vessels.

[210-1] Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie, p. 115.

[210-2] A Study of the Manuscript Troano, pp. 80 and 56.

[214-1] Jour. Anthrop. Inst. G. B. and I., November, 1889, p. 121.

[214-2] Ibid., 1885, p. 199.

[214-3] Polynesian Race, vol I, pp. 75-77.

[214-4] Rev. Richard Taylor, Te-Ika-a-Maui; London, 1870.

[215-1] American Anthropologist, July, 1893, pp. 263-264.

[216-1] Historia de los Mexicanos, as quoted by Brinton.

[216-2] American Anthropologist, July, 1893.

[217-1] Cong. Inter. des Americanistes, Actes de la Cuarta Reunion,
Madrid, 1881, tom. 2, pp. 173-174.

[219-1] Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics, p. 115.

[220-1] American Hero Myths, p. 222.

[220-2] Names of the Gods in Kiche Myths, p. 22.

[223-1] Fourth Ann. Rep. Bur. Eth. (1882-83), p. 238.

[223-2] Schoolcraft, "Indian Tribes," etc, vol. I, pl. 51, No. 10, p. 360.

[224-1] American Anthropologist, July, 1893, pp. 258-259.

[224-2] Dr Brinton (Primer, etc, p. 93) explains it as the symbol of a
drum. He remarks that "in a more highly conventionalized form we find them
in the Cod. Troano thus [giving plate LXIV, 51], which has been explained
by Pousse, Thomas, and others as making fire or as grinding paint. It is
obviously the _dzacatan_, what I have called the 'pottery decoration'
around the figures, showing that the body of the drum was earthenware."
Yet (p. 130 and fig. 75) Dr. Brinton explains this identical group or
paragraph as a representation of the process of making fire from the
friction of two pieces of wood. It seems to mo clear that this glyph
represents something in the picture, and not the personage, as there is a
special glyph for this. A comparison of the groups in the two divisions of
this plate (Tro. 19) and plates 5 and 6 b of the Dresden Codex shows that
the glyph refers to the work or action indicated by the pictures. That it
refers to something in or indicated by the pictures, and that no drum is
figured, will, I think, be admitted by most students of these codices.

[225-1] Dr Brinton (Primer, p. 117) errs in regarding the superfix to this
glyph as the _kin_ or sun symbol.

[227-1] Dr Brinton (Primer, p. 110) says the object represented by this
symbol is "a polished stone, shell pendant, or bead." This authority
considers the dot or eye in the upper part as a perforation by which it
was strung on a cord. If this be true, it is strange that we see them
nowhere in the codices strung on strings, though neckla