BATS AND THE CAMAZOTZ: CORRECTING A CENTURY OF

MISTAKEN IDENTITY

James E. Brady and Jeremy D. Coltman

At the end of the nineteenth century, Eduard Seler identified the bats depicted on a ceramic vessel excavated by Erwin
Dieseldorff at the site of Chama, Guatemala, as the camazotz, or death bat, from the K’iche’ Maya myth, the Popol Vuh.
The attribution was never critically reviewed. Nevertheless, it became so deeply entrenched that virtually every image of a
Maya bat is identified as a camazotz. We have located no ancient depictions of the Hero Twins in the chamber of the
camazotz, which calls into question the salience of this scene for the ancient Maya. In iconography and ethnohistory,
multiple figures with bat-like characteristics exist, both bats and anthropomorphic bat-men. Clearly, the situation is complex.
We argue that bats appear principally in four roles. The first is as an emblematic symbol representing some group. The bat
played a second role as a messenger, often paired on vessels with a bird. A third category relates to pollination, vegetation,
and fertility, and here the bat may be paired with the hummingbird. The last and largest category is wahy beings, which
most epigraphers now think were bestial forms of personified diseases. Included here are the many vessels depicting the
fire-breathing bat, including Dieseldorff ’s Chama vessel. We argue that the identification with the camazotz should be
dropped altogether and that the associations proposed by Seler need to be rethought.

A finales del siglo diecinueve, Eduard Seler identificó a los murciélagos en la vasija de Chama de Dieseldorff como el camazotz
del Popol Vuh. Esta atribución nunca fue críticamente revisada, sin embargo, llegó a arraigarse tan profundamente que vir-
tualmente cada imagen de un murciélago Maya es identificada como un camazotz. No hemos encontrado ninguna representación
de los héroes gemelos en la cámara del camazotz, lo que pone en duda la relevancia de esta escena de los antiguos Mayas.
En la iconografía y la etnohistoria, existen múltiples figuras con características de murciélago, tanto murciélagos como mur-
ciélago/hombres antropomórficos. Claramente, la situación es compleja. Argumentamos que los murciélagos aparecen prin-
cipalmente en cuatro roles. El primero es como símbolo emblemático que representa algún grupo. El murciélago jugó un
segundo papel como mensajero, a menudo emparejado en las vasijas con un pájaro. Una tercera categoría se refiere a la poli-
nización, la vegetación y la fertilidad donde el murciélago puede estar emparejado con el colibrí. Por último, la más grande
de las categorías es como seres wahy. Esto incluye la gran cantidad de vasijas que representan al murciélago que respira
fuego, así como la vasija de Chama de Dieseldorff. Nosotros argumentamos que la identificación con el camazotz debería
abandonarse por completo y las asociaciones propuestas por Seler necesitan ser repensadas.

Next they were put inside Bat House, which
had only bats inside. It was a house of death
bats. These were great beasts with snouts like
blades that they used as murderous weapons.
When they arrived there, they were to be fin-
ished off. They had to crawl inside their blow-
guns to sleep so that they would not be eaten
there in this house.
Nevertheless, it was because of a single
death bat that they gave themselves up in
defeat. It came swooping down. But this was
merely a way to manifest themselves when it
occurred.
Thus they pleaded for wisdom all that night
as the bats made a din with their flapping
wings.
“Keeleetz! Keeleetz!” they said all night
long.
At length things quieted a little, and the
bats became motionless.
Thus one of the boys crawled to the end of
his blowgun. Xbalanque said, “Hunahpu, do

James E. Brady 䡲 Department of Anthropology, California State University, Los Angeles, CA 90032
(jbrady@calstatela.edu)
Jeremy D. Coltman 䡲 Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521

Latin American Antiquity 27(2), 2016, pp. 227–237

Copyright © 2016 by the Society for American Archaeology
DOI: 10.7183/1045-6635.27.2.227

227
228 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Figure 1. Image of the bat on Diesseldorff’s Chama vessel that Seler originally identified as a camazotz (Seler 1904).
you see the dawn yet?”
“I will go and see for certain if [it] has hap-
pened,” he replied.
Hunahpu truly wanted to look out of the
mouth of his blowgun to see the dawn. But
T
when he did so, his head was cut off by the
death bat, leaving the greater part of his body
behind.
Popol Vuh (Christenson 2007:172)
here is a long history of using the Popol
Vuh, a mytho-historical origin narrative of
the Postclassic K’iche’ Maya kingdom, as
a guide for interpreting Mesoamerican iconogra-
phy. At the turn of the twentieth century, Eduard
Seler (1904) identified the bat represented on a
Late Classic ceramic vessel excavated by Erwin
Dieseldorff (1904) at Chama, Alta Verapaz,
Guatemala, in the Q’eqchi’ Maya area, as the ca-
mazotz or “death bat” deity from the Popol Vuh
(Figure 1). Recinos et al. (1950) used a drawing
of the bat from the Dieseldorff vase to illustrate
their translation of the Popol Vuh, further
strengthening the association between the archae-
ological images and the K’ichean myth. The
quoted passage provides little support for making
such an identification. Nevertheless, it has be-
come so widely accepted that virtually every
[Vol. 27, No. 2, 2016
Maya image of a bat is identified as a camazotz
(Coe 1982:24; Fash and Fash 1994; Reents-Budet
1994:237, 278).
As we have worked on the role of the bat in
Classic Maya ideology, we have become increas-
ingly uneasy with the identification of all bats as
representing a camazotz. Another bat-like figure
is also mentioned in the Popol Vuh. The messen-
ger from Xibalba is described as having bat-like
wings but is not called a camazotz (Recinos et
al. 1950:177–178). Winged figures are depicted
in Mesoamerican art, such as on the Olmec jade
figure in the Brooklyn Museum (Benson and de
la Fuente 1996:246). On a polychrome bowl in
the Museo Popol Vuh in Guatemala, a figure
holds a cape spread out as if it were bat wings
(Reents-Budet 1994:355). (This figure is dis-
cussed in greater detail in our section on wahy
beings.) Our point here is simple: multiple figures
with bat-like characteristics exist in Maya iconog-
raphy and ethnohistorical documents. They are
both bats and anthropomorphic bat-men. Clearly
the situation is complex, but conflating them un-
der a single heading, camazotz, simply obscures
that complexity. Furthermore, we ask how the
identification of bat images as camazotz advances
our understanding in cases where they are not
related to the Popol Vuh.
 We had hoped to disentangle the various rep-
Brady and Coltman] BATS AND THE CAMAZOTZ
resentations by examining images of bats from
scenes that were clearly drawn from the story in
the Popol Vuh. To our surprise, we were unable
to find a single image from Maya ceramics that
depicts the Hero Twins in the chamber of the ca-
mazotz.1 This suggests that the scene had low
salience for the Classic Maya, a distinct possibil-
ity in that the incident in the story is so short. Al-
ternatively, the scene in the Popol Vuh may have
developed after the Classic period and, therefore,
was not part of the Classic myth. Regardless of
the reason, the lack of images depicting this scene
makes us question why any, let alone all, images
of bats in Maya iconography are interpreted as
camazotz.
The lack of depictions of the Hero Twins in
the chamber of the camazotz also underscores
the fact there has been no critical study of bat
iconography. The Chama vessel described by
Seler (1904) and Dieseldorff (1904) and other
vessels similar to it bear central figures with bat
heads and human bodies and so are clearly an-
thropomorphic bat-men. These individuals are
frequently shown with flames emanating from
their mouths. If the camazotz could spit fire, one
would expect this distinctive feature to be men-
tioned in the Popol Vuh. The fact that it is not
mentioned weakens the interpretation of the figure
as a camazotz.
The issue can now be put to rest because recent
epigraphic decipherments have identified this bat
figure. Grube and Nahm (1994:701) read the text
accompanying the bat figure on K10802 as
K’ak’:sotz’, literally “fire bat.” The reading im-
plies exactly that the red scroll is actually fire.
The image on the vessel depicts a bat that, ac-
cording to Grube and Nahm (1994:701), has
“scrolls of red blood or flames emerge from the
opened mouth.” In a slightly amended translation
of the text on K1080, Stuart (2005:162) deciphers
the phrase as K’ahk’ Uti’ sutz’, meaning “fire is
the bat’s mouth” or “fire is the bat’s speech.” A
wide array of these bats appears on other Late
Classic Maya vessels, including the Dieseldorff
vase (Romero 2013:Figures 41a–d, 46). What we
are looking at is not a camazotz, but a bat whose
main attribute is elaborate scrolls of fire exiting
the mouth.
Blood, Decapitation, and Sacrifice:
229
A Critique of Seler’s Interpretations
Not only do we feel that Seler erred when he
identified the figures on Dieseldorff’s Chama
vessel as the camazotz, but he compounded the
error by equating these with bat deities depicted
in Late Postclassic Central Mexican codices. In
the Codex Borgia, the bat deity is depicted as
licking the blood from the gaping wound in the
chest of a person (Figure 2a; Seler 1904:235–
236). In this depiction, the deity wears a trophy
head on his own chest. The Codex Vaticanus B
shows an anthropomorphic bat cutting off the
head of an individual with one hand and holding
a second severed human head in its other hand
(Figure 2b; Seler 1904:236–237). In the Codex
Fejérváry-Mayer, an anthropomorphic bat is de-
picted with a heart in one hand and a decapitated
head in the other (Figure 2c). The Codex Porfirio
Díaz (Pl. 1c) shows an anthropomorphic bat hold-
ing a heart in one hand and a human head in the
other (Thompson 1966:181). Focusing on the de-
capitation of Junahpu, Seler saw a clear parallel
in the Central Mexican bat deities. We stress the
fact that Seler’s interpretation was driven by the
iconography of Postclassic Central Mexican
codices. Seler rarely touches on Classic Maya
iconography, and the images on the Dieseldorff
vase are not even remotely similar to those in the
Mexican codices.
In Classic Maya iconography of the Southern
Lowlands, the themes of blood, decapitation, and
sacrifice are not as explicitly depicted, and so we
question whether they are the primary associa-
tions. As far as we are aware, no image from the
Classic period shows a bat as a decapitator. Con-
versely, we know of no Classic decapitation nar-
rative that has a parallel in the Popol Vuh. A sam-
ple of Late Classic Maya vase scenes (K1256,
K3924, K8936) shows a multitude of other
strange supernatural beings such as jaguars and
God A holding severed heads, yet the bat is curi-
ously absent from such contexts.
Although Classic Maya bat depictions differ
substantially from those of Late Postclassic Cen-
tral Mexico, Seler took the crossbones and dis-
embodied eyeballs on the wings of bats and the
“death collar” of eyeballs around their neck as
evidence that Classic Maya bats had the same
a associations with blood, decapitation, and sacri-
230 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
b around the eyeball indicates darkness and may
c socially important than implied by iconographic
Figure 2. Representations of the bat god from Late
Posclassic Central Mexico (Seler 1904): (a) the bat deity
depicted licking the blood from the chest wound in a sac-
rificial victim (Codex Borgia, p. 49); (b) an anthropomor-
phic bat deity is cutting off the head of one individual and
holding a severed human head in the other hand (Codex
Vaticanus B, p. 24); (c) the anthropomorphic bat deity is
depicted with a heart in one hand and a decapitated head
in the other (Codex Fejérváry-Mayer, p. 41).
[Vol. 27, No. 2, 2016
fice as Postclassic Central Mexican bat deities.
In part, our objection stems from the fact that we
question rather than simply accept that the cross-
bones and disembodied eyeballs are related to
sacrifice. Stuart (Vogt and Stuart 2005:157) sug-
gests that the bones and eyes against a dark back-
ground may simply refer to subterranean space.
The design on the wing of a bat, therefore, would
simply designate it as a “cave bat” (Figure 3).
The disembodied eyeball also appears with the
impinged bone glyph on a half-shaded back-
ground and so may, as Stuart suggests, relate to
the underground space. The cross-hatching
be associated with the fact that this is a space
where people cannot see. It is possible that eyes
appearing on bat wings, therefore, have more to
do with the actual function of sight. One of the
outstanding characteristics of bats is their appar-
ent ability to “see” in complete darkness.
Bats in Ethnohistory and the Emblematic
Use of Bats in Iconography
The images of bats in Maya ethnohistorical
sources are more varied, more positive, and more
depictions. Bats were closely associated with a
number of groups of different size in the Maya
Highlands, including the Tzotzil linguistic group.
Ximenez reports that the bat was the patron of
Zinacantan, the deity of that town took the form
of a bat, and its inhabitants called themselves
“bat men” (Calnek 1988:47). The book of Chilam
Balam of Tizimin, from the northern Maya Low-
lands, mentions an important town named Zotz’il,
or “bats” (Edmonson 1982:68).
The royal line (perhaps a lineage [Orellana
1981:159]) of the Kaqchikel was called zotzilá-
ha, the House of the Bat (Recinos et al.
1950:179). Seler (1904:234) suggests that this
house was a cave. This possibility is strengthened
by the documented association of lineages and
clans in the Maya area with particular caves (Gui-
teras Holmes 1947:1). The king of the Kaqchikel
was called Ahpop-Zotzil, lord bat or chief of the
zotzils (Recinos and Goetz 1953:47), and their
patron god, not surprisingly, took the form of a
bat (Recinos et al. 1950:180). Reents-Budet

Brady and Coltman] BATS AND THE CAMAZOTZ
Figure 3. A “Fire-Mouthed” cave bat (note crossbones on
wings) (Vogt and Stuart 2005:Figure 7.6).
(1994:238) suggests that a polychrome vessel
from Alta Verapaz in the Los Angeles County
Museum of Art containing rows and columns of
painted bat heads “may be emblematic of a par-
ticular social group or ruling family, similar to
the heraldic emblems of European royal lin-
eages.” If Reents-Budet is correct, this may sig-
nify that kin groups associated with bats were
somewhat widespread in Alta Verapaz because a
number of vessels with similar decoration have
been documented.3 Neither the identification of
groups with the bat nor the "emblematic" use of
the bat motif in iconography appears to have any
connection with the camazotz.
The dangers of attempting to force an identi-
fication with the camazotz of the Popol Vuh is
nowhere better illustrated than in Fash and Fash’s
(1994) interpretation of Structure 20 at Copan.
Based on the multiple bat sculptures adorning
the now-destroyed structure, they conclude that
the ancient Copanecos had built the “House of
Bats” from the Popol Vuh and entertain the idea
that additional structures at the site might have
represented the other “torture houses” mentioned
in the story (Fash and Fash 1994:66). Nonethe-
less, they recognize Structure 20 as a sacred
mountain of the site. Consequently, we suspect
that it was designed to deliver an important po-
litical message. Fash and Fash do not state how
the construction of “torture houses” would have
served to legitimize royal power.
Bats as Servants or Messengers
231
A second role played by bats is that of servants
or messengers. The Memorial de Sololá (Recinos
1980:42) relates that a bat guards the doors of
Tulan. As mentioned earlier, the messenger from
Xibalba in the Popol Vuh is described as having
bat-like wings (Recinos et al. 1950:177–178).
In a myth about the creation of flowers in the
Codex Magliabechiano, a bat produced from
Quetzalcoatl’s semen acts as a messenger or ser-
vant, biting off a piece of Xochiquetzal’s genitals
and bringing it to the god (Boone 1983:206–207).
Elizabeth Hill Boone (2007:204) notes that in the
Codex Borgia a similar—but not identical—scene
is depicted. Here, a bat descends towards Xochi-
quetzal with a torrent of blood and flowers. Four
hummingbirds appear to be feeding on the bat,
as if the bat itself represented an aromatic flower.
Another hummingbird, this time in the guise of
Quetzalcoatl, stands on a flowering tree that
grows from Xochiquetzal’s heart, which is placed
within a solar sign. Nicholson (2006:374) notes
that on page 30 of the Codex Borbonicus, a bat
dancer participates in the veintena of Ochpaniztli
dedicated to Teteoinnan, who is conceptually re-
lated to Xochiquetzal. The presence of the bat
impersonator may relate to the myth recorded in
the Magliabachiano and Borgia.
Houston et al. (2006:232) note that the “cross-
cultural linkage of birds or winged deities with
messengers does not require much of a stretch.
Birds, much like messengers, move with swift
resolve. They dart through the air like speech
scrolls but communicate beyond the normal pro-
jection of human lungs.” This is clearly true of
bats. The Huichol believe that wind, personified
by a hummingbird, is a favorite messenger of the
gods (Zingg 1938:245). Blaffer (1972:131) notes
that, for Zinacantecos, a nocturnal hummingbird
acts as the messenger of the ancestors and is often
confused with the bat. We argue below that for
the Maya, bats were, in fact, the nocturnal coun-
terparts of hummingbirds. Thus, given the close
relationship between bats and hummingbirds
among the Classic Maya (Barthel 1968:86; Blaf-
fer 1972:130–131), bats also may have been
viewed as messengers.
Ethnographic sources relate bats to the Earth,4
and so the bat was likely a servant or aspect of
a earth deities. A Mixe informant jokingly referred
232 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
b 1991:Figure 32; K3639).
c nango, Guatemala, go to the cave of Yalan Na to
Figure 4. The “earth net” design in Mesoamerican art: (a)
the glyph ahk “turtle” in Classic Maya script (Zender
2005:Figure 1b); (b) The leaves of the water lily from a
Late Classic Maya vase bear the earth net design (K5961)
(Zender 2005: Fig. 3a). (c) detail of the mountain design on
the toponym for Tilantongo (Codex Sánchez Solís, p. 15;
Smith 1973: Figure 27e).
[Vol. 27, No. 2, 2016
to bats as “children of the earth” (los hijos del
mundo) but refused to explain the nature of the
joke (Miller and Villa 1956:254). Orellana
(1981:160) also associated the bat with the Earth.
The link between bats and Earth is explicit in
bat iconography. In Classic Maya art, bat wings,
like water lilies and turtle shells, are often ren-
dered with a cross-net patterning (Figure 4). This
motif, referred to as the “earth net,” is one of the
most widely employed symbols of Earth in an-
cient Maya art (Taube 2010:149). Thus, bat wings
are depicted with a specific earth motif, indicating
an intimate relationship with Earth (Miller
The connection with caves and Earth is im-
portant in another respect in that these are widely
seen as being the repositories of revelations and
esoteric knowledge. Doris Heyden (1975:142) has
proposed that the cave beneath the Pyramid of
the Sun at Teotihuacan may have been used by
oracles. Shankari Patel (2005:102–104) has argued
that a cenote-temple at San Gervasio, on Cozumel
Island, held the oracle of the goddess Ixchel. The
relationship between caves and auguries is still
seen today in ethnographic sources. Each year,
the alcalde rezadores at Santa Eulalia, Huehuete-
receive the great prophecy during the uayeb (La
Farge 1947:128). A similar ritual, in which native
officials entered the Cave of the Ancestors on
May 3, the Day of the Cross, and spoke to the an-
cestors, is recorded by June Nash (1970:22–23).
The role of the bat as messenger and its asso-
ciation with Earth are used as specific references
to scribes. Andrea Stone (2005) argues that scribes
are associated with caves. She interprets a scene
on Vase No. 16 from Lords of the Underworld
(Coe 1978) as depicting a scribe on a pilgrimage
visit to a cave receiving the paint pot emblematic
of scribal office from God N (Stone 2005:136–
139). Although Houston (2001:337) has a slightly
different interpretation of the scene, both agree
that the scene legitimizes scribal status through
supernatural investiture.
Stone (2005:140) also analyzes a scene from
the Madrid Codex in which Chahk is portrayed as
a scribe painting in a cenote. A bird, perched on
the edge of the cenote, is interpreted as a messenger
providing revelations and esoteric knowledge. The
bird is interesting in light of Houston et al.’s
Brady and Coltman] BATS AND THE CAMAZOTZ
(2006:232) comment about birds as messengers
and also because a similar bird is paired with a bat
on K1080 and K2716, suggesting that the animals
are acting as messengers. Romero (2013:142) ex-
plicitly recognizes the role of the bat as a messen-
ger from the gods to scribes. The relationship be-
tween a scribe and a bat is represented in several
scenes in Classic Maya iconography. One poly-
chrome vessel (K3639) depicts an anthropomor-
phic bat addressing an artist seated on a throne
while carving a mask. The wings of this bat recall
the cape of Ahkan on the Museo Popol Vuh bowl
(this image is discussed further in the section on
wahy beings). Another scene on a polychrome ves-
sel (K4550) depicts an anthropomorphic bat, this
time without a cape, conferring with a scribal artist
who holds a paint pot and brush. On the opposite
side of the vessel, a hummingbird shares a flower
and communicates with another individual. The
pairing illustrates the relationship we suggest be-
tween birds and bats as messengers. The pairing
of the bat with a hummingbird is discussed in
greater depth in the next section.
Bats and Fertility
The associations of bats with Earth and fertility
are consistent with others that link bats with veg-
etation. Blaffer (1972:64) mentions a passage in
the book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel—”Then
descended the four mighty supernatural jars, this
was the honey of the flowers”—and notes parallel
passages in the books of Chilam Balam of Tizimin
and Mani: “Then descended two mighty demon
bats who sucked the honey of the flowers.” These
parallel expressions appear to associate bats with
nectar. Another passage in the Chilam Balam of
Tizimin describes Chac Vayab as the bat who
also sucks honey from flowers (Blaffer 1972:65).
In another place, Blaffer (1972), following
Laughlin, equates nectar with blood to return to
the traditional association of bats with blood and
sacrifice. Rather than creating a metaphor to tread
that well-worn path, we prefer to focus on the
clear, obvious, and explicit association with nec-
tar, pollination, and fertility. Blaffer (1972:130–
131) notes the close relationship between bats
and hummingbirds, suggesting that the relation-
ship with fertility was the message intended by
the Maya. In fact, one Classic Maya vase (K1254)
233
depicts a hummingbird attached to the head of a
bat god as if it were sucking nectar. In nature,
both creatures can be seen at dusk sucking nectar
from the same night-flowering plant species. We
suspect that this may have led to the bat being
seen as the nocturnal counterpart of the hum-
mingbird. Among the tree species that are polli-
nated by bats is the cosmologically important
ceiba tree (Blaffer 1972:65).
The discussion of bats in association with
flowers, nectar, and hummingbirds has profound
implications for the analysis of the meaning of
bats in precolumbian Maya society because many
scholars argue that the species portrayed is the
vampire bat (Benson 1988:104; Dieseldorff 1904;
Muñoz 2006:18; Thompson 1962:348, 1966:177,
180).5 If these are not vampire bats, then the log-
ical association with blood evaporates and un-
dercuts the association with decapitation and sac-
rifice. We note that vampire bats today tend to
feed on livestock, which were not present in pre-
columbian times. It is likely that vampire bats
were fewer in number and therefore probably
played a smaller role in ancient society.
We also note that bats have a strong sexual
connotation that suggests a relationship with fer-
tility (Benson 1988:119; Romero 2013:118). The
bat sculptures from Copan show the creatures
with prominently displayed and erect penises
(Fash and Fash 1994:63; Romero 2013:119, fig-
ure 47). Some bats on Maya polychrome vessels
are also shown with male genitalia (Dieseldorff
1904:Plate XLIX; K1080; K1901; K3007;
K6996). Brady (1988) has pointed out that a char-
acteristic of cave-dwelling supernatural beings is
their highly sexual nature. Blaffer (1972:68–73)
has noted that there are a number of connections
between bats and the h?ik’al, whose most note-
worthy feature is his six-foot-long penis and hy-
per-fertility. This relationship appears to be the
basis of the Zinacanteco expression that a girl
who loses her virginity has been “ruined by a
bat” (Blaffer 1972:120).
Bats as Wahy Beings
Although we have recognized the logical associ-
ation of the bat with agricultural fertility, we are
by no means at odds with interpretations of their
more malevolent aspects. Earlier in this study we
234 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
suggested that the principal bat character for the
Late Classic Maya was not a camazotz, but a bat
that emits fire from its mouth (Grube and Nahm
1994). Although we have rejected the camazotz
label for the bat during the Classic period, we
recognize that the bat constituted part of the broad
category of the poorly understood wahy beings
that frequently appear on Late Classic Maya ves-
sels (Houston and Stuart 1989).
In one example, a wahy bat holds a plate of
severed hands, feet, and other body parts consti-
tuting the probable sustenance of the broader cat-
egory of Maya wahy beings (K1080). Holding
plates of human offal is not a task reserved just
for bats. Other wahy beings shown holding similar
plates containing any combination of human
hands, eyeballs, and femurs include the toad,
monkey, canine, jaguar, rodent, and turkey (see
K1181, K1231, K1376, K1259, K4116, K1380,
K1442, K2010, K3242, and K8733). If the bat
were the camazotz of the Classic period, one
would certainly expect to find a more isolated
role for him, particularly one that expressed the
act of decapitation.
As far as we are aware, no Classic-period text
mentions the bat as decapitator or equates it with
any narrative that parallels the Popol Vuh. The
closest relationship we have been able to find be-
tween bats and decapitation is with the wahy be-
ing known as Ahkan, mentioned earlier in regard
to his image on the Museo Popol Vuh bowl,
where he is depicted spreading his cape with the
crossbones and disembodied eyeballs, as if it
were bat wings (Reents-Budet 1994:355). In the
next image on the same vessel, Ahkan appears,
without his cape, in the act of self-decapitation
(Grube 2004; Romero 2013:59; Stone and Zender
2011). Any attempt to use these scenes to link
bats with decapitation would be tenuous indeed.
At best, both Ahkan and bats were part of the
same general category of wahy beings that were
identified with a similar symbol set that included
crossbones, eyeballs, and on occasion, skeletal
mandibles.6 Rather than death and sacrifice, this
complex, in our opinion, is more indicative of
themes related to caves, sorcery, darkness, and
the general category of Maya wahy beings.
Although decapitation does certainly occur in
Classic Maya art, it is at the hands of other wahy
beings rather than the bat. The skeletal God A is
[Vol. 27, No. 2, 2016
often shown with a decapitated human head in
hand (K1256, K1490, K8803, K8936, and
K3924). A probable manifestation of this deity
known as “Turtle Foot Death” appears on the so-
called Frieze of the Dream Lords at Toniná, with
a decapitated head in hand (Martin and Grube
2000:185). Various depictions of Classic-period
skull racks exist in art, including the Frieze of the
Dream Lords (K3924; K3038; Houston et al.
2006:Figure 6.18b). An actual skull rack more
than likely existed at Toniná with the back of the
rack depicting the dreaded wahy in modeled stucco
(Houston et al. 2006:221). The bat is absent from
these examples. Even if one were to exist, it would
only further demonstrate that the bat was part of
a much broader complex of maleficent creatures.
Originally considered to be companion spirits
or “co-essences,” these strange bestial creatures
are now thought to be more representative of sor-
cery and personified illnesses (Houston et al.
2006; Stuart 2005). Some ethnographic accounts
regarding the bat seem to confirm this. In Yucatan,
illness may be caused by bats (Ankli et al.
1999:148). Thompson (1962:348) notes that the
bat “is regarded as a sorcerer and is associated
with sorcery” in the Maya area. In San Miguel
Acatán, Huehuetenango, Guatemala, this is as-
cribed to the bat’s ability to suck the blood of
victims without being felt (Siegel 1941:71). The
association appears to be widespread (Alcorn
1984:181; Villa 1966:3) and ancient (Coe and
Whittaker 1982:64) in Mesoamerica.
Perhaps growing out of this, most references
to bats in ethnographic sources have a generally
negative connotation, connecting bats with death,
destruction, and evil. Among the K’iche’ of
Nahualá, a bat entering one’s house foreshadows
misfortune (Ishcol et al. 1970:49). The Tzotzil
consider bats to be “scavenger robbers associated
with blood” (Blaffer 1972:68). They are consid-
ered abnormal because they are nocturnal, live
in caves, sleep upside down, and consume blood
(Blaffer 1972:69). The Kanjobal fear bats and
perform ceremonies so that livestock that has
been bitten will not die (Grollig 1959:185–185).
Among the Huastec, bats flying from a cave when
a curer and patient approach may be taken as an
omen that the patient is guilty of some transgres-
sion (Alcorn 1984:237).
 Discussion and Conclusion
Brady and Coltman] BATS AND THE CAMAZOTZ
This paper has sought to radically shift the analy-
sis of Maya bat iconography away from identi-
fying every bat as a camazotz (Coe 1982:24; Fash
and Fash 1994; Reents-Budet 1994:237, 278). It
has been noted that we have not found any scenes
on Classic Maya pottery that show the Hero
Twins in the chamber of the camazotz. This sug-
gests that the incident in the story was not of
great importance to the ancient Maya. If a depic-
tion of a bat is not related to the incident in the
Popol Vuh, then its attribution as a camazotz is
wrong and obscures our understanding of the
message of the ancient image. Furthermore, the
near universality of identifying bats with the ca-
mazotz has inhibited critical study of the role of
bats in Maya art.
We also have criticized the uncritical adher-
ence of the field to Seler’s association of bats
with blood, sacrifice, and decapitation. This was
based on Seler’s overreliance on a limited number
of depictions from Late Postclassic Central Mex-
ican codices for the interpretation of bats in all
parts of Mesoamerica and for all time periods.
We suspect that the bat may have been extensively
reworked in Late Postclassic Central Mexico to
play a role in the state cult of warfare. We have
cited recent work that calls into question the in-
terpretation of the crossbones and disembodied
eyeballs shown on bat wings as representing sac-
rifice and decapitation. Our intent here is to re-
open a discussion on bat iconography that has
been largely closed for over a century.
In place of the former identification of bats as
camazotz, with an interpretative emphasis on
blood, sacrifice, and decapitation, our own exam-
ination of Classic-period images suggests the need
for a more complex and nuanced analysis that rec-
ognizes the complexity of bat iconography. We
have argued that bats appear principally in four
roles. The first is as an emblematic symbol repre-
senting some group. There is a good deal of eth-
nohistoric evidence of a strong identification of
groups with the bat. This is seen iconographically
on vases from Alta Verapaz with rows and columns
of bat heads and in the bat sculpture of Copan.
The second role played by the bat is as a messen-
ger, often paired on vessels with a bird. We have
noted that the bat has a special relationship with
scribes in this context. A third category relates to
235
pollination, vegetation, and fertility, where the bat
may be paired with the hummingbird. This cate-
gory flies in the face of the widely accepted idea
that the vampire bat served as the model for all
depictions. Thus, the argument for an association
with blood, decapitation, and sacrifice must be re-
assessed. The last and largest category is as a wahy
being. Included here are the many vessels depicting
the fire-breathing bat, including Dieseldorff’s
Chama vessel. This last type of bat depiction is
related to caves, sorcery, darkness, and the general
category of Maya wahy beings.
To conclude, we argue that the identification
of bat images as representing camazotz is simply
mistaken unless the scene can be shown to relate
to the story in the Popol Vuh. Because of the
early date of publication, the relative dearth of
images available, and the author’s well-deserved
eminence in the field, Seler’s interpretation was
widely accepted and became firmly entrenched.
Interestingly, Seler wrote at a time when there
was little comprehension of the significance of
caves in Maya archaeology, and his own work at
Quen Santo reflects this lack of understanding
(Brady et al. 2009). The emergence of cave ar-
chaeology over the last several decades has al-
tered archaeological appreciation of the impor-
tance of the subterranean world for the ancient
Maya. We call for a reinterpretation of bats that
brings them in line with current thinking.
Acknowledgments. The senior author would like to offer par-
ticular thanks to Betty Benson for her years of support and
encouragement in producing this paper. Our discussion of
bats dates back to a chance meeting in Longarone Restaurant
in Zacapa, Guatemala, in 1988. The paper has evolved over
the years from comments by Oswaldo Chinchilla, Michael
Coe, Kitty Emery, Stephen Houston, and Roberto Romero
Sandoval. We thank three anonymous reviewers who added
additional constructive criticism. We stress, however, that our
views are not necessarily shared by any of these individuals.
Data Availability Statement. All data presented in this article
are available in the sources listed in the references.
References Cited
Alcorn, Janis B.
1984 Huastec Mayan Ethnobotony. University of Texas
Press, Austin.
Ankli, Anita, Otto Sticher, and Michael Heinrich
1999 Medical Ethnobotany of the Yucatec Maya: Healers’
236 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Consensus as a Quantitative Criterion. Economic Botany
53:144–160.
Barthel, Thomas S.
1968 Demonio Murciélago Mesoamérica. In Traducciones
Mesoanericanistas, Tomo II. Socieded Mexicana de
Antropología, Nexico.
Benson, Elizabeth P.
1988 The Maya and the Bat. Latin American Indian Liter-
atures Journal 4:99–124.
Benson, Elizabeth P., and Beatriz de la Fuente
1996 Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico. National Gallery of
Art, Washington, D.C.
Blaffer, Sarah C.
1972 The Black-Man of Zinacantan: A Central American
Legend. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Boone, Elizabeth Hill
1983 The Codex Magliabechiano and the Lost Prototype
of the Magliabechiano Group. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
2007 Cycles of Time and Meaning in the Mexican Books
of Fate. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Brady, James E.
1988 The Sexual Connotation of Caves in Mesoamerican
Ideology. Mexicon 10:51–55.
Brady, James E., and Keith M. Prufer
2005 Maya Cave Archaeology: A New Look at Religion
and Cosmology. In Stone Houses and Earth Lords: Maya
Religion in the Cave Context, edited by Keith M. Prufer
and James E. Brady, pp. 365–379. University Press of
Colorado, Boulder.
Brady, James E., Allan Cobb, Linda Palit, Donald Arburn,
Sergio Garza, Christian Christiansen, Arturo Perez, Ann
M. Scott, and Arnulfo Delgado
2009 Quen Santo Revisited: Updating Eduard Seler’s 19th
Century Cave Studies. In Exploring Highland Maya
Ritual Cave Use: Archaeology & Ethnography in Hue-
huetenango, Guatemala, edited by James E. Brady, pp.
9–25. Association for Mexican Cave Studies, Austin.
Calnek, Edward E.
1988 Highland Chiapas before the Spanish Conquest.
Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation,
No. 55. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
Christenson, Allen J.
2007 Popol Vuh: Sacred Book of the Maya. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Coe, Michael D.
1978 Lords of the Underworld: Masterpieces of Classic
Maya Ceramics. Princeton University Press, Princeton,
New Jersey.
1982 Old Gods and Young Heroes: The Perlman Collection
of Maya Ceramics. American Friends of the Israel
Museum, New York.
Coe, Michael D., and Gordon Whittaker
1982 Aztec Sorcerers in Seventeenth Century Mexico: The
Treatise on Superstitions of Hernando Ruiz de Alarcón.
Institute for Mesoamerican Studies Publication 7. State
University of New York at Albany, Albany.
Dieseldorff, Erwin P.
1904 A Clay Vessel with a Picture of a Vampire-Headed
Deity. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 28:665–
666. Washington, D.C.
Edmonson, Munro S.
1982 The Ancient Future of the Itza: The Book of Chilam
Balam of Tizimin. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Fash, Barbara W., and William L. Fash
1994 Copán Temple 20 and the House of Bats. In Seventh
Palenque Round Table, 1989, edited by Merle Greene
[Vol. 27, No. 2, 2016
Robertson and Virginia Field, pp. 61–68. Pre-Columbian
Art Research Institute, San Francisco.
Grollig, Frances Xavier
1959 San Miguel Acatán, Huehuetenango, Guatemala: A
Modern Maya Village. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Grube, Nikolai
2004 Akan: The God of Drinking, Disease, and Death. In
Continuity and Change: Maya Religious Practices in
Temporal Perspective, 5th European Maya Conference,
University of Bonn, December 2000, edited by Daniel
Graña-Behrens, Nikolai Grube, Christian M. Prager,
Frauke Sachse, Stefanie Teufel, and Elisabeth Wagner,
pp. 59–76. Acta Mesoamericana 14, Verlag Anton Saurwein,
Markt Schwaben.
Grube, Nikolai, and Werner Nahm
1994 A Census of Xibalba: A Complete Inventory of Way
Characters on Maya Ceramics. In The Maya Vase Book,
Vol. 4, edited by Justin Kerr, pp. 686–715. Kerr Associates,
New York.
Guiteras Holmes, C.
1947 Clanes y sistema de parentesco de Cancún (México).
Acta Americana 5:1–17.
Hays-Gilpin, Kelley, and Jane H. Hill
1999 The Flower World in Material Culture: An Iconographic
Complex in the Southwest and Mesoamerica. Journal of
Anthropological Research 55:1–37.
Heyden, Doris
1975 An Interpretation of the Cave Underneath the Pyramid
of the Sun in Teotihuacan, Mexico. American Antiquity
40:131–147.
Houston, Stephen D.
2001 Comment on The Power and Ideology of Artistic
Creation: Elite Craft Specialists in Classic Maya Society
by Takeshi Inomata. Current Anthropology 42:336–337.
Houston, Stephen D., and David Stuart
1989 The Way Glyph: Evidence for Co-Essences among
the Classic Maya. Research Reports in Ancient Maya
Writing 30, Washington, D.C.
Houston, Stephen D., David Stuart, and Karl Taube
2006 The Memory of Bones: Body, Being, and Experience
among the Classic Maya. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Ishcol, B., L. Richardo, Rosalío Saquic Calel, and Daniel
Aragón Cabrera
1970 Monografía del Municipio de Nahualá, Departamento
de Sololá. Guatemala Indígena 5(2):8–49.
La Farge, Oliver
1947 Santa Eulalia: The Religion of a Cuchumatán Indian
Town. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube
2000 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering
the Dynasties of the Ancient Maya. Thames and Hudson,
London.
Miller, Virginia E.
1991 The Frieze of the Palace of the Stuccoes, Acanceh,
Yucatan, Mexico. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Ar-
chaeology, No. 31, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Miller, Walter S., and Alfonso Villa Rojas
1956 Cuentos Mixes. Instituto Nacional Indigenista, Pub.
2, Mexico.
Muñoz Espinosa, María Teresa
2006 El culto al dios Murciélago en Mesoamérica. Arque-
ología Mexicana 14 (80): 17–23.
Nash, June
1970 In the Eyes of the Ancestors: Belief and Behavior in
a Maya Community. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Nicholson, Henry B.
Brady and Coltman] BATS AND THE CAMAZOTZ
2006 The Stones of the Death Monsters. In Arqueología e
Historia del Centro de México: Homenaje a Eduardo
Matos Moctezuma, edited by Leonardo López Lujan,
David Carrasco, and Lourdes Cue, pp. 369–388. Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico.
Orellana, Sandra L.
1981 Idols and Idolatry in Highland Guatemala. Ethnohistory
28(2):157–177.
Patel, Shankari
2005 Caves and Pilgrimage on Cozumel. In Stone Houses
and Earth Lords: Maya Religion in the Cave Context,
edited by Keith M. Prufer and James E. Brady, pp. 149–
166. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.
Recinos, Adrian
1980 Memorial de Solola: Anales de los Cakchiqueles y
título de los señores de Totonicapán. Editorial Piedra
Santa, Guatemala.
Recinos, Adrian, and Delia Goetz
1953 The Annals of the Cakchiquels and Title of the Lords
of Totonicapan. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Recinos, Adrian, Delia Goetz, and Sylvanus G. Morley
1950 Popol Vuh: The Sacred Book of the Quiche Maya.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Reents-Budet, Dorie
1994 Painting the Maya Universe: Royal Ceramics of the
Classic Period. Duke University Press, Durham.
Romero Sandoval, Roberto
2013 Zotz: El murciélago en la cultura Maya. Centro de
Estudios Mayas, Cuaderno 39, Universidad Autónoma
de México, Mexico.
Seler, Eduard
1904 The Bat God of the Maya Race. Bureau of American
Ethnology, Bulletin 28:231–241. Washington, D.C.
Siegel, Morris
1941 Religion in Western Guatemala: A Product of Accul-
turation. American Anthropologist 43:62–76.
Smith, Mary Elizabeth
1973 Picture Writing from Ancient Southern Mexico. Uni-
versity of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Stone, Andrea
2005 Scribes and Caves in the Maya Lowlands. In Stone
Houses and Earth Lords: Maya Religion in the Cave
Context, edited by Keith M. Prufer and James E. Brady,
pp. 135–147. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.
Stone, Andrea, and Marc Zender
2011 Reading Maya Art. Thames and Hudson, London.
Stuart, David
2005 The Way Beings. In Sourcebook for the 29th Maya
Hieroglyphic Forum, edited by David Stuart, pp. 160–
165. University of Texas, Austin.
Taube, Karl
2010 At Dawn’s Edge: Tulum, Santa Rita and Floral Sym-
bolism in the International Style of Late Postclassic
Mesoamerica. In Astronomers, Scribes, and Priests: In-
tellectual Interchange between the Northern Maya Lowlands
and Highland Mexico in the Late Postclassic Period,
edited by Gabrielle Vail and Christine Hernandez, pp.
145–91. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Thompson, J. Eric S.
1962 A Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs. University of Okla-
homa Press, Norman.
1966 Maya Hieroglyphs of the Bat as Metaphorgrams.
Man, New Series 1(2):176–184.
Villa Ramírez, Bernardo
1966 Los Murciélagos de México: Su Importancia en la
237
Economía y la Salubridad, su Clasificación Sistemática.
Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma
de México, Mexico.
Vogt, Evon Z., and David Stuart
2005 Some Notes on Ritual Caves among the Ancient and
Modern Maya. In In the Maw of the Earth Monster:
Mesoamerican Ritual Cave Use, edited by James E.
Brady and Keith Prufer, pp. 155–185. University of Texas
Press, Austin.
Zender, Marc
2005 Teasing the Turtle from its Shell: AHK and MAHK
in Maya Writing. The PARI Journal 6(3):1–14.
Zingg, Robert M.
1938 The Huichols. University of Denver Contributions
to Anthropology 1:1–826.
Notes
1. Reents-Budet (1994:278) claims that a scene on a poly-
chrome vessel represents a camazotz and the Hero Twins. On
close examination, however, there is no basis for identifying
the figures around the rim of the bowl as Junahpu and Xbal-
anque. This underscores the problem we are addressing. The
identification of bats with camazotz has become so entrenched
that it colors interpretation even in the face of disconfirming
evidence.
2. All numbers preceded by a “K” refer to images in the
Maya Vase Database, an archive of rollout photographs created
by Justin Kerr at www.mayavase.com. The vessels in that
database that are referred to in this article lack provenience
and are held by private collectors. In order to conform to the
ethics of the Society for American Archaeology, we are not
including images of these vases in our article. We also have
opted not to include two images of unprovenienced vessels
held by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Museo
Popol Vuh. Interested scholars can find photos of this pottery
at Kerr’s website and by request from us.
3. See K3102, 5036, 7026, Palmer Collection at the Uni-
versity of Maine (HM1184), Romero (2013:143, Figure 55)
and the Museo Popol Vuh.
4. Where Earth appears capitalized and in italics, it refers
to the indigenous belief in the earth as a sacred, animate, and
sentient being (see Brady and Prufer 2005 for a discussion of
this). The Spanish term mundo (as in the next sentence) often
refers to the same concept.
5. Because of Mesoamerican influence in the American
Southwest, it is noteworthy that bats are depicted, not with
disembodied eyeballs, but with flowers on their wings (Hays-
Gilpin and Hill 1999:Figure 2a).
6. The hieroglyph for darkness or night, Ak’ab, frequently
appears as part of the general diagnostic criteria of bats and
Ahkan. Vessels bearing this sign are also held by these deities
as well as by the preeminent rain deity, Chahk (Stone and
Zender 2011:145).
Submitted October 21, 2014; Revised June 25, 2015;
Accepted October 13, 2015.