Text: (preliminary draft only -- absolutely no quotation
-- and with apologies to the author, lacking the footnotes and figures)
Copyright © 2003 Bryan Just. All rights reserved
CHAPTER NINE
IN EXTENSO ALMANACS IN THE MADRID CODEX Bryan R. Just
The Madrid Codex is known to be an eclectic compilation of astronomical,
seasonal, ritual and calendrical information drawn from various sources
across time and space. Recent research has specified temporally the
relevance of portions of the manuscript, revealing that the Madrid’s
almanacs reference at least five hundred years of astronomical data
(cf. Bricker et al. 1997; Bricker 1997b). Additionally, Alfonso Lacadena
(1997) has demonstrated that the Madrid’s hieroglyphic texts incorporate
both Ch’olan and Yucatecan lexemes and morphology, suggesting
a process of translation from earlier sources and a diglossic context
of reception and use. Further, current scholarship is revealing an ever-growing
number of thematic and structural links between sections of the Madrid
and Mixteca-Puebla, or Borgia group, codices (Bricker and Hernandez,
this volume; Hernandez, this volume; Just 2000).
Although the Madrid Codex’s synthetic complexity is widely recognized,
little consideration has been given to understanding why select portions
of these diverse sources were chosen to be presented together in a single
manuscript. Is the Madrid Codex merely a compendium of temporally, thematically,
and culturally diverse information, or is there some functional rationale
behind the selective inclusion of its constituent sections? And, the
related methodological question—can such an overarching cohesion
be gleaned from evidence within the manuscript?
This chapter addresses these questions for a related set of four almanacs
in the Madrid Codex, each of which shares structural affinities with
the in extenso format known from Mixteca-Puebla codices. Various aspects
of these almanacs reveal that the integration of this non-Maya format
was a novel and challenging project for the Madrid’s scribes.
Further, structural features of these almanacs suggest a specific function
that was likely the rationale for their inclusion in the manuscript.
The first section briefly reviews the structural characteristics of
both standard Maya and Mixteca-Puebla in extenso almanacs, focusing
on similarities and differences between the two formats. The subsequent
section considers in detail the four almanacs in the Madrid Codex that
evidence Maya borrowing of the in extenso format. The discussion of
these almanacs will elucidate two ways in which we can meaningfully
interpret notational "errors" evident in them: (1) as symptoms
of the novel integration of a non-Maya notational system; and (2) as
deviations from standard conventions meant to signal correlations to
other sections of the manuscript. The third section demonstrates that
this second class of "error," in conjunction with structural
and positional relations among almanacs and the physical character of
the Madrid Codex itself, facilitates the coordination of data on the
opposing sides of the manuscript. The resultant implications with respect
to the use and composition of the Madrid Codex will be noted in the
concluding section.
STRUCTURAL OVERVIEW OF STANDARD MAYA AND MIXTECA-PUEBLA IN EXTENSO ALMANACS
Standard Maya Almanacs
Typically, Maya codical almanacs present seasonal, astronomical, and
ritual information within a graphically abbreviated "template"
of 260 days or a multiple thereof (Figure 1a). Although this period
is quantitatively equivalent to the Maya ritual tzolkin calendar, almanacs
rarely begin with its first day, 1 Imix. This base template thus serves
to provide structural consistency as opposed to describing the tzolkin
per se. That is, the mathematical structure of the tzolkin rather than
the ritual calendar itself underlies Maya almanac form.
The normal convention of abbreviation in Maya codices divides the 260-day
template into a number of equal sets of consecutive days that is divisible
by thirteen—typically of 26, 52, or 65 days, producing ten, five,
and four sets respectively. In a single column at the far left of an
almanac, each set is represented by the glyph for its first day. Because
there are thirteen repeating numerical coefficients applied to the day
signs in the tzolkin, a single red number above this column specifies
the tzolkin position for each of the depicted days.
The initial column of day signs is followed by a series of columns that
refer arithmetically to subsections of days within each set marked by
the initial day signs. Each column normally consists of one black and
one red bar-and-dot number, placed between short hieroglyphic texts
(above) and imagery (below). The black number signals the quantity of
days required to progress through the section of the template referenced
by the column, and the red number records the coefficient of the day
arrived at by adding this quantity to the last day of the previous column.
At the end of one pass through each column, the count arrives at the
day coefficient of the initial column, signaling the reader to return
to the beginning of the almanac, shift down one row, and repeat the
process. Almanacs continue in this fashion through the entire 260-day
sequence. Although it is not made explicit, the imagery and texts associated
with these columns of days usually record information pertinent to only
one of the many days referenced by the arithmetic (Bricker 1997a:10-12).
Sometimes these templates must be cycled through multiple times to account
for all of the events recorded in the imagery and text (Bricker 1997a:15-17).
This method of almanac abbreviation, while efficiently condensing large
sequences of days and mathematically standardizing the presentation
of diverse codical information, inherently entails some degree of ambiguity
with respect to precisely locating recorded phenomena within the arithmetic
intervals. Further, the standard Maya almanac form minimizes the possibility
of correlating multiple events that occurred on various days referenced
by a single column, as little space is available for text and/or imagery
to mark such commensuration.
Mixteca-Puebla In Extenso Almanacs
Compared to this Maya codical convention, the Mixteca-Puebla in extenso
format offers a contrastive suite of organizational advantages and disadvantages
while maintaining the basic 260-day structure (Figure 1b). Karl Nowotny
(n.d.:354) first coined the term in extenso to describe the introductory
eight-page almanacs of the Borgia, Cospi, and Vaticanus B codices, which
list in sequence all of the day signs in the 260-day Mixteca-Puebla
analog to the Maya tzolkin. While the overall proportions of in extenso
almanacs are identical to the standard Maya template, they present the
tonalpohualli itself, consistently beginning with the ritual calendar’s
first day, 1 Crocodile (cognate with 1 Imix in the Maya system).
Like many of the standard Maya almanacs, in extenso almanacs divide
their 260-day sequence into five horizontal rows of 52 days. The Borgia
and the Cospi in extenso almanacs read from right to left and from bottom
to top, while the Vaticanus B version reads from left to right and bottom
to top. Each two-page spread of an in extenso almanac consists of thirteen
columns of days, referencing implicitly the thirteen assigned coefficients,
as schematized in Figure 1b. This alignment of pages and thirteen-day
sets (known to Central Mexican manuscript scholars as trecenas) serves
to divide the tonalpohualli into smaller sections analogous to those
produced arithmetically in Maya almanacs. Recall, however, that the
correlate subsections of Maya almanacs consist of highly varied quantities
(see Aveni, this volume).
The division of the tonalpohualli into four groups of trecenas (i.e.
one per two-page set) further organizes the ritual calendar, implying
a quadripartite structure traditionally associated by scholars with
cardinal directionality. The convenient mathematical relation between
four and thirteen (i.e. 13/4 gives a remainder of one) allows the trecena
pattern to accommodate a shorter four-part cycling, in which the first
day shares its association with the trecena and subsequent days cycle
through the quadripartite pattern, arriving at the appropriate next
position in the sequence on the first day of the subsequent trecena.
The days in each column of an in extenso almanac are also associated
with imagery above and below the glyphic register. The images accompanying
day-sign columns in the in extenso almanacs are not fully understood
but may carry ritual information related to whole columns of days or,
as discussed for standard Maya almanacs, to select days within a given
column.
In addition to these shared structural characteristics of Mixteca-Puebla
in extenso almanacs, the Cospi and the Borgia versions include an enigmatic
sequence of footprints that mark nine- and seven-day intervals. Additionally,
the Cospi presents the repeating sequence of the nine "Lords of
the Night." Each of these patterns are noted within the in extenso
grid system, overlapping without interrupting the regular sequence and
structure of the tonalpohualli.
The in extenso format, through its comprehensive, grid-like structure,
coordinates all of these subgroupings of the tonalpohualli, facilitating
the synthetic analysis of multiple mathematical patterns as inherent
qualities of the ritual calendar. Additionally, these groupings of days
often structure subsequent almanacs in Mixteca-Puebla codices, allowing
this more specific information to be coordinated easily through the
in extenso almanac. In the Codex Borgia, for example, the almanacs on
pages 9-13 and 22-24 relate to the twenty day names, the almanacs on
pages 18-21, 49-52 and 53b-c, 57, 72 and 75-76 are associated with the
five-day sets found in the in extenso columns, and the almanac on pages
61-70 records more detailed information about the trecenas. That is,
the Borgia in extenso almanac relates structurally to at least 31 of
the manuscript’s remaining 68 pages. The introductory in extenso
almanacs thus allowed their Mixteca-Puebla users not only to read the
auguries suggested by the images above and below a given calendrical
date, but to see a variety of cycles within a single diagram. They could
note how these cycles relate to one another, synthesizing the more detailed
information that follows for a more complete and nuanced interpretation.
While standard Maya almanacs condense the 260-day template, focusing
on a few select events and a single mathematical pattern, in extenso
almanacs diagram the multi-layered mathematical complexity of the 260-day
ritual calendar, facilitating the analytic synthesis of various cyclical
patterns.
IN EXTENSO COGNATES IN THE MADRID CODEX
Madrid Pages 12b-18b
The almanac on pages 12b-18b of the Madrid Codex shares a number of
structural characteristics with Mixteca-Puebla in extenso almanacs:
(1) it lists the days of the 260-day tzolkin in sequence; (2) these
days are organized into horizontal rows that span several pages; (3)
imagery is presented both above and below the calendrical register;
and (4) the cycle begins on the first day of the Maya ritual calendar,
1 Imix (Figure 2). The conjunction of this medley of characteristics
poses a compelling case for a cognate relation between the Maya almanac
and its Mixteca-Puebla counterparts. Unlike the Mixteca-Puebla examples,
however, (1) the imagery above and below the day signs in the Madrid
version is not clearly associated with single columns of days, (2) the
page breaks do not imply the sequence of thirteen calendrical coefficients,
and (3) the Madrid almanac follows a 4 x 65-day structure instead of
a 5 x 52-day one (although there are only 52 day signs painted in each
row). This shift to a 4 x 65-day structure, however, may in fact further
link these cognate almanacs functionally, a possibility considered further
in the concluding section.
Bricker et al. (1997) demonstrated that this almanac and the immediately
preceding almanacs on the lower two registers of pages 10-11 record
overlapping astronomical and seasonal phenomena for a specific period
of time, from A.D. 924 to 925 (Figure 2b; Table 1). While the slight
spatial misalignment of some of these events and their corresponding
dates is not atypical of Maya codical calculations, it is notable that
the first eclipse is depicted on a different page from the day on which
it was predicted to occur. This potential discrepancy dissolves, however,
if one approaches the almanac vis-à-vis the trecena aspect of
the Mixteca-Puebla in extenso structure. Although this trecena pacing
is not referenced explicitly by page breaks in the Madrid almanac, it
is implied by mathematical and pictorial clues—clues intrinsically
tied to the novel borrowing of this format.
The beginning and the end of the in extenso sequence on Madrid 12b-18b
include evidence of the process of translating Maya codical information
into the Mixteca-Puebla in extenso format. First, page 18b incompletely
represents the final day signs of each of the calendrical rows (Figure
2a). It seems as if the scribe ran out of space for the last portion
of the almanac and/or chose an alternate method of recording this section.
Page 12b references the missing days through an intriguing set of three
numbers: a black ‘13’, a red ‘13’, and a black
‘1’, labeled A, B, and C respectively in Figure 3. In standard
Maya calendrical computation, a single red and black number pair would
be satisfactory to account for the glyphically absent interval, bringing
the count back into the in extenso portion of the almanac. The presence
of three numbers is thus curious. The anomalous mathematics here provide
an excellent example of the first class of so-called errors considered
herein, and are directly related to the attempted synthesis of two notational
systems. Recall that in Mixteca-Puebla codical notation, each day is
explicitly referenced graphically, either by a day-sign or a "spacer,"
a simple dot denoting de-focused days within an interval. The Maya,
on the other hand, typically record quantities to be added to a glyphically
recorded day to reach the next glyphic day, one arithmetic interval
later. That is, Mixteca-Puebla notation records the units between two
points with spacers, while Maya notation records the arithmetic required
to move from one point to the next with a quantitative distance number.
In a Mixteca-Puebla in extenso almanac, the transition from one row
of calendrical glyphs to the next is conventional; no units exist between
the two points in time, and thus no spacers are required. The standard
Maya almanac form, on the other hand, arrives at the starting date of
a row at the close of the previous row. However, when the count moves
from Madrid page 18b back to 12b, it is still on the last day of the
previous row, fourteen days before the re-entry date. The arithmetic
follows a clockwise pattern, moving back to page 12b (from 18b) in the
lower right, adding a quantity of thirteen days to arrive at another
‘13’ coefficient day (the last of the row), and then adding
one more day to cycle back into the in extenso portion of the almanac
(Figure 3). The arrangement of these numbers and the ‘1’
coefficient on page 13b suggests that the count actually begins on page
13b, and that page 12b mathematically facilitates re-entry into the
in extenso portion of the almanac. The red ‘1’ marks the
first column of days on page 13b as the analog to the initial glyphic
column of standard abbreviated Maya almanacs. The position of the calculations
on page 12b before the in extenso portion of the almanac foregrounds
this mathematical pattern, stressing distances of one (i.e. the distance
moved from day sign to day sign), and thirteen (i.e. the trecena—a
fundamental structural unit in Mixteca-Puebla in extenso almanacs).
This reference to the thirteen-day interval signals that this trecena
pacing continues though the entire tzolkin count. Such a trecena rhythm
is supported by the non-calendrical contents of the following pages;
if one overlays a thirteen-day structure on the rows of day signs, as
illustrated in Figure 2c, the astronomical phenomena consistently appear
in the trecena of their occurrence; the slight discrepancies of placement
do not exist vis-à-vis these proposed trecena intervals. Further,
the serpents that wind through the calendrical register (1) appear at
least once in each trecena; (2) never cross the trecena boundaries;
and (3) delineate the first two divisions. The graphic composition of
these pages thus implicitly corroborates the trecena pacing suggested
by the arithmetic on page 12b.
Whereas the standard Maya abbreviated almanac structure focuses on a
single mathematical pattern and provides limited space for recording
associated phenomena textually and visually, the in extenso format both
presents multiple overlapping sub-groupings of the tzolkin and expands
the pictorial space available for correlating pictorially and textually
recorded information. The trecena sets, for example, group numerous
images above and below them, facilitating the sort of synthetic analysis
that seems to functionally drive Mixteca-Puebla codical structure. In
this Maya in extenso almanac, Mixteca-Puebla and Maya notational conventions
are brought together to facilitate the correlation of multiple events
within various overlapping pacings of the tzolkin. As discussed for
the Borgia Codex, this Madrid in extenso almanac further allows more
specific information presented in adjacent almanacs, such as the seasonal
and astronomical information recorded on pages 10-11, to be coordinated
within the tzolkin cycle. The Madrid in extenso almanac can thus be
seen to "concordance" various data.
Madrid Pages 65-72, 73b
Victoria Bricker (1997b:169; personal communication, 1998) noted that
the "Calendar Round" almanac on pages 65-72, 73b shares with
12b-18b an in extenso listing of all 260 tzolkin days and a 1 Imix starting
point (Chapter 7, Figure X). The almanac is read along the upper register
through the first 16 day signs before shifting to the lower register.
At the end of a row in the lower register (on page 72), the count returns
to the upper register on the first page and continues in this fashion
through the first 256 days of the tzolkin. This tzolkin count moves
from day to day without the use of distance numbers, as in Mixteca-Puebla
almanacs yet rarely in Maya ones. Unlike both Maya and Mixteca-Puebla
canonical almanacs, the coefficients of days in each column are not
consistent—each day-sign is accompanied by its own red coefficient.
Still, the use of 16 columns per row (a factor of four) groups the day
signs in each column into the same quadripartite sets produced by Mixteca-Puebla
in extenso almanacs, a feature lacking in the in extenso almanac on
Madrid pages 12b-18b because of its 4 x 65-day structure. No cardinal
directionality or other four-part designation is recorded glyphically
on these pages, yet such a correlation would be recognized readily by
scribes familiar with the groupings of five day signs normally produced
through a 5 x 52-day format. This grouping thus potentially aligns mathematical
tzolkin information, such as quadripartite associations, with seasonal
information presented pictorially and textually.
The final four days of this in extenso tzolkin are depicted in the four
corners of the final image, on page 73b. This final page also includes,
on the last day of the tzolkin, an explicit Calendar Round date of 13
Ahau 13 Cumku, giving it its "Calendar Round" almanac designation
(Bricker 1997b:169). By linking seven of its images directly to adjacent
almanacs, Victoria Bricker (1997b) was able to date the almanac’s
relevance to a time span from about A.D. 1350-1450, some four to five
centuries after the events referenced on Madrid pages 12b-18b. Further,
Bricker (1997b:180) noted that the shared iconography of this almanac
and others adjacent to it suggests that it acted as an index or table
of contents for this section of the manuscript, a reading quite similar
to the "concordancing" designation for Madrid 12b-18b presented
above. It is notable that the central location Bricker noticed for this
almanac, among the almanacs it cross-references, is almost identical
to the physical placement of 12b-18b on the obverse, appearing on the
opposite side of pages 9-17, further suggesting that these two in extenso
almanacs may have served similar concordancing roles (see Table 3).
This possibility is considered in more detail below.
Madrid pages 75-76
The Formée cross tzolkin on pages 75-76 is the best known example
of a Mixteca-Puebla borrowing in the Madrid Codex, bearing a remarkable
resemblance to the first page of the codex Fejérváry-Mayer
(Plates X and X). While the overall composition of these almanacs is
distinct from the in extenso almanacs considered so far, it is arguably
an alternative format for recording the same information in that (1)
all 260 days of the ritual calendar are listed in sequence; (2) these
days are grouped into trecena sets; and (3) in the Fejérváry-Mayer,
this almanac acts as the introduction to the manuscript, holding the
same initial position in the codex as the in extenso almanacs in the
Borgia, Cospi, and Vaticanus B codices. Further, the Formée cross
composition groups the 260-day calendar into four sets of 65 days (or
five trecenas), each of which are associated with a cardinal direction.
Thus, this Formée cross almanac also shares with the Madrid in
extenso almanac a 4 x 65-day basic structure.
Like the in extenso almanac on Madrid 12b-18b, the Madrid Formée
cross almanac indexes the novelty of its borrowing in its mixing of
Mixteca-Puebla and Maya notational systems. The Fejérváry-Mayer
version consistently represents the first day-sign of each trecena,
followed by twelve spacers representing the remaining twelve days in
that trecena. In contrast, the Madrid cognate glyphically records the
day sign and the numerical coefficient for both the first and the last
day of each trecena. The number of spacers that intervene varies from
trecena to trecena, traditionally considered evidence of scribal sloppiness
or haste. However, the quantity of spacers per trecena in the Madrid
version total eleven, twelve, or thirteen exclusively (Table 2). If
spacers represent the interval arithmetically (Maya style), one would
need thirteen to progress from one trecena to the next; in contrast,
if one follows the format exemplified by the Fejérváry-Mayer,
each trecena should include twelve spacers; finally, if the first and
last days of each trecena are present glyphically (as they are on Madrid
pages 75-76), only eleven spacers are required in the Mixteca-Puebla
notational system to account for the eleven intermediary days. Although
twelve spacers is the most commonly used variant in the Madrid Formée
cross almanac, it seems as if the designer of this almanac was not sure
which of these choices was preferable. Thus, we may see this variation
not simply as scribal sloppiness, but as an index of a scribe struggling
to present a non-Maya notational system. The limited variability reflects
the novelty of this borrowing, as it references the logical options
available to a Maya scribe newly acquainted with Mixteca-Puebla calendrical
notation.
Another peculiar aspect of the Madrid Formée cross almanac reflects
a different sort of structural deviation from Mixteca-Puebla convention.
While the Fejérváry-Mayer version places the eastern quadrant
of the quincunx at the top of the image—the standard orientational
convention for Mesoamerica—the Madrid version glyphically marks
the eastern region at the bottom of the page (Plates X and X). Still,
the correlation of trecenas with directions remains consistent in that
the Madrid version also places the starting date of the tzolkin, 1 Imix,
in this lower eastern quadrant. Further, the orientation of the imagery
and the glyphs on Madrid pages 75-76 favors the standard orientation
of the reverse of the manuscript, making the placement of the eastern
quadrant at the bottom of the page the only internal suggestion of a
possible mixed orientation for this almanac. Its relation to the following
almanac on pages 77-78, however, provides some incentive for considering
this unexpected cardinal orientation a significant deviation from Mixteca-Puebla
norms.
Madrid pages 77-78
Merideth Paxton (1997) recently proposed that the potentially mixed
orientation of the Formée cross almanac relates it to the subsequent
almanac on Madrid pages 77-78 (Figure 4). The almanac on these two pages
is unique in that it is the only almanac on the reverse of the Madrid
oriented in the same way as the obverse. When viewed in the opposite
orientation of its neighboring almanacs, Madrid 77-78 lists, across
the top row, the first thirteen day signs of the tzolkin—that
is, the first trecena (Figure 5). The coefficients, recorded immediately
below the day signs, are the only elements of the almanac that correspond
to the common orientation of this side of the manuscript.
Each day of this first trecena is associated with a series of glyphic
and numerical information organized into columns, including directional
glyphs, quantities of offerings, and deities. As is common in Mixteca-Puebla
divinatory codices, this almanac thus aligns days in the ritual calendar
with other ritual information. While it does not present the 260-day
calendar in extenso, it shares with the in extenso format a listing
of consecutive days presented in sequence without arithmetic abbreviation
and with a beginning day of 1 Imix. For these reasons, as well as aspects
of its orientation and placement in the manuscript (to be discussed
below), this trecena almanac warrants consideration as cognate to the
Mixteca-Puebla in extenso format.
Paxton (1997) suggested that the Formée cross almanac on pages
75-76 relates compositionally to this trecena almanac in that each references
two opposing orientations and uses the trecena as a basic structural
unit (Figure 4). As a pair, the Formée cross almanac and the
subsequent trecena almanac allow a reader to coordinate two sets of
information, following the tzolkin count on both pages through the first
trecena and subsequently recycling the trecena almanac to continue through
the remainder of the tzolkin recorded in extenso in the Formée
cross. Paxton (1997) noted that when the manuscript is reoriented to
read the trecena pages, the eastern region and the beginning 1 Imix
day sign on pages 75-76 appear in their expected position at the top
of the page, providing a possible rationale for the placement of the
eastern quadrant and starting date in a different position from its
Fejérváry-Mayer counterpart. While this functional pairing
offers at least some justification for classifying the Formée
cross almanac as having a mixed orientation, it does not explain why
these two almanacs would thus contradict the otherwise consistent orientation
of their side of the codex.
The anomalous orientation of Madrid pages 77-78 has long been recognized,
extending back to Léon de Rosny’s (1881) observations linking
the Troano and the Cortesianus fragments through this almanac. Subsequently,
Ernst Förstemann (1902:138) suggested that this was meant to show
that this trecena almanac was in the wrong place in the manuscript.
While there is a thread of truth to this proposition, the placement
and orientation of this almanac are not arbitrary—they in fact
link pages 75-78 structurally and physically to the in extenso almanac
on pages 12b-18b of the obverse.
IN EXTENSO ALMANACS, ORIENTATION, AND THE COORDINATION OF THE OPPOSING
SIDES OF THE MADRID CODEX
The four almanacs in the Madrid Codex discussed above evince various
affinities with the in extenso formats of Mixteca-Puebla introductory
almanacs. These four almanacs are the only ones in the Madrid Codex
to exhibit these structural similarities and thus merit consideration
as facets of a singular act of borrowing. The grouping of these almanacs
is not only supported by structural features and patterns of mathematical
"errors," but by the their physical distribution in the Madrid
Codex, which offers a means of using them conjunctively.
As mentioned for the "Calendar Round" almanac on Madrid pages
65-72, 73b, the pair of almanacs on pages 75-76 and 77-78 have a proximal
physical relation to the in extenso almanac on pages 12b-18b (Table
3). Note that the "Calendar Round" almanac on the reverse
begins slightly before the in extenso pages of the obverse. Similarly,
the Formée cross and trecena almanacs fall at the close of the
in extenso almanac. This physical bracketing provides an ideal relative
placement for viewing various combinations of these almanacs simultaneously.
While the divergent orientation of the two sides of the Madrid Codex
has traditionally dissuaded consideration of their possible integration,
the positioning of the only cases of mixed orientation on the reverse
within this two-sided clustering of the Maya analogs to the Mixteca-Puebla
formats facilitates exactly this sort of coordination. Figure 6 presents
a series of possible manipulations of the Madrid manuscript that allow
simultaneous viewing of the four structurally related almanacs that
I have considered, as well as the thematically related almanacs on pages
10-11 (Bricker et al. 1997). Each of these possible articulations will
be discussed in turn.
When the manuscript is opened to the in extenso almanac, the trecena
almanac can be viewed simultaneously by folding the manuscript along
the natural, inward-turning fold between pages 20 and 21 (Figure 6a).
Thus folded, pages 77-78 lay on top of pages 19 and 20, immediately
after page 18. Presented in this manner, both the in extenso almanac
and the trecena almanac are readable in the same orientation in their
entirety. The reader can easily correlate the contents of the trecena
almanac with the corresponding first trecena of the in extenso almanac.
Such a cross-referencing between the two offers a logical explanation
for the otherwise anomalous orientation and placement of the trecena
almanac; the two are not only structurally related, but convey complimentary
information about the tzolkin sequence. The orientation of the coefficients
on pages 77-78, then, can be seen as a sign to the reader to continue
reading onto the reverse of the manuscript. When continuing in this
way, the following pages comprise the Formée cross almanac of
pages 75-76.
This almanac too is positioned conveniently to be viewed in conjunction
with the in extenso almanac. Bringing these pages around for viewing,
one can either fold under pages 77-78 or keep them visible as well (Figure
6b, c). Either of these articulations covers the final pages of the
in extenso listing, yet the first trecena in the sequence is still completely
visible. Presenting this combination of pages facilitates correlation
of all three tzolkin sequences. The cardinal orientation of the Formée
cross almanac may allude to its relation to pages 12b-18b, in that the
eastern quadrant and the initial 1 Imix day appear in the expected upper
region when viewed in conjunction with the in extenso almanac. Further,
the Formée cross almanac may clue the reader to continue reading
onto the back side of the manuscript through the orientation of the
figures in the central column, the orientation of the glyphs, and the
circular reading of its tzolkin sequence, each of which suggests the
necessary reorientation.
One other correlation between the in extenso almanac and the reverse
of the manuscript exists, although it is not corroborated by orientation.
The first two pages of the "Calendar Round" almanac can also
be viewed in conjunction with 12b-18b, if the introductory page (12b)
is covered (Figure 6c). Since the in extenso count begins on page 13b
with 1 Imix, however, this overlap does not hinder cross-referencing
between the two. In fact, this articulation positions the starting 1
Imix days of each almanac adjacently, an ideal articulation for such
comparison. Alternatively, the manuscript can simply be flipped over
to switch between these two almanacs. The potential coordination of
the in extenso almanac and the "Calendar Round" almanac is
of particular interest, as it would provide a means of correlating the
various almanacs indexed or concordanced by each of them, producing
an expansive network of integrated almanacs bridging the opposing sides
of the manuscript.
A suite of evidence thus suggests that the in extenso almanac on Madrid
12b-18b played a central role in cross-referencing the two sides of
the Madrid Codex. The physical and structural parallels among this in
extenso almanac and the paired trecena and Formée cross almanacs
provide the best evidence for such integration of the two sides. The
relationship between pages 12b-18b and the "Calendar Round"
almanac, while not implied by orientation, carries more profound implications
for our understanding of the use of the Madrid Codex. It suggests a
means of integrating a whole network of almanacs, as was noted as a
basic advantage of the Mixteca-Puebla in extenso format.
The historically specific commensuration of events referenced in each
of these almanacs place them in distant periods of absolute time: pages
12b-18b record a sequence of events in the tenth century (Bricker et
al. 1997), and pages 65-72, 73b reference events in the fifteenth century
(Bricker 1997b). In light of this temporal separation, the cross-referencing
potential outlined herein poses an important and challenging question;
how might this disjunct information have been used in an integrative
manner? Perhaps the Madrid scribes were attempting to use Mixteca-Puebla
in extenso conventions of concordancing calendrical cycles as a means
of revealing calendrical relationships among temporally diverse astronomical
and seasonal phenomena. That is, the convenient articulation of these
four almanacs facilitates the interpretive discovery of calendrical
agency in observable phenomena.
The fact that the Madrid in extenso almanac is centrally located with
respect to these structurally related pages marks an interesting contrast
to the positioning of their Mixteca-Puebla analogs. Mixteca-Puebla codices
consistently position their in extenso almanacs at the beginning, akin
to the standard Western system of presenting a "table of contents"
at the beginning of a text. The makers of the Madrid, on the other hand,
placed their "indexing" or "concordancing" almanacs
among related information. This placement suggests that a Maya reader
would open the book to a centrally located, concordancing almanac, and
could then flip the pages on either side, where additional relevant
information would be presented. The Maya placement of their coordinating
almanacs centrally thus constitutes an ingenious, efficient and effective
alternate to Mixteca-Puebla (and Western) organizational conventions.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
To review, the four almanacs considered herein, namely the in extenso
almanac on pages 12b-18b, the "Calendar Round" almanac on
pages 65-72, 73b, the Formée cross almanac on pages 75-76, and
the trecena almanac on pages 77-78, are related both in terms of their
affinities to the Mixteca-Puebla in extenso structure and their physical
articulation in the Madrid Codex. Some of the "errors" in
these almanacs can be understood as attempts to reconcile distinct notational
systems, and as such seem to index the novel (i.e. original) adoption
of Mixteca-Puebla conventions. Other anomalous aspects of these almanacs,
particularly the abnormal orientation of pages 77-78, suggest a method
of integrating information on the opposing sides of the manuscript.
The relation to Mixteca-Puebla conventions and the coordination of both
sides of the manuscript are likely mutually inclusive features. The
great utility of the in extenso format, especially when compared to
the standard abbreviated format of the Maya, derives from its coordination
of multiple mathematical patterns inherent to the 260-day ritual calendar.
The in extenso structure is ideal for synthesizing calendrical information.
As such, I have postulated that the Mixteca-Puebla structures may have
been adopted to help reveal calendrical parallels among temporally disjunct
seasonal and astronomical phenomena.
It is notable that none of the four in extenso cognates in the Madrid
share the basic 5 x 52-day facet of their Mixteca-Puebla analogs. This
deviation from the Mixteca-Puebla structural source may in fact serve
to maintain an aspect of their original function. Gabrielle Vail (this
volume) has recently argued that the 5 x 52-day almanac structure, used
so often in the Madrid Codex, provides a means of calculating seasonally
timed rituals for specific haab dates within a 52-year Calendar Round.
If the 5 x 52-day template was canonically associated with haab dating
as Vail proposes, the modification of the standard Mixteca-Puebla 5x52-day
structure in the Madrid in extenso cognate may imply that the 4 x 65-day
sequence served as the Maya mathematical template for tzolkin-focused
calculations. In this respect, it is noteworthy that the sole in extenso
cognate in the Madrid Codex that includes a haab date, namely the "Calendar
Round" almanac on pages 65-72, 73b, does not use the 4x65-day structure
found in the in extenso and Formée cross almanacs. Continued
research on the function of 4 x 65-day almanacs in the Madrid is required
to verify this possibility.
Finally, it must be acknowledged that the proposed functional coordination
of the four almanacs presented in this paper may not in fact reflect
an intentional or pervasive interest in articulating the opposing sides
of the Madrid Codex. First, it is possible that the physical articulation
of Madrid pages 12b-18b and 65-72, 73b is merely a coincidence of function
as opposed to an intended articulation for cross-reference. Each of
these almanacs may simply be positioned centrally with respect to the
adjacent almanacs to which they relate, producing comparable but not
intentionally coordinated placements. Additionally, the trecena almanac
on 77-78 and the Formée cross almanac on 75-76 may reside on
the reverse because of space limitations on the obverse at the end of
the in extenso almanac, a possibility potentially supported by the incomplete
sketching of the final portion of the in extenso sequence on page 18.
This possibility raises its own important questions with respect to
the process and sequence of composition of the manuscript, as these
space concerns would imply that the subsequent sections were planned
and painted prior to the in extenso and/or the related sections on the
reverse. These questions, as well as the problem of the shift from the
5x52-day Mixteca-Puebla in extenso structure to the Maya 4 x 65-day
structure, call for continued research on the structural and physical
relations among almanacs in the Madrid Codex and consideration of the
process of composition of the manuscript as a whole.
REFERENCES CITED
Anders, F., M. Jansen, and L. Reyes García
1994 El Libro de Tezcatlipoca, Señor del Tiempo. Libro explicativo
del llamado Códice Fejérváry-Mayer. M/12014, Free
Public Museum, Liverpool, England. Introduction and commentary by F.
Anders, M. Jansen, and A. Pérez Jiménez. Akademische Druck-
und Verlagsanstalt, Graz, Austria; Fondo de Cultura Económica,
México, D.F.
Bricker, H. M., V. R. Bricker, and B. Wulfing
1997 Determining the Historicity of Three Almanacs in the Madrid Codex.
Archaeoastronomy 22(JHA 36):S17-S36.
Bricker, V. R.
1997a The Structure of Almanacs in the Madrid Codex. In Papers on the
Madrid Codex, edited by V. R. Bricker and G. Vail, pp. 1-25. Middle
American Research Institute, Pub. 64. Tulane University, New Orleans.
1997b The "Calendar-Round" Almanac in the Madrid Codex. In
Papers on the Madrid Codex, edited by V. R. Bricker and G. Vail, pp.
169-180. Middle American Research Institute, Pub. 64. Tulane University,
New Orleans.
Bricker, V. R., and H. M. Bricker
1992 A Method of Cross-Dating Almanacs with Tables in the Dresden Codex.
In The Sky in Mayan Literature, edited by A. F. Aveni, pp. 43-86. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Díaz, G., and A. Rodgers
1993 The Codex Borgia: A Full-Color Restoration of the Ancient Mexican
Manuscript. Dover, New York.
Förstemann, E.
1902 Commentar zur Madrider Mayahandscrift: Codex Tro-Cortesianus. Verlag
von L. Sauniers Buchandlung, Danzig.
Just, B. R.
2000 Concordances of Time: In Extenso Almanacs in the Madrid and Borgia
Group Codices. Human Mosaic 33(1):7-16.
Lacadena García-Gallo, A.
1997 Bilingüismo en el Códice de Madrid. In Los Investigadores
de la Cultura Maya, pp. 184-204. Universidad Autónoma de Campeche
and Secretaría de Educación Pública, Pub. 5. Campeche,
Mexico.
2000 Los escribas del Códice de Madrid: Metodología paleográfica.
Revista Española de Antropología Americana 30:27-85.
Nowotny, K. A.
n.d. Tlacuilolli: The Mexican Pictorial Manuscripts, Style and Contents,
with a catalog of the Borgia Group. Translated in unpublished form by
G. A. Everett, Jr. and E. B. Sisson.
Paxton, M.
1997 Códice Madrid: análisis de las páginas 75-76.
In Códices y Documentos sobre Mexico, Segundo Simposio, Volumen
1, edited by S. Rueda Smithers, C. Vega Sosa, and R. Martínez
Baracs, pp. 63-80. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia
and Dirección General de Publicaciones del Consejo Nacional para
la Cultura y las Artes, México, D.F.
Rosny, L. de
1881 Les documents écrits de l’antiquité américaine.
Compte-rendu d’une mission scientifique en Espagne et Portugal
(1880). Mémoires de la Société d’Ethnographie,
n.s., 1(3):57-100. Paris.
Villacorta C., J. A., and C. A. Villacorta
1976 Códices Mayas. 2nd edition. Tipografía Nacional,
|