Itzamná

Sources present Itzamná as an upper god and creative figure in Maya cosmology. In various traditions he is credited with creative acts — including, in some accounts, creation of humankind — and with instituting priestly arts such as writing. Early‑colonial authors and the codices treat him as an elevated celestial resident seated on a throne and as a foundational patron of priestly and calendrical authority; colonial summaries sometimes associate him with invisible supreme figures (Hunab Ku) or sun aspects (Kinich Ahau), indicating flexible identifications in post‑contact texts.

Iconography and codical imagery show multiple, overlapping appearances rather than a single fixed form. He is attested as an aged, tonsured maize‑god aspect; as a Principal Bird Deity (an avian manifestation sometimes called Yaxcocahmut) whose wings bear signs for daylight and night and which may hold a two‑headed snake; and as the head placed within the maw of a two‑headed caiman (Dresden Codex New Year pages) linking him to an earth/caiman figure (Itzam Cab Ain). He is also depicted dressed as a high priest and seated on a celestial throne in codices and Classic monuments. Classic narrative scenes sometimes show him in ambivalent positions (e.g., grasping game, prepared for sacrifice, or in his bird aspect being shot), indicating a range of visual roles.

Documented roles and functions include creator acts, invention or patronage of priestly arts (including writing), governance over agricultural and hunting concerns, and patronage of ritual time (involvement in specific ritual months and a four‑year cycle year). Iconographic and codical evidence shows him identified with multiple domains (sky, maize, bird, caiman/earth) and with calendrical and medical ritual invocation (e.g., invoked as one of the gods of medicine). Sources record human appropriation of his name and regalia by rulers and priests — an institutional identification rather than literal shapeshifting. Modern popular sources sometimes ascribe extensive superhuman powers, but such modern claims are not corroborated by the cited primary codical and early‑colonial material.