CODICES MAYASIntroduccionThe Maya developed a sophisticated writing system many centuries before their first contact with Europeans in the sixteenth century. In what are now southeastern Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, and portions of Honduras and El Salvador, the Maya wrote using a system of hieroglyphs instead of an alphabet. They carved, sculpted, and painted texts in many places: the facades of buildings, stone monuments (stelae), wooden objects, and pottery vessels; they even tattooed their bodies with hieroglyphs. They also made books that today are known as “codices.” There probably were hundreds of codices at one time but most were destroyed during attempts to convert the Maya to Christianity.

La palabra "códice" se refiere a un volumen manuscrito. El nombre se deriva etimológicamente del latín "caudex" que significa tronco de árbol, lápida de madera, libro, código de leyes (Oxford English Dictionary, CD-ROM versión 3.0, 2002). El término ha sido aplicado a los libros escritos a mano de Mesoamérica.

Sobrevivieron solo tres codices

The Madrid Codex is the longest, measuring approximately 22 feet in length. It consists of 56 leaves painted on both sides, or 112 pages. The Dresden Codex contains 74 pages, whereas the Paris and Grolier codices are much smaller (24 and 10 pages, respectively). They are believed to be fragments of what were once longer screenfolds.

The hieroglyphic texts recorded in the codices are written in the script used throughout the lowland Maya area from the 2nd century A.D. to the 15th century. This area was occupied by Yucatec and Ch’olan-speaking populations at the time of Spanish contact in the early 16th century.

Map showing distribution of Mayan languages. After V. Bricker (1986:Fig. 1).

MaterialesThe Maya codices are screenfold books painted on paper made from the bark of the fig tree. They were produced by coating the paper with a stucco wash and then painting it with glyphs and pictures.

(wikipedia) Los mayas desarrollaron su papel en una era relativamente temprana, hay pruebas arqueológicas del uso de cortezas desde inicios del siglo V. Ellos lo llamaban huun.

«[...] Tempranamente en su historia, los mayas produjeron una clase de manto de la parte interna de la corteza de ciertos árboles, principalmente del higo salvaje o amate, y del matapalo, otro ficus. A partir de ésta y con cal ellos formaban papel, cuándo ocurrió, lo desconocemos. El papel inventado por los mayas, era superior en textura, durabilidad y plasticidad al papiro Egipcio.»

Sandstrom and Sandstrom, Traditional Papermaking

Durante años se pensó que los códices habían sido hechos de fibra de maguey, pero en 1910 R. Schwede determinó que fueron hechos mediante un proceso que usaba la corteza interna de una variedad del árbol del higo, mejor conocido como amate; entonces esto se trataba con una capa de cal (o algo parecido a la cal) sobre la superficie, sobre las cuales se escribió con pinceles y tinta. La tinta negra era carbón negro de hollín, los rojos fueron hechos de hematita (óxido férrico), azules maravillosos y luminosos (azul maya) y también había verdes y amarillos. Los códices se escribieron en tiras largas de este papel y se doblaron en forma de acordeón. Las páginas medían cerca de 4 por 9 pulgadas o 10 por 23 cm.

Madrid CODICEThe Madrid Codex was discovered in Spain during the 19th century, having presumably been sent to Europe during the Spanish Colonial period and subsequently forgotten. It was found in two parts, which had become separated at some unknown point in the past. One section (the Troano) came to public attention in 1866 and the second (the Cortesianus) several years later. The two were first recognized as belonging to the same manuscript by the Americanist scholar Léon de Rosny in the early 1880s. A detailed discussion of the early history of the Codex "Tro-Cortesianus" may be found in Paz Cabello C. (1986).

Dresden and Paris codicesThe Dresden and Paris codices, also named after the cities where they are housed, were discovered in European collections in the 18th and 19th centuries.

(LU ACA TENES Q PONER TU INFO DE WIKIPEDIA, DE COMO FUERON RECUPERADOS, CUANDO Y DONDE ESTAN AHORA, EN Q MUSEO! Y AGREGA UN RESUMEN DE ESO A LA PARTE QUE TE DEJO DE POWER POINT)

Grolier Codexel Códice de Grolier se dio a conocer en 1971. Se dijo que este cuarto códice maya fue encontrado en una cueva en la sierra de Chiapas en 1965; perteneció al doctor José Sáenz, quien se los mostró al mayista Michael Coe en el club Grolier de Nueva York, por lo cual se le conoce con este nombre. Es un fragmento de 11 páginas muy mal conservado, y se ha determinado que debió pertenecer a un libro con 20 páginas. Cada página mide 18 cm de alto por 12.5 cm de ancho. Por medio de radiocarbono se ha calculado que se fabricó en 1230 d. C. +/- 130 años. A pesar de esto, la autenticidad del códice, y más particularmente de su escritura, queda controvertida.

Actualmente está guardado en un museo de México, pero no expuesto al público. En Internet pueden encontrarse fotografías escaneadas del códice. Las páginas son mucho menos detalladas que las de los otros códices. En cada página siempre se encuentra la figura de un personaje mirando hacia el lado izquierdo de la página e invariablemente sosteniendo un arma o algún instrumento. Arriba de cada página hay un número. En la parte inferior parece haber una lista de fechas.

Hay discrepancias entre los estudiosos, pues muchos consideran que se trata de una falsificación y otros lo consideran un cuarto códice maya. A pesar de que se ha calculado la datación por radiocarbono, que ubica una posible fecha de elaboración en el siglo XII, se duda de su autenticidad por el hecho de que está escrito solo en el anverso de las páginas, lo cual discrepa de los otros códices. Eric Thompson, afirmo que si bien la datación corresponde a la fecha de elaboración de la pagina, no se corresponde con la fecha en que fue escrito.

La doctora Laura Elena Sotelo, especialista en códices mayas del Centro de Estudios Mayas del Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas de la UNAM, ha estudiado el Grolier y declaró que "las evidencias apuntan a que está hecho en 1960, aunque aún existen controversias al respecto".8

Contenidos generalesThe surviving Maya hieroglyphic codices are primarily concerned with ritual and astronomical matters. This information is presented in one of two formats—tables containing dates in the Maya Long Count calendar, which places events in absolute time, and almanacs organized in terms of the 260-day ritual calendar used throughout Mesoamerica for divination and prophecy. Both types of instruments combine hieroglyphic captions with pictures that refer to specific days, either within the ritual calendar or the Long Count.

The rain god Cháak and the female deity Chak Chel producing rain from clay jars (Madrid 30a). Drawing after Villacorta C. and Villacorta (1976:284).

The Madrid Codex contains approximately 250 almanacs that are grouped thematically into sections concerned with the deity Chaak and rain ceremonies (see illustration above); planting and agriculture; ceremonies marking the end of one year and the start of the next (measured in terms of a 365-day period known as the haab'); deer hunting and trapping; the capture and sacrifice of prisoners and other events associated with the five nameless days (Wayeb’) at the end of the year; carving deity images; and beekeeping (see figure below). The focus of the manuscript, therefore, seems to be concerned with a series of activities that constitute the yearly round, as well as the rituals accompanying these events. Although some almanacs were probably used for divination within the 260-day ritual calendar, recent research by Victoria and Harvey Bricker, Gabrielle Vail, and others suggests that many almanacs referred to events that encompassed much longer periods of time, including a 52-year period known as the Calendar Round.

A ceremony performed when bees are moved to new hives (Madrid 111b). Drawing after Villacorta C. and Villacorta (1976:446).

Like the Madrid Codex, the Dresden and Paris codices also contain a number of almanacs structured according to the 260-day tzolk'in calendar. Almanacs represent only one component of the Dresden Codex, however, which is unique in terms of the Maya codices in having astronomical tables that include Long Count dates. (The Long Count system of dating is commonly used on Classic period monuments to anchor historical events that are centered around the lives of the ruling family in time.) These tables were designed to track solar and lunar eclipses; the appearance and disappearance of Venus in the night sky; and the positioning of Mars against the constellations. Astronomical instruments occur in both the Paris and Grolier codices as well. A series of thirteen constellations representing the Maya “zodiac” appears on pages 23-24 of the Paris Codex (illustrated below), and the Grolier Codex contains an incomplete almanac that has many similarities to the Dresden Venus table.

The Maya “zodiac” on pages 23-24 of the Paris Codex. Most of the constellations are represented by animals, including birds, a scorpion, a turtle, and a rattlesnake. Drawing after Villacorta C. and Villacorta (1976:220, 222).

Although the Madrid Codex lacks astronomical tables with Long Count dates, it has a number of almanacs that reference astronomical events, including the movement of Mars; solar and lunar eclipses; and seasonal phenomena such as the summer solstice and the spring equinox. These astronomical references occur within the context of almanacs that are structured according to the 260-day tzolk'in. Research by the Brickers and their colleagues suggests that many of these events can be placed into real or absolute time. A detailed discussion of the calendrical structure of Maya almanacs may be found in the sections Maya Dates and Calendars and Maya Almanacs.

Fechas Mayas y CalendariosOne of the earliest advances in decipherment were made in terms of interpreting dates recorded in Maya texts. Like other Mesoamerican cultures, the Maya used several independent but overlapping calendars to track time. The first, which is based on a 260-day repeating cycle known as the tzolk'in, functioned primarily as a mechanism for divination and prophecy. A second calendar, the haab', is 365 days in length and is based on the solar year. The two were used concurrently and together created a 52-year cycle. Throughout much of Mesoamerica, the beginning of this 52-year period was celebrated with a number of rituals, including the extinguishing of old fires, the lighting of new fires, the dedication of new temples, and other renovation or renewal ceremonies.

The tzolk'in, or ‘count of days’, plays a significant role in the Maya codices. It consists of 20 named days, represented by the glyphs seen below, and a number (or coefficient) ranging from 1 to 13. Each day may be paired with each coefficient, resulting in a 260-day repeating cycle that begins with the first coefficient (1) and the first day name (Imix). The next day would be 2 Ik’, followed by 3 Ak’b’al, 4 K’an, 5 Chikchan, 6 Kimi, 7 Manik’, 8 Lamat, 9 Muluk, 10 Ok, 11 Chuwen, 12 Eb’, and 13 B’en. Since there are no coefficients above 13, the day following 13 B’en is 1 Ix, followed by 2 Men, 3 Kib’, etc. The last day in the cycle is 13 Ahaw (day 260), after which it starts over again with 1 Imix.

Some of the day glyphs had more than one variant, as can be seen from the illustration (examples include Kimi and Kawak).

Days of the Maya tzolk'in.

The haab' is composed of 18 months of 20 days (represented by the glyphs seen below) and a final month of five days, known as Wayeb’. This creates a period of 365 days, which approximates the seasonal or tropical year of 365.2422 days. The days of the haab' were counted in much the same way as we count the days of our months, except that they were numbered from 0 to 19 during the Classic period and from 1 to 20 during the Late Postclassic and Colonial periods. During the Classic period, the first day of the year corresponded to 0 Pop; this was followed by 1 Pop,

2 Pop, 3 Pop, and so on to the last day of the month (19 Pop). The next month began on 0 Wo, followed by 1 Wo, 2 Wo, etc. The last day of the year corresponded to 4 Wayeb’.

Months of the Maya haab'.

This is the interpretation of the haab' that we follow, but not all epigraphers (those who study Maya hieroglyphic writing) would agree with this analysis. Rather, some believe that the “seating” of a month (indicated by “0” in the preceding

paragraph) refers to the twentieth day of the preceding month rather than to the first day of a new month. This interpretation is challenged in a paper presented by Victoria Bricker in 1989 in which she provided compelling evidence in support of the interpretation discussed here.

The tzolk'in and the haab' were combined to create a 52-year period known as the Calendar Round. A Calendar Round designation consists of a tzolk'in date followed by a haab' date—for example, 1 Ahaw 3 Pop. To reach the next date in the series, one moves forward one position in the tzolk'in (to 2 Imix) and one position in the haab'(to 4 Pop). This combination of dates will not occur again until 18,980 days, or 52 years, have passed.

Because of the way the two calendars are structured, only four of the 20 named days can correspond with any particular haab' date. The four days that co-occur with the first day of each year (0 Pop during the Classic period and 1 Pop during the Late Postclassic period) are known as yearbearers. At least three different calendars (incorporating different yearbearer sets) were used in the Maya area at different times in the past. The Classic set pairs the days Ik’, Manik’, Eb’, and Kab’an with 0 Pop (i.e., 1 Ik’ 0 Pop is followed one year later by 2 Manik’ 0 Pop; the following year begins on 3 Eb’ 0 Pop, and the year after that on 4 Kab’an 0 Pop). This is the set that occurs in the Dresden Codex; it may be seen, for example, in the yearbearer almanac on pages 25-28. Another set, known as the Puuc or Campeche yearbearers after the area of the Yucatán peninsula where it was first identified, is based on the days Ak’b’al, B’en, Lamat, and Etz’nab’. A third yearbearer set, named after the site of Mayapán, involves a shift to the days K’an, Muluk, Ix, and Kawak, which are paired with 1, rather than 0, Pop. This system came about by delaying New Year’s day in the Classic period calendar by two days and renaming it 1 Pop. Although the three sets can be seriated chronologically to some extent, they overlap in use at certain sites and certain points in time. Both the Mayapán and Classic period set are represented in the Madrid Codex—the Mayapán yearbearers are featured in the almanacs on Madrid 24c-25c and 34-37, for example, whereas the Classic period set is represented in the almanacs on Madrid 65-73b and Madrid 99b-100b.

In addition to these calendrical cycles, the Maya also made use of a calendar known as the Long Count, which places dates in linear rather than cyclical time. The Long Count calendar was established during the Preclassic era, perhaps by the Olmec, and appears to have been astronomically motivated. The beginning of the current era (August 11, 3114 B.C.) may be linked to a solar zenith passage in the southern Maya area, whereas the end of the era (December 21, A.D. 2012) corresponds to the date of a winter solstice. Although not all Mayanists agree on the best means of correlating the Maya and Christian calendars, the two solutions preferred by most epigraphers today differ from each other by only two days. An overview of the correlation question may be found in The Ancient Maya by Robert Sharer.

The Long Count is based on units of 20, rather than 10 as we use, and is organized as follows: The smallest unit is the k’in, which is equivalent to one day. A winal is equal to 20 k’ins, or 20 days. Rather than consisting of 20 winals, the tun deviates from this system; it is equal to 18 winals, or 360 days, which is a close approximation of the length of the solar year. K’atuns are

equal to 20 tuns, or 7200 days (just short of 20 years), whereas b’ak’tuns equal 20 k’atuns (144,000 days), which is almost 400 years in length.

Four symbols are used in the Maya codices to represent the numerals: a shell sign for zero; a dot for one; a bar for five; and a moon sign for 20 (see Figure a below). Numbers from 1-19 may be formed by combining bars and dots as necessary. For larger numbers, however, this system becomes impractical, and positional notation is used instead. Long Count dates in the codices are represented in this manner (Figure b), with the smallest unit (the k’in) appearing at the bottom of the column. A different system of notation is used in the monumental inscriptions, where the units of time (b’ak’tun, k’atun, etc.) are represented by period glyphs. These glyphs may be either symbolic (geometric) in form or expressed by “head variants.” In either case, the coefficient is attached directly to the period glyph, as opposed to the system used in the codices which relies strictly on place-value notation (Figure c).

Epigraphers have developed a shorthand convention for writing Long Count dates, which is similar to the abbreviations we use to write dates (e.g., 2/22/01). An example involves the date

represented in Figure b, which would be transcribed as 9.5.15.0.2 (with 9 representing the number of b’ak’tuns, 5 the number of k’atuns, 15 the number of tuns , etc.). This corresponds to April 17, A.D. 549 in the Western calendar.

The Long Count is based on a cycle of 13 b’ak’tuns (or 5125 years), which is more than sufficient to account for any event within the recorded history of Maya culture. Long Count dates are generally accompanied by a Calendar Round permutation. For the example given previously (i.e., 9.5.15.0.2), the corresponding Calendar Round date would be 5 Ik’ 5 Wo. Each Long Count date may be associated with one and only one Calendar Round date, although the reverse is not true. The combination of the two defines a date absolutely with reference to a mythological starting date. This date is 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahaw 8 Kumk’u, or August 11, 3114 B.C. according to the correlation that we use. (The other common correlation places 4 Ahaw 8 Kumk’u on August 13, 3114 B.C.).

Almanaques mayasInformation in the Maya codices is formatted in one of two ways—what epigraphers call tables and almanacs. The two may be distinguished in that tables contain dates in the Long Count calendar, whereas almanacs generally only record tzolk'in dates (see Glossary for a definition of terms). The Madrid Codex is composed entirely of almanacs, meaning that there are no Long Count dates in the manuscript that allow it to be placed in absolute time. This is in contrast to the Dresden Codex, which contains a series of tables referencing astronomical events such as eclipse cycles and the appearance and disappearance of Venus in the sky, as well as seasonal cycles (solstices and equinoxes). For an agriculturally-based society like the Maya, tracking seasonal events was extremely important.

Although Long Count dates are not found in the Madrid Codex, seasonal and astronomical references occur in a number of almanacs. These data can, according to a methodology developed by Victoria and Harvey Bricker, be used to date the almanacs containing these types of references in real or absolute time. Their model of how almanacs functioned differs significantly from the traditional interpretation of almanacs as instruments for divination and prophecy within the tzolk'in calendar that remain unanchored in real time. Another model, recently formulated by Gabrielle Vail, provides a further challenge to the traditional interpretation of the structure and function of codical almanacs.

The majority of almanacs in the Maya codices have a similar format. They are divided into a series of frames, which generally include a hieroglyphic caption, bar-and-dot numbers, and a picture. The initial date of an almanac is determined by the column of day glyphs to the left of the frames. It includes a bar-and-dot coefficient which applies to each of the day glyphs in the column below it. Each of these dates represents the start of a new row of dates associated with the almanac.

Most almanacs have either four, five, or ten day glyphs in the introductory column. Because they are based on a 260-day period, the first type may be said to have a 4 x 65-day structure; the next to have a 5 x 52-day structure; and the last to have a 10 x 26-day structure. The first number refers to how many day glyphs are in the introductory column, and the second to the total reached by summing the black bar-and-dot numbers associated with each frame. The black numbers specify distance numbers or intervals, and the red numbers (represented by an outline in black and white drawings) are coefficients associated with day names.

The calendrical information contained in an almanac appears in a very abbreviated form. The only information given explicitly consists of the initial dates in each row (which appear in the tzolk'in column at the beginning of the almanac). Together with the distance numbers and coefficients, this information allows the reader to determine the complete calendrical structure of an almanac.

Almanac on Madrid 16a. After Anders (1967). Courtesy of the Museo de América, Madrid.

The almanac on Madrid 16a illustrated above begins on the tzolk'in date 4 Ahaw (uppermost in the tzolk'in column), which is associated with the picture and text in the first frame. One then adds 15 days, as indicated by the first distance number (in black), to arrive at the date associated with the second frame (which consists of text without a picture). Adding 15 to 4 results in 19; because the days of the tzolk'in cannot be numbered above 13, this number (13) must be subtracted from 19 to arrive at the correct coefficient—6 (Men). The “6” is recorded in the almanac (following the black “15”), whereas the day glyph (Men) is calculated by counting forward 15 days from Ahaw. Ten days are then added to reach the date associated with the almanac’s third frame, 3 (Chikchan). Adding the next distance number, 11, brings one to the date associated with the almanac’s fourth frame, 1 (Kib’). This completes the first row of dates for the almanac. By adding the 16 indicated in the fourth frame (mistakenly drawn as an 11), one returns to the second day glyph in the initial tzolk'in column—4 Eb’. This date is associated with the almanac’s first frame, at the start of the second row. By continuing through all five rows of the almanac, a total of 260 days, or one tzolk'in cycle, is reached. Here is the complete structure:

4 + 15 6 + 10 3 + 11 1 + 16Ahaw Men Chikchan Kib’Eb’ Manik’ Kab’an LamatK’an Kawak Muluk AhawKib’ Chuwen Imix Eb’Lamat Ak’b’al B’en K’an

How did Maya daykeepers use almanacs such as this one? According to the traditional interpretation, each of an almanac’s frames is associated with a series of dates in the 260-day calendar that can be used for determining an appropriate day for the activity represented in that almanac. The almanac on Madrid 23c (see below), for example, includes three frames, two with pictures and one (frame 2) without. All three frames are associated with the activity of painting structures blue; this is performed by the creator Itzamna (frame 1); the death god Kimil (frame 2), and the rain deity Chaak (frame 3). According to the traditional model, 4 Ahaw, 4 Eb’, 4 K’an, 4 Kib’, and 4 Lamat are considered good days for this activity, since they are associated

with the frame picturing Itzamna and the text caption “Itzamna, first [or honored] flower.” Twenty days later, however, the days 11 Ahaw, 11 Eb’, 11 K’an, 11 Kib’, and 11 Lamat corresponding with the second frame represent bad days for painting structures, since they are linked to a clause that names “the death god Kimil, the dead person.” The dates in the last frame are again considered propitious, as they concern the rain deity Chaak, who had extremely positive associations.

Almanac on Madrid 23c. After Anders (1967). Courtesy of the Museo de América, Madrid.

4 + 20 11 + 17 2 + 15Ahaw Ahaw Kab’anEb’ Eb’ MulukK’an K’an ImixKib’ Kib’ B’enLamat Lamat Chikchan

An alternate way of interpreting almanacs such as this one that include a series of frames with repetitive iconography (i.e., in which the activity remains the same but the deity changes) is proposed by Vail. She points out that the traditional model fails to take into account the fact that the use of blue paint to consecrate a house or structure has specific ritual correlates described in Bishop Landa’s account Relación de las cosas de Yucatan (written in the 1560s). A careful reading of Landa’s text suggests that blue paint was associated with ceremonies celebrated in conjunction with the 365-day haab', rather than with the tzolk'in calendar. This suggests to Vail that this almanac, as well as a number of other 5 x 52-day almanacs with similar iconography in each frame, refers to the repetition of haab' rituals over the course of a 52-year Calendar Round cycle. Codical almanacs such as those illustrated above, therefore, allowed Maya priests or daykeepers to schedule the same haab' ritual for a series of years over the course of a 52-year period. For more information about how this was accomplished, Vail (2002, 2004) offers a detailed discussion.

Support for Vail’s model is provided by references to haab' dates that occur in several almanacs in the Madrid Codex. These dates not only provide empirical evidence of the utility of this proposal, but they also suggest the importance that Maya scribes attached to anchoring at least certain events to cycles of time beyond the 260-day tzolk'in. In a recent publication, Vail and

Victoria Bricker discuss other haab' dates that have been identified in several Madrid almanacs, including Madrid 34-37 and Madrid 65-73b.

Following Vail’s model, almanacs in the Maya codices may be grouped into two sets—those that picture the repetition of the same activity from frame to frame, which may be interpreted as Calendar Round (52-year) instruments, and those that show a sequence or progression of activities that seem to occur within the time frame of a single or double tzolk'in (260-day) cycle. The almanac on Dresden 40c-41c, for example, pictures Chaak in various locations, as specified in the glyphic text. These include the water (frame 1), a maize field (frame 2), the sky (frame 3), etc. Note that each of these pictures is separated from the one that follows by an interval of ten days (represented by the black bar-and-dot numbers in the illustration below).

Almanac on Dresden 40c-41c. After Förstemann (1880).

Not all almanacs in the Maya codices are formatted in terms of an initial column of tzolk'in dates followed by discrete frames associated with a single distance number and coefficient. Three other structural types occur fairly commonly in the Madrid Codex—circular, crossover, and in extenso almanacs. Circular almanacs generally include a central picture with a series of distance numbers and coefficients placed around the image. In the example illustrated here, what would be presented as five separate frames in a more standard almanac format are reduced to one picture and four abbreviated hieroglyphic captions referring to the world directions.

Circular almanac on Madrid 51a. Drawing after Villacorta C. and Villacorta (1976:326).

Crossover almanacs resemble the more standard almanac format, except that each of the two frames is associated with a series of distance numbers and coefficients. These are read back and forth, generally beginning in the upper left (i.e., from frame 1, to frame 2, back to frame 1, etc.). Crossover almanacs are less common than circular almanacs in the Madrid Codex. Both types occur only very rarely in the other Maya codices, although they are also found in the central Mexican codices of the Borgia group.

Crossover almanac on Madrid 103a. Drawing after Villacorta C. and Villacorta (1976:430).

In extenso almanacs have only recently been recognized as a significant structural type within the Madrid Codex. The Latin phrase in extenso refers to almanacs that explicitly depict all 260 days of the ritual calendar rather than highlighting only certain ones. In 1961, Anton Nowotny coined the term in extenso to describe a subset of such almanacs in the central Mexican Borgia

group codices. As Nowotny defined them, Mexican almanacs recording 260 days occur in both a rectangular and tabular format. The in extenso type refers to almanacs that have a rectangular layout of five rows of 52 day signs (5 x 52 days = 260 days). Bryan Just discusses examples of similar almanacs in the Madrid Codex, found on pages 12b-18b, 65-73b, 75-76, and 77-78. They display a variety of formats. The first, on Madrid 12b-18b, can be compared to the almanac found on pages 1-8 of the Borgia Codex, whereas Madrid 75-76 has long been recognized as cognate with the almanac on page 1 of the Codex Fejérváry-Mayer from the Borgia group. Structural and calendrical correspondences among the Maya and central Mexican codices raise a number of interesting questions about scribal interaction across cultural boundaries during the Late Postclassic period in Mesoamerica.

PRIMEROS INTERESES POR LOS CODICESThe time period most relevant to a study of the Maya codices is the Late Postclassic and subsequent conquest era (c. A.D. 1200-1540). By the beginning of the Late Postclassic period, Maya society had undergone significant changes resulting from the abandonment of Classic period centers in the Maya heartland (the Petén region of Guatemala) in the 9th century, followed by the collapse of cities in the northern area, including Chichén Itzá, between A.D. 900-1000. Large-scale architectural activity apparently ceased for more than a century, re-emerging with the construction of Mayapán and a series of centers along the Caribbean and southern Gulf coasts in the 12th century (see map below). Mayapán’s occupation has been dated from c. A.D. 1200 to 1441, but a series of smaller centers, including Tulum on the Caribbean coast and sites on the island of Cozumel, were still inhabited when the Spanish first encountered the Maya in the early 16th century.

Map of the Maya area. After Henderson (1981:Map 3).

Despite the superior weaponry of the Europeans, the Maya proved difficult for the Spanish to conquer. The conquest of the Yucatán peninsula spanned almost 20 years (from 1527 to 1546), and the Itzaj Maya capital of Ta Itzá (or Tayasal, as it was known to the Spanish) was not conquered until 1697. Subjugating the Maya of Tayasal was especially challenging for the Spanish armies because of their remote location on an island in Lake Petén Itzá in the heart of the Petén in present-day Guatemala.

We know from Spanish sources, principally Diego de Landa, the second Bishop of Yucatán, that codices were being written at the time of the conquest. Moreover, despite the efforts of Bishop Landa and the Inquisition to destroy all traces of idolatry (including hieroglyphic writing), codices were still secretly being used for several generations after the conquest.

The Spanish chroniclers provide several early descriptions of Maya books. The first appears to have been written by Peter Martyr in 1520 and concerns the Royal Fifth sent by Hernan Cortés to the Spanish king Charles V from Veracruz, Mexico. (Martyr was a historian based in Valladolid, Spain who was on the receiving end of shipments sent from the Americas.) On the basis of his description, Eric Thompson was of the opinion that Martyr “saw and described Maya books.” Michael Coe suggests that these were the same codices that Cortés collected on Cozumel in 1519, as reported in Martyr’s account.

Other first-hand descriptions of Maya codices from 16th and early 17th century Yucatán include those written by Landa as well as other Spanish chroniclers. Later accounts include those of Avendaño y Loyola. Writing at the end of the 17th century, he describes bark paper books containing native calendars and prophecies in terms suggesting that he saw them first-hand: “... I had already read about it in their old papers and had seen it in their anahtes which they use, which are books of the barks of trees, polished and covered with lime, in which by painted figures and characters, they have foretold their future events.”

Hieroglyphic manuscripts were not limited in their distribution to the northern lowlands during the Colonial period. Several, for example, were found at Tayasal following its defeat to the Spanish in 1697. Reports indicate that some of these were taken by Ursua, the captain of the Spanish forces, although their present whereabouts are unknown. Divinatory almanacs were still being used by the Quiché of highland Guatemala during this time period as well, as suggested by the writings of Francisco Ximénez, who described books with divinatory calendars “with signs corresponding to each day.” According to Dennis Tedlock, these books may have been similar to the Ajilab’al Q’ij (Count of Days), a Quiché manuscript dated to 1722 that contains alphabetic versions of 260-day almanacs like those found in the surviving Maya hieroglyphic codices.

CUANDO Y DONDE FUERON ESCRITOS?We know nothing about the origin and acquisition of the Maya codices (with the exception of the Grolier Codex); as a result, their proveniences are either unknown or uncertain. Analyzing internal evidence contained in the manuscripts themselves, however, has allowed researchers to develop and test theories about the dating and place where these documents were manufactured.

Scholars generally attribute the Dresden, Paris, and Madrid codices to the Late Postclassic period (c. A.D. 1200-1500) on the basis of their painting style. All three may be compared to murals found at Postclassic sites in northern Yucatán such as Tulum, Tancah, Santa Rita, and Mayapán. Both the codices and the murals show evidence of being influenced by the Mixteca-Puebla art style, which spread throughout much of Mesoamerica after A.D. 1100. Until recently, the dating and provenience of the Maya codices have been determined largely on the basis of stylistic comparisons such as these. In 1997, however, several scholars, including Michael Coe and Justin Kerr in the book The Art of the Maya Scribe and James Porter in a separate publication, questioned the supposition that the Madrid Codex is pre-conquest in origin. Instead, they argued that it may have been painted in the Petén region of Guatemala after the conquest of Yucatán. This proposal is challenged in several more recent publications (discussed below; see H. Bricker 2004; Chuchiak 2004; Graff and Vail 2001; Paxton 2004; Vail and Aveni 2004; Vail et al. 2003).

Dating the Maya Codices

The Dresden Codex may be the earliest of the Maya codices, with the possible exception of the Grolier Codex, which John Carlson attributes to the Early Postclassic period (however, other scholars, including Eric Thompson, Claude Baudez, and Susan Milbrath, consider the codex a forgery). Eric Thompson proposed a date of A.D. 1200-1250 for the Dresden Codex and a provenience in Chichén Itzá. Other researchers have suggested dates in the mid 14th century A.D. for the manuscript on the basis of Long Count dates contained in the astronomical tables. With regard to the Paris Codex, Thompson thought that it was most likely drafted at one of the east coast sites such as Tulum or at Mayapán between the 13th and 15th centuries. Bruce Love, the author of The Paris Codex: Handbook for a Maya Priest, agrees that Mayapán represents a likely provenience for the manuscript, based on similarities to stone monuments at the site. His analysis suggests that the codex could have been painted as late as A.D. 1450.

Scholarly opinion has generally favored a pre-conquest date for the Madrid Codex as well, although there have been some dissenting voices. Writing in the 1950s, Thompson outlined two possible proveniences for the manuscript, including (1) northwestern Yucatán in the 15th century, or (2) Tayasal, where it may have been obtained by the Spanish during the 1697 overthrow. He later rejected the second possibility, however, and supported the idea that it originated in western Yucatán. More recently, Michael Coe and James Porter have returned to the possibility of a post-conquest dating of the Madrid Codex and a Tayasal provenience.

Coe’s belief that the Madrid Codex comes from the 17th-century Petén stems from the presence of paper with Latin writing on page 56, which he considers to be integral to the manuscript. Although much of the Latin text cannot be read, Coe identifies part of the name “...riquez” on the fragment of paper that remains. He interprets this as a possible reference to the Franciscan missionary Fray Juan Enríquez, an idea that he attributes to Stephen Houston. Based on the fact that Enríquez was killed in the town of Sacalum in 1624 during an attempt to conquer Tayasal, Coe proposes that the manuscript was produced after this date.

Page 56 of the Madrid Codex with Latin writing. The writing, which appears in mirror image on the original, has been reversed so that the text can be read. After Anders (1967). Courtesy of the Museo de América, Madrid.

Porter independently arrived at a similar conclusion, although his argument is based on two objects depicted in the manuscript—what he interprets as a European weapon on page 39b and an idol representing a horse on page 39c . Porter attributes these two scenes directly to Hernan Cortés’ visit to Tayasal in 1525, and therefore dates the painting of the codex to the interval between Cortés’ departure and the conquest of Tayasal in 1697.

More recent studies call these conclusions into question. In an analysis of the material culture represented in the Madrid Codex, Don Graff identified a number of artifacts that are diagnostic of a certain time period in the archaeological record, including specific varieties of incense burners, several drums, a rattle, and a weaving pick. The presence of these items indicates that the Madrid Codex was painted after A.D. 1300. Graff notes, however, that depictions of these artifacts do not rule out the possibility of a post-conquest date, since the Madrid Codex may

have been copied from earlier books in which such objects were depicted. Nevertheless, striking parallels between the material culture depicted in the Dresden and Madrid codices, together with astronomical evidence, strongly suggest that the codex is pre-conquest in date. On the basis of these data, Graff and Vail attribute the Madrid Codex to the mid 15th century in their article “Censers and Stars: Issues in the Dating of the Madrid Codex.” This determination can be supported by the artifacts pictured in the manuscript, including the items that Porter attributes to the post-conquest period. As Graff and Vail note, Porter’s identifications of two objects suggesting European influence on page 39 of the codex are highly questionable, and both can be better explained within the framework of Postclassic Maya culture.

Resolving the issue of whether the manuscript is pre- or post-conquest ultimately depends on determining if the paper with the European writing is genuinely integral to the codex (sandwiched between layers of paper with Maya writing) or whether it is a later addition that became attached either intentionally or accidentally. A recent analysis by Harvey Bricker provides what we believe is a definitive answer to this question—the European paper lies on top of the original codex and therefore cannot be used to support a post-conquest dating of the manuscript.

The Provenience of the Maya Codices

Other research methodologies have been used to determine where the Maya codices originated. Early studies concerning the language of the codical texts suggested a Yucatecan provenience for these manuscripts. This supposition was called into question in the 1990s by Robert Wald and Alfonso Lacadena, who found evidence of Ch’olan as well as Yucatecan texts in the Dresden and Madrid codices. A more recent analysis by Gabrielle Vail indicates that Yucatec was the primary language of the Madrid scribes, based on patterns of verbal inflection and other linguistic indicators. Many of these involve the way that words are formed (inflectional or morphological patterning).

Vail’s analysis of the hieroglyphic texts from the Madrid Codex indicates the presence of vocabulary items from both Yucatec and the Western Ch’olan languages (specifically Chontal), in agreement with Lacadena’s findings. Additionally, there are morphological features suggestive of Yucatec, Eastern Ch’olan (Ch’orti’ and Ch’olti’), and Western Ch’olan (see map below). However, although Ch’olan vocabulary occurs throughout the entire codex, Ch’olan morphology is more limited in its distribution, with Yucatec being predominant.

Map showing the distribution of Maya linguistic groups. After V. Bricker (1986: Fig. 1).

This patterning lends itself to the following scenario. Like most Maya documents, the Madrid Codex consists of a compilation of almanacs and texts that were drafted by different scribes and often copied from earlier sources. This is similar to the patterning seen in Colonial period Yucatec texts, such as the Books of Chilam Balam (discussed below). Because of the predominance of Yucatec morphology, Vail proposes that several, if not all, of the scribes who drafted the Madrid Codex were Yucatec speakers. She interprets the presence of passages that incorporate features from the Eastern Ch’olan languages as indications that certain texts represent copies from earlier manuscripts that were not updated by the copyist. This possibility receives support from a proposal made by Stephen Houston, David Stuart, and John Robertson that the Classic period Maya elite used Ch’olti’an (an Eastern Ch’olan language) as a written language, whether they themselves were Yucatec or Ch’olan speakers. Examples of Eastern Ch’olan morphology in the Madrid Codex, Vail proposes, represent archaisms or holdovers from the Classic period. There is stronger evidence of Western Ch’olan influence, seen both in terms of the presence of the Chontal spelling of the word for ‘rulership’ (ajawle ) throughout the Madrid texts, as well as several passages containing Western Ch’olan morphology. Vail suggests that these data indicate contact between the Madrid scribes and members of the Chontal elite residing along the Gulf coast (see map above).

The patterning described by Vail is analogous in many respects to the use of Spanish loan words (and sometimes complete clauses) in the Colonial Books of Chilam Balam. As Victoria Bricker and Helga-Maria Miram have demonstrated, the Book of Chilam Balam of Kaua represents a compilation of European and native Yucatec texts. In some cases, Spanish texts were copied without translation into the Kaua manuscript, although this often resulted in corrupted

spellings. In other instances, Spanish and Latin texts were translated into Yucatec, and there are also occasional examples of only partially translated texts. Bricker compares this to some of the hybrid Ch’olan and Yucatecan texts in the Maya codices described by Vail.

Vail’s model suggests a Yucatecan provenience for the Madrid Codex, but it does not rule out the possibility that it was painted in the Tayasal area of the Petén, since this region was occupied by Itzaj speakers (Itzaj and Yucatec are closely related languages that are both members of the Yucatecan language family). Recent studies by John Chuchiak and Merideth Paxton point away from a Tayasal origin, however, demonstrating instead a close relationship with the northern part of the Yucatán peninsula. Chuchiak provides a compelling analysis of the Latin text on Madrid 56. If his conclusions are correct, it is possible to relate the handwriting of the text to a specific scribe, Gregorio de Aguilar, who was in the eastern part of the Yucatán peninsula in the early 17th century. Recent analyses, therefore, bring questions about the provenience and dating of the Madrid Codex full circle.

Lu conclusion de la importancia de los calendarios para el studio de los mayas

LuAgusGatoJuani