bundles associated with Itzamnaaj, along with his
Buchanan Skousen text 2.indd 123 2015-03-30 8:58 AM
Chapter
“traveler” and “bird” aspects, may share similar
meaning regarding the transfer of powerful ob-
jects, humans, and divine essences (k’uh, ik’, nik,
and itz). is bundle transfer is vividly depicted
in the San Bartolo murals (Saturno etal. :Fig-
ure ) and references the original sacred journey
and transfer of bundled power by the Creator, It-
zamnaaj, facilitating the birth of the rst humans
and setting into motion the movement of the cos-
mos. e Tzotzil Maya word Ch’uul Xanbal may
refer to such a spiritual journey. Although it was
translated in early Spanish dictionaries as “reli-
gion,” Laughlin and Haviland (::) have
suggested that it means “holy [Ch’u ul] life or walk
[Xanbal].” Pharo (:) suggests that the term
conveys “a (sacred) righteous, correct way of life,”
expressing a kind of moral virtue. I would argue
that it likely has a more literal meaning, refer-
encing the actual spiritual journey or walk of the
ritual practitioner who carries and transfers the
sacred bundle that contains power originally de-
rived from Itzamnaaj.
Concluding Thoughts: Bundling
and Unbundling the Animic Cosmos
Epigraphic studies, alongside more recent cog-
nitive studies examining textual, historical,
philosophical, and ethnographic material, have
informed a more nuanced understanding of Maya
spirituality as a “theology of experience” in which
FI G UR E 7.5 . Itzamnaaj as “Principal Bird Deity” (after Houston et al. :Figure .c; redrawn by M. Brouwer Burg).
Buchanan Skousen text 2.indd 124 2015-03-30 8:58 AM
Maya Religion and Gods
movement, bodily experience, and the relational
self form the basis of the Maya ani mic ontology
(Carlsen ; Molesky- Poz ; Monaghan
; Stross ; Tedlock ; Vogt , ,
; Watanabe ). Maya archaeologists have
been largely silent in this dialogue (for some nota-
ble exceptions, see Brown and Emery ; Dun-
can and Hoing ; Freidel etal. ; Geller
; Gillespie ; Harrison- Buck a, b;
Harrison- Buck and Hendon ; Hendon ,
; Hutson ). is is surprising given the
wealth of epigraphic and iconographic media that
describe these immaterial phenomena (words
like k’uh , ik’ , nik, and itz), which are visually de-
picted in the iconography (as serpents, caimans,
clouds, breath volutes, birds, and other embod-
ied travelers). Here I argue that the epigraphy
and iconography emphasize both movement and
a relational constitution of being as the principal
components of the Maya animic ontology. As par-
tible beings, they fuse sky and earth and embody
the relational aspects of Itzamnaaj, occupying an
intangible domain that lies somewhere between
agency and materiality (Ingold :). is di-
alectical relationship between agency and struc-
ture is what Pauketat (:–) describes as the
“phenomenal relationships between things, sub-
stances, and other intangible qualities.. .that en-
gage the senses
—
sight, sound, smell, taste, and
touch
—
in ways that lend them agentic or trans-
formative power.”
As Ingold (:) notes elsewhere, the po-
sitioning of objects in the relational eld is what
imbues them with power, although humans of-
ten are at the foci of this power. For contempo-
rary Maya, this central person is the Daykeeper,
or Ajq’ij (Ahau). Daykeepers carry the “burden
of the days” (the calendar) in their bodies and
maintain a tremendous energy (a “lightning in
the blood”) that connects them to the “Owner”
of the universe and illuminates the meaning of
the days, providing them with a “distinct way of
knowing” the world (Molesky- Poz :, ).
e material and cosmic levels may appear as a
stark dichotomy, but for the Ajq’ijab’ and other
Maya spiritual leaders it is precisely between
these two planes that they stand (Molesky- Poz
:). In the Maya relational ontology it is not
just the sensuous qualities of the objects or sub-
stances that impart animacy but rather dialogical
activity: the dialogue with and transfer between
the sacred housed in physical phenomena. For
the contemporary Maya, a dialogue is achieved
with the Earth- Sky Creator by “listening to the
movements in their bodies,” oen in the blood
and breath (e.g., what can be seen, heard, smelled,
tasted, touched, or felt) (Molesky- Poz :–
). In discussing an archaeology of the senses
in ancient Mesoamerica, Houston and Taube
(:) conclude, “e sensations of the past
cannot be retrieved, only their encoding in im-
perishable media.” Yet Maya ethnography clearly
demonstrates that these sensations are not buried
and gone, and it suggests that they may sharply
resemble the dialectical methods used by the an-
cient Maya, such as the breath, pulsing blood, cast
seeds, aromatic censing, heat, and ames of the
re. Much more remains to be explored in terms
of the ancient Maya animic ontology, especially in
terms of the sights, sounds, smells, and tastes of
Itzamnaaj. As this chapter illustrates, this “meta-
sensory” understanding of the world is intimated
in the glyphs and iconography showing Itzamna
-
aj’s relatedness to breath and wind, the life- giving
substances of nectar, dew, blood, and maize, and
the cyclical movements and regeneration of life.
Scholars continue to reference the Maya “pan-
theon of gods” and rely on a Western classication
system for these “gods” that was originally devel-
oped by Paul Schellhas (). While the use of
Schellhas’s deity labels provides scholars with a
shared terminology, many personied images in
the Maya codices that Schellhas and others have
labeled discrete “gods” share clusters of attributes
and appear to constitute only a small number of
underlying divinities whose roles oen merge
(Vail :). Gabrielle Vail () concludes
that not all of these personied gures represent
discrete “gods” (personied k’uh, whom Schell-
has labeled “God C,” is a prime example) and that
many of these numinous characters may best be
viewed as aspects or manifestations of Itzamnaaj
(e.g., Gods D, L, M, N, Z, and H). Trying to sepa-
rate and label a series of “gods” as discrete entities
dened by distinct traits and conceptual domains
is a Westernized taxonomic approach that has
proven to be an invalid representation of prehis-
panic Maya ideology (Gillespie and Joyce ;
Vail ). By focusing on isolated, individual as-
pects of the Maya cosmos, we risk obscuring the
Buchanan Skousen text 2.indd 125 2015-03-30 8:58 AM
Chapter
fundamental components of the Maya animic on-
tology: movement and the relational constitution
of being. Rather than compartmentalize the Maya
cosmos as others have done, I have attempted to
describe the uidity and relationally constituted
nature of Itzamnaaj as the heart of the Maya an
-
imic cosmos. is ontological status helps to
make sense of what appears to be a disparate col-
lection of “gods” that all seemingly overlap and
have associated physical attributes. As the heart
of the cosmos, Itzamnaaj brings forth life in both
earth and sky, but this regenerative life cycle is re-
liant on the ongoing relationships among human
and other- than-human forces who “continually
and reciprocally bring one another into existence”
(Ingold :) and help to sustain this constant
state of movement and change in the world.
Note
. Other interpretations of the Popol Vuh creation
story suggest that Itzamnaaj and Gukumatz are
two separate entities and that the plumed serpent
becomes the First- Father when he plants the seed
of life in the First- Mother, Tepew, Heart of Earth
inside a cave- womb (Nielson and Brady ; Ted-
lock ; ompson :).
References Cited
Alberti, Benjamin, and Tamara L. Bray (editors)
Animating Archaeology: Of Subjects, Objects
and Alternative Ontologies. Special Section,
Cambridge Archaeological Journal :–.
Arias, Arturo
Foreword. In e Lived Horizon of My Being:
e Substantiation of the Self and and the Dis-
course of Resistance in Rigoberta Menchú, M M
Bakhtin, and Víctor Montejo, by Judith orn.
ASU Center for Latin American Studies Press,
Arizona State University, Tempe.
Bardawil, Lawrence W.
e Principal Bird Deity in Maya Art: An
Iconographic Study of Form and Meaning.
In e Art, Iconography and Dynastic History
of Palenque, Part III, edited by Merle Greene
Robertson. Pre- Columbian Art Research,
Robert Louis Stevenson School, Pebble Beach,
California.
Barrera Vásquez, Alfredo
Diccionario Maya Cordemex, Maya- Español,
Español- Maya. Ediciones Cordemex, Mérida,
Mexico.
Bassie- Sweet, Karen
Maya Sacred Geography and the Creator Deities.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Bird- David, Nurit
“Animism” Revisited: Personhood, Environ-
ment, and Relational Epistemology. Current
Anthropology :S–.
Boot, Erik
At the Court of Itzam Nah Yax Kokaj Mut:
Preliminary Iconographic and Epigraphic
Analysis of a Late Classic Vessel. Maya Vase
Data base, www.mayavase.com/God- D-Court
-Vessel.pdf, accessed December , .
Brown, Linda A., and Kitty F. Emery
Negotiations with the Animate Forest: Hunting
Shrines in the Guatemalan Highlands. Journal
of Archaeological Method and eory :–.
Cabrera, Edgar
El calendario maya: Su origen y su losofía.
LaLiga Maya, San José, Costa Rica.
Carlsen, Robert
e War for the Heart and Soul of a Highland
Ma ya Town. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Carlsen, Robert, and Martin Prechtel
e Flowering of the Dead: An Interpretation
of Highland Maya Culture. Man (N.S.) :
–.
Clark, John E., and Arlene Colman
Structure of the Mesoamerican Universe, from
Aztec to Olmec. In Enduring Motives: e Ar-
chaeology of Tradition and Religion in Native
America, edited by Linea Sundstrom and War-
ren DeBoer, pp. –. University of Alabama
Press, Tuscaloosa.
Duncan, William N., and Charles Andrew Hoing
Why the Head? Cranial Modication as Pro-
tection and Ensoulment among the Maya.
Ancient Mesoamerica :–.
Farriss, Nancy M.
Maya Society under Colonial Rule: e Collec-
tive Enterprise of Survival. Princeton Univer-
sity Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Fowler, Chris
e Archaeology of Personhood: An Anthropo-
logical Approach. Routledge, New York.
Fowles, Severin
Animist/Analyst. Paper presented at the An-
nual Meeting of the eoretical Archaeology
Group, Brown University, Providence, Rhode
Island, April –May .
Buchanan Skousen text 2.indd 126 2015-03-30 8:58 AM
Maya Religion and Gods
An Archaeology of Doings: Secularism and the
Study of Pueblo Religion. School for Advanced
Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Freidel, David A., Linda Schele, and Joy Parker
Maya Cosmos: ree ousand Years on the
Shaman’s Path. HarperCollins, New York.
Furst, Jill Leslie
e Natural History of the Soul in Ancient
Mexico. Yale University Press, New Haven,
Connecticut.
Geller, Pamela
Parting (with) the Dead: Body Partibility as
Evidence of Commoner Ancestor Veneration.
Ancient Mesoamerica :–.
Gillespie, Susan D.
Personhood, Agency, and Mortuary Ritual: A
Case Study from the Ancient Maya. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology :–.
Gillespie, Susan D., and Rosemary A. Joyce
Deity Relationships in Mesoamerican Cosmol-
ogies: e Case of the Maya God L. Ancient
Mesoamerica :–.
Gossen, Gary H.
Maya Zapatistas Move to the Ancient Future.
American Anthropologist :–.
Graham, Elizabeth, Scott E. Simmons, and Christine
D. White
e Spanish Conquest and the Maya Collapse:
How “Religious” Is Change? World Archaeol-
ogy (): –.
Graña- Behrens, Daniel
Itz’aat and Tlamatini: e “Wise Man” as
Keeper of Maya and Nahua Collective Mem-
ory. In Mesoamerican Memory: Enduring Sys-
tems of Remembrance, edited by Stephanie
Wood and Amos Megged, pp. –. University
of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Harris, Oliver J. T., and John Robb
Multiple Ontologies and the Problem of the
Body in History. American Anthropologist
:–.
Harrison- Buck, Eleanor
a Architecture as Animate Landscape: Circular
Shrines in the Ancient Maya Lowlands. Ameri-
can Anthropologist :–.
b Rituals of Death and Disempowerment among
the Maya. In Power and Identity in Archae-
ological eory and Practice: Case Studies
from Ancient Mesoamerica, edited by Eleanor
Harrison- Buck, pp. –. Foundations of
Archaeological Inquiry. University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City.
Killing the “Kings of Stone”: e Defacement
of Classic Maya Monuments. In Ritual, Vio-
lence, and the Fall of the Classic Maya Kings,
edited by Gyles Iannone, Brett Houk, and
Sonja Schwake. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville, forthcoming.
Harrison- Buck, Eleanor, and Julia A. Hendon
Exploring Epistemologies and Ontologies of
Agency and Personhood: An Introduction.
Paper presented at the th Annual Meeting
of the Society for American Archaeology,
Honolulu, Hawaii.
Harvey, Graham
Animals, Animists, and Academics. Zygon
:–.
Hellmuth, Nicholas
Monster und Menschen in der Maya- Kunst.
Akademische Druck u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz,
Austria.
Hendon, Julia A.
Houses in a Landscape: Memory and Everyday
Life in Mesoamerica. Duke University Press,
Durham, North Carolina.
Objects as Persons: Integrating Maya Beliefs
and Anthropological eory. In Power and
Identity in Archaeological eory and Practice:
Case Studies from Ancient Mesoamerica, edited
by Eleanor Harrison- Buck, pp. –. Founda-
tions of Archaeological Inquiry. University of
Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Houston, Stephen D., and David Stuart
e Way Glyph: Evidence for “Co- essences”
among the Classic Maya. Research Reports on
Ancient Maya Writing No. . Center for Maya
Research, Barnardsville, North Carolina.
Of Gods, Glyphs, and Kings: Divinity and
Rulership among the Classic Maya. Antiquity
:–.
Houston, Stephen D., David Stuart, and Karl Taube
e Memory of Bones: Body, Being, and Expe-
rience among the Classic Maya. University of
Texas Press, Austin.
Houston, Stephen D., and Karl A. Taube
An Archaeology of the Senses: Perception and
Cultural Expression in Ancient Mesoamerica.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal :–.
Hutson, Scott
Dwelling, Identity, and the Maya: Relational
Archaeology at Chunchucmil. AltaMira Press,
Lanham, Maryland.
Ingold, Tim
e Perception of the Environment: Essays on
Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Routledge, New
York .
Rethinking the Animate, Re- animating
ought. Ethnos :–.
Buchanan Skousen text 2.indd 127 2015-03-30 8:58 AM
Chapter
Materials against Materiality. Archaeological
Dialogues :–.
Footprints through the Weather- World: Walk-
ing, Breathing, Knowing. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute N.S.: S–S.
Laughlin, Robert M., and John B. Haviland
e Great Tzotzil Dictionary of Santo Domingo
Zinacantán: With Grammatical Analysis and
Historical Commentary. vols. Smithsonian
Contributions to Anthropology No. . Wash-
ington, D.C.
López Austin, Alfredo
e Human Body and Ideology: Concepts of the
Ancient Nahuas. Translated by elma Ortiz
de Montellano and Bernard Ortiz de Montel-
lano. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Martin, Simon
Cacao in Ancient Maya Religion: First Fruit
from the Maize Tree and Other Tales from the
Underworld. In Chocolate in Mesoamerica:
A Cultural History of Cacao, edited by Cam-
eron L. McNeil, pp. –. University Press
ofFlorida, Gainesville.
Milbrath, Susan
Star Gods of the Maya: Astronomy in Art, Folk-
lore, and Calendars. University of Texas Press,
Austin.
Molesky- Poz, Jean
Contemporary Maya Spirituality: e Ancient
Ways Are Not Lost. University of Texas Press,
Austin.
Monaghan, John
e Covenants with Earth and Rain: Exchange,
Sacrice, and Revelation in Mixtec Sociality.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Nielson, Jesper, and James E. Brady
e Couple in the Cave: Origin Iconography
on a Ceramic Vessel from Los Naranjos, Hon-
duras. Ancient Mesoamerica :–.
Pauketat, Timothy R.
An Archaeology of the Cosmos: Rethinking
Agency and Religion in Ancient America.
Routledge, New York.
Pharo, Lars Kirkhusmo
e Concept of Religion in Mesoamerican
Languages. Numen :–.
Ringle, William M.
Of Mice and Monkeys: e Value and Meaning
of T1016, the God C Hieroglyph. Research Re-
ports on Ancient Maya Writing No. . Cen-
ter for Maya Research, Barnardsville, North
Carolina.
Sachse, Frauke
Interpreting Maya Religion: Methodological
Remarks on Understanding Continuity and
Change in Maya Religious Practices. In Conti-
nuity and Change: Maya Religious Practices in
Temporal Perspective, edited by Daniel Graña-
Behrens, Nikolai Grube, Christian M. Prager,
Frauke Sachse, Stefanie Teufel, and Elizabeth
Wagner, pp. –. Anton Sauerwein, Markt
Schwaben, Germany.
Saturno, William A., Karl A. Taube, David Stuart, and
Heather Hurst
e Murals of San Bartolo, El Petén, Guate-
mala, Part 1: e North Wall. Center for An-
cient American Studies, Barnardsville, North
Carolina.
Schele, Linda, and Mary Ellen Miller
e Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya
Art. Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas.
Schellhas, Paul
Representations of Deities of the Maya Manu-
scripts. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Ar-
chaeology and Ethnology, Vol. , No. . Har-
vard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Skora, Kerry Martin
e Pulsating Heart and Its Divine Sense Ener-
gies: Body and Touch in Abhinavagupta’s Trika
Śaivism. Numen :–.
Strathern, Marilyn
e Gender of the Gi: Problems with Women
and Problems with Society in Melanesia. Uni-
versity of California Press, Berkeley.
Stross, Brian
Seven Ingredients in Mesoamerican Ensoul-
ment: Dedication and Termination in Tene-
japa. In e Sowing and the Dawning: Termi-
nation, Dedication, and Transformation in the
Archaeological Record of Mesoamerica, edited
by Shirley Boteler Mock, pp. –. University
of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Stuart, David
Kings of Stone: A Consideration of Stelae in
Ancient Maya Ritual and Representation. Res:
Anthropology and Aesthetics –:–.
Ideology and Classic Maya Kingship. In A Cat-
alyst for Ideas: Anthropological Archaeology
and the Legacy of Douglas Schwartz, edited by
Vernon L. Scarborough, pp. –. School
of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New
Mexico.
Stuart, David, and Stephen Houston
Classic Maya Place Names. Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection, Washing-
ton,D.C.
Taube, Karl A.
e Maya Maize God: A Reappraisal. In Fih
Buchanan Skousen text 2.indd 128 2015-03-30 8:58 AM
Maya Religion and Gods
Palenque RoundTable, 1983, edited by Virginia
M. Fields, pp. –. Pre- Columbian Art Re-
search Institute, San Francisco.
Itzam Cab Ain: Caimans, Cosmology, and
Calendrics in Postclassic Yucatán. www.meso
web.com/bearc/cmr/RRAMW.pdf, accessed
December , .
a e Major Gods of Ancient Yucatan. Studies in
Pre- Columbian Art and Archaeology No. .
Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Col-
lection, Washington, D.C.
b e Iconography of Mirrors at Teotihuacan.
In Art, Ideology, and the City of Teotihuacan,
edited by Janet C. Berlo, pp. –. Dumbar-
ton Oaks Research Library and Collection,
Washington, D.C.
Tedlock, Barbara
Time and the Highland Maya. University of
New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Tedlock, Dennis (translator)
Popol Vuh: e Denitive Edition of the Mayan
Book of the Dawn of Life and the Glories of Gods
and Kings. Simon and Schuster, New York.
ompson, J. Eric S.
Excavations at San Jose, British Honduras. Pub-
lication No. . Carnegie Institution of Wash-
ington, Washington, D.C.
Maya History and Religion. University of Okla-
homa Press, Norman.
Vail, Gabrielle
Pre- Hispanic Maya Religion: Conceptions of
Divinity in the Postclassic Maya Codices. An-
cient Mesoamerica :–.
Vogt, Evon Z.
Zinacanteco “Souls.” Man :–.
Zinacantan: A Maya Community in the High-
lands of Chiapas. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Tortillas for the Gods: A Symbolic Analysis of
Zinacanteco Rituals. University of Oklahoma
Press, Norman.
Zinacanteco Dedication and Termination
Rituals. In e Sowing and the Dawning: Ter-
mination, Dedication, and Transformation in
the Archaeological Record of Mesoamerica,
edited by Shirley Boteler Mock, pp. –.
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Watanabe, John
Maya Saints and Souls in a Changing World.
University of Texas Press, Austin.
Wright, Mark Alan
A Study of Classic Maya Rulership. Unpub-
lished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of An-
thropology, University Of California, Riverside.
Buchanan Skousen text 2.indd 129 2015-03-30 8:58 AM
