Hubbry Logo
Maya Codex of MexicoMaya Codex of MexicoMain
Open search
Maya Codex of Mexico
Community hub
Maya Codex of Mexico
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Maya Codex of Mexico
Maya Codex of Mexico
Maya Codex of Mexico
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Key Information

The Maya Codex of Mexico (MCM) is a Maya screenfold codex manuscript of a pre-Columbian type. Long known as the Grolier Codex or Sáenz Codex, in 2018 it was officially renamed the Códice Maya de México[1] (CMM) by the National Institute of Anthropology and History of Mexico. It is one of only four known extant Maya codices, and the only one that still resides in the Americas.

The MCM first appeared in a private collection in the 1960s and was shown at "The Maya Scribe and His World", an exhibition held at the Grolier Club in New York City in 1971, hence its original name.[2] An almanac that charts the movements of the planet Venus, it originally consisted of twenty pages;[3] the first eight and the last two are now missing.[2] Folio 8 has the tallest fragment, measuring 19 centimeters (7.5 in), and its pages are typically 12.5 centimeters (4.9 in) wide. The red frame lines at the bottom of pages four through eight indicates that the dimensions were once substantially taller, and that the scribe prepared a space for text under the figure on each page. Accordingly, the manuscript would once have measured 250 centimeters (98.4 in),[4][5] roughly the size of the Dresden Codex.

Its authenticity was disputed at the time of its discovery, but has been upheld by multiple studies. In 2018, a team of scientists coordinated by the National Institute for Anthropology and History demonstrated conclusively that the document dates to the period between 1021 and 1154 CE. The Mexican studies confirm that it is the oldest surviving codex from Mexico and the oldest book of the Americas.[6][7][8]

Modern history and authenticity

[edit]
The Codex was first displayed at the Grolier Club in New York, hence its name

The first Mexican owner, Josué Saenz, claimed that the manuscript had been recovered from a cave in the Mexican state of Chiapas in the 1960s, along with a mosaic mask, a wooden box, a knife handle, as well as a child's sandal and a piece of rope, along with some blank pages of amate (pre-Columbian fig-bark paper). Saenz lent the manuscript to the Grolier Club and later presented the book to the Mexican nation.[4][9]

The codex is said to have been found enclosed in a wooden box in a dry cave in the highlands of Chiapas near Tortuguero;[10] it was said to have been found with a turquoise mask that is now in the collection of Dumbarton Oaks.[11] In 1965, the Mexican collector Dr. Josué Sáenz was taken by two men on a light plane to a remote airstrip in the foothills of the Sierra Madre near Tortuguero in Tabasco state;[12] the compass of the plane was covered with a cloth but Sáenz recognized his approximate location. At the airstrip he was shown the codex along with some other looted Maya artifacts and was told that he could take the items back to Mexico City for authentication before purchasing them.[13] The antiquities expert that Sáenz consulted declared that the artifacts were fakes but Sáenz later purchased the codex and permitted Michael Coe to display the codex at the Grolier Club in 1971.[13] In 1976, the United States-Mexico Artifacts Treaty of 1970 was invoked by the Attorney General of Mexico. This resulted in the seizure of the codex and its return to Mexico.[14] Sáenz donated the codex to the Mexican government and it is currently kept in the vault of the National Library,[9] after being kept for years in a vault in the Museo Nacional de Antropología in Mexico City and not on public display.[15] The claimed discovery of the Grolier Codex would make it the only pre-Columbian codex discovered in the course of the 20th century, except for some codex fragments excavated by archaeologists.[16]

Following the 1971 exhibition, Michael D. Coe,[17][18][19][20] published the first half-size recto-side facsimile of the codex in The Maya Scribe and His World, published by the Grolier Club in 1973.[21] The MCM was subsequently published various times, by detractors (J. Eric S. Thompson,[22] Milbrath,[23] Baudez,[24] among them) and by proponents (Stuart, Carlson).[25] Coe, Stephen D. Houston, Mary Miller, and Karl Taube published the first full-sized facsimile in 2015, using photographs taken by National Geographic photographer Enrico Ferorrelli in 1987, along with a full set of hand-drawn and uncopyrighted drawings for dissemination, and a thorough analysis of the context, content, and iconography of the codex.[4] Coe et al. also demonstrated that the paper is three-ply, which lent itself to the screen-fold format. A new facsimile, based on new photography, was published by the Mexican government in 2018.[9]

The English Mayanist J. Eric S. Thompson cast doubt upon the authenticity of the MCM in 1975, although he did not see the manuscript himself. As Victoria Bricker and Harvey Bricker have argued, the contents of the MCM have not been copied directly from any known codices, and yet they are consistent with an authentic and accurate prehispanic calendar. Although other scholars have argued for and against the codex, the arguments against the manuscript's authenticity became irrelevant in the face of Mexican scientific analysis.[citation needed]

Various campaigns of scientific testing of the manuscript have taken place, beginning with a radiocarbon test in 1972 which yielded a date of 1035–1431;[21][26] a subsequent test in 2012 produced a date of 1050–1284.[25] In 2007, the Instituto de Física de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México subjected the codex to non-destructive testing in an effort to determine its authenticity, and identified the key ingredient of Maya blue, palygorskite.[27] Tests under the sponsorship of INAH yielded additional radiocarbon dates, leading to a consensus that the manuscript dates to the 11th or 12th century.[28][29] Additional scientific study has demonstrated that the amate paper surface was prepared on both sides with a thin foundation of gypsum, or calcium sulfate (CaSO4•2H2O) measuring between 0.2 mm-0.3 mm, in order to form a smooth writing surface.[30] The Mexican studies have also proven that the pigment is contemporaneous with the paper; further work has shown that the pigments include lamp black, red produced from hematite (Fe2O3), Maya blue fashioned from indigo dye and palygorskite, and browns prepared with cochineal.[31]

Mexican scientific study has also shown that the codex was subjected to at least three periods of high moisture conditions.[5][32] Furthermore, tiny arthropods took up residence in the MCM at some point, yielding crisply chewed edges that detractors of the manuscript misconstrued as scissor cuts.[32] Looters handled the codex roughly, tearing apart the pages. Today only pages four, five, and six remain attached to one another.[4]

In 2015, ahead of the INAH study, Coe, Houston, Miller and Taube published a full study of the codex. They presented further arguments in support of the authenticity of the document and came to the conclusion that only a Maya priest could have made the work.[4] Despite subsequent publication of a critical review of Coe et al.’s arguments,[33] teams of scientists under the auspices of Mexico's National Institute of Anthropology and History were preparing the studies that would declare the MCM to be authentic in 2018.

Content

[edit]

Although both front and back (recto and verso) of the MCM were prepared for painting, only one side was completed as a ritual manuscript.[4] Each recto page features a standing deity facing left. The left-hand side of each page is marked by a column of repeated day signs; where this column is complete these total thirteen in all. Ring numbers across the upper margin link the days of the Venus cycle,[3] recorded in a hybrid system that incorporates both the bar-and-dot numeration of the Maya and the single dots used in Central Mexico and Oaxaca.[34]

Mesoamerican peoples paid close attention to Venus, understood to be a dangerous and warlike entity (XRF Mesoamerican calendars). Venus's cycle was broken down by synodic periods as follows: 90 days of invisibility in superior conjunction (SC), 250 days of visibility as Evening Star, 8 days of invisibility in inferior conjunction (IC), and 236 days of visibility as Morning Star, for a total of 584 days.[3] Five Venus cycles equals 8 solar years of 365 days, providing for numerological opportunities.

It is these synodic periods that are spelled out in the MCM ring numbers. For example, page 7 shows a bar and three dots inside the “ring,” so that the reader counts forward 8 days from the Lamat day (e.g.10 Lamat, in the second position) to the Kib day (e.g. 5 Kib, in the second position), 8 days later on page 8. On page 8, the count in the “ring” is 16, three bars and one dot; this is added to the sum yielded by the 11 dots, which note periods of 20, or 220 days, to total 236 days: 236 is the period of Venus's visibility as Morning Star.[3] The book would have served as a guide to precise knowledge in the hands of a Maya priest in the late 11th or early 12th century.

The first eight pages of the codex are now lost, as are the last two, but the page numbering today refers to the pages now in existence.[4] Page 1 depicts K’awiil, who takes a captive.[4] Page 2 depicts a death god, the god most commonly known as Kimi among the Maya.[4][35] The deity of Page 3 is not easily identifiable, but the blackened eyes of the captive are like those seen on Dresden 60b.[4] K’awiil repeats on Page 4, this time taking a captive. Page 5 features a version of a solar deity known from Dresden 55a, and as the face of an Early Postclassic Maya mask at the Art Institute of Chicago (1965.782); this sun god sets the temple in front of him afire with a dart launched from his atlatl.[4] A death god appears on page 6, almost certainly a version of Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, as first identified by John Carlson.[34] He wields a massive knife and has decapitated another deity that he holds by the hair. The death deity has a jagged flint blade in his nasal cavity, similar to a depiction at the Temple of the Warriors, Chichen Itza.[21]

The enigmatic deity of Page 7 stands in front of a shining tree, or what David Stuart first called the "Shiner".[36] His headdress is very close to the headdresses worn by the five deities in the Vaticanus B Venus passages, and this may further link him to Tlalhuizcalpantecuhtli, god of the Morning Star in Central Mexico.[4] The shining tree may be issuing radiant jade disks.[4] Page 8 has been identified as a bird deity,[21] with some serpent qualities;[4] he wears a thick belt and tezcacuitlapilli over a hide skirt,[4] and he has shot the temple in front of him with a dart from his atlatl.

Although sometimes identified as a maize deity,[37] the Page 9 god is the craggy mountain deity or personified mountain from which a maize kernel or a maize god could emerge,[4] like the representation discovered at Tancah in 1974.[38] In the MCM the mountain deity prepares to hurl a stone and takes a captive. Finally, although once thought to be fragments of two different pages, Page 10 can now be recognized as a single page, and the depiction of the third and final skeletal death deity, probably Tlalhuizcalpantecuhtli again. The deity has launched an atlatl dart into a body of water to strike a gastropod, very much like images from the Nuttall and Borgia codices (Codex Nuttall 16, 34, 75, 80; Codex Borgia 12, 53).

Two more pages would have followed these ten, to complete the full Venus cycle recorded in the surviving pages.

Style

[edit]

The radiocarbon date of the codex places it squarely in the Early Postclassic period, when both Tula and Chichen Itza were waning in power and when all of Mesoamerica was in decline. The workmanship of the MCM relates to late paintings at Chichen Itza, in which outlines and underdrawing are only loosely followed by the subsequent final painting.  The discovery of ring numbers in the Xultun paintings, dating to 800 CE, provided evidence that ring numbers were in use for centuries, and not unique to the Dresden Codex.  The proportions of the human figures are similar to those known from Terminal Classic and Early Postclassic fine orange ceramics, typically with a ringstand support.

Saeko Yanigasawa has demonstrated that the style of the MCM most closely relates to that of Mixtec codices, which may have drawn on hybrid works like the MCM, and other scholars have noted that headdresses known from the Mixtec manuscripts are first known in the MCM. The rounded eye, as opposed to the oval characterized by a straight line across the upper side of the eye, is known at Chichen Itza. Also typical of both the MCM and paintings at Chichen Itza is the casual attention to underdrawing; in both, the final painted line deviates from the sketch. The style of the MCM hieroglyphs is simple but competent, consistent and controlled for long columns of day signs. Both the underdrawing and the finished work suggests that a single scribe, using at least two brushes, one brush for thicker, viscous pigments used for the day signs, and a finer instrument to handle the human figures and other elements of each scene.

Exhibition

[edit]

The MCM was first shown at the Grolier Club from April 20 to June 5, 1971. Prior to the first exhibit in 1971 at The Grolier Club, the MCM was in the possession of a private collector in Mexico. The MCM first appeared at an auction in the late 1960s.[39] The MCM was exhibited at the Museo Nacional de Antropología of Mexico City for three weeks in September and October 2018.

[edit]
  • Page 1
    Page 1
  • Page 4
    Page 4
  • Page 6
    Page 6
  • Page 7
    Page 7
  • Page 8
    Page 8
  • Page 9
    Page 9

See also

[edit]

Footnotes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Maya Codex of Mexico

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Maya Codex of Mexico, also known as the Codex or Sáenz Codex, is a fragmented pre-Columbian Maya screenfold consisting of 10 surviving pages painted with mineral and organic pigments on bark coated with , dating to the 13th century and serving as an astronomical that tracks and predicts the 104-year synodic cycle of the planet over three generations. It represents the only Maya codex discovered within modern and the oldest known book from the , predating the Spanish conquest and exemplifying Postclassic Maya astronomical and ritual knowledge. Discovered by looters in a dry cave in the mountains of , , around 1964, the codex was acquired by Mexican antiquities collector Josué Sáenz, who reportedly purchased it from looters along with other artifacts, including a turquoise now at . Sáenz sent the manuscript to the for authentication in the late 1960s, where it was exhibited at the in New York in 1971 under the name "Grolier Codex," marking the first public display of a potential fourth Maya codex alongside the well-known , , and codices. Due to its questionable and the circumstances of its , the seized it upon its return in 1976, and it has since been housed in the basement vaults of the National Museum of Anthropology in , with limited access for scholars. The codex's content focuses exclusively on Venus, depicting the planet's phases as the Morning Star and Evening Star through ritual iconography of malevolent deities, such as the Death God and K'awiil, armed with spears, atlatls, and captives, symbolizing warfare and associated with Venus's heliacal risings. Unlike the more narrative , it lacks hieroglyphic texts with verbs or syntax, instead using only day signs and ring numbers to present a predetermined spanning 104 years (5 × 20.8 Venus years of 584 days each), likely intended as a divinatory tool for Maya priests or astronomers. Its artistic style blends Late Classic Maya conventions with Postclassic Central Mexican influences, evident in Toltec-inspired warrior figures and bold, simplified line drawings in red, blue, yellow, and black pigments, reflecting cultural syncretism at sites like . Long shrouded in controversy due to its looted origins and stylistic anomalies, the codex's authenticity was rigorously verified in the through multiple scientific methods, including of the paper to AD 1147–1367 (with a refined range of AD 1172–1252) and (PIXE) and (RBS) analyses confirming ancient pigments like , , and with no modern contaminants. Scholars such as , Stephen D. Houston, Mary Miller, and Karl A. Taube concluded in a 2016 publication that it is unequivocally pre-Hispanic, dispelling forgery doubts and affirming its place as a genuine artifact of Maya intellectual achievement. As one of only four extant , the Maya Codex of Mexico underscores the sophistication of indigenous Mesoamerican science, particularly in astronomy, and highlights the devastating impact of colonial destruction on Maya literature, with most such books burned by Spanish friars in the . It was exhibited publicly for the first time in over 50 years at the in 2023, drawing attention to its role in preserving Venus-related rituals that influenced , agriculture, and cosmology.

Historical Context

Maya Codices in General

The Maya codices represent the only surviving examples of pre-Columbian Maya literature, with just four known to exist: the Dresden, Madrid, Paris, and Grolier codices (now known as the Maya Codex of Mexico). The Dresden Codex, discovered in 1739 in the library of the Royal Court in Dresden, Germany, contains astronomical tables on eclipses, Venus, and Mars cycles, along with ritual almanacs. The Madrid and Paris codices were identified in the 19th century in Spain and France, respectively; the Madrid Codex, comprising 112 pages, focuses on divinatory almanacs related to agriculture, hunting, and daily rituals, while the Paris Codex, with 24 pages, includes calendrical calculations and a series of 13 constellations interpreted as a Maya zodiac. The Grolier Codex surfaced in the 1960s after being looted from a cave in Chiapas, Mexico, and features a fragmented Venus almanac with ritual iconography across its 10 pages. These codices, all dating to the Postclassic period (circa 900–1500 CE), serve as elite texts for astronomical predictions, divination, and ceremonial guidance rather than historical chronicles. The vast majority of Maya codices were destroyed during the Spanish conquest of the , as colonial authorities viewed them as idolatrous objects tied to . A pivotal event was the 1562 organized by Franciscan friar in the town of Maní, , where he oversaw the burning of numerous codices, idols, and sacred items seized from Maya communities, contributing to the near-total loss of this literary tradition. Landa later expressed regret over the destruction in his 1566 manuscript Relación de las cosas de Yucatán, noting that the books contained valuable knowledge about Maya history and sciences, though his actions exemplified the broader colonial campaign to eradicate native writing systems. By the time European scholars began recognizing the surviving codices, the original corpus—estimated to have numbered in the thousands—had been reduced to these fragile remnants. These codices were crafted from paper, a bark-based material derived from the inner bark of fig trees (Ficus spp.), which was beaten into thin sheets, coated with for a smooth writing surface, and painted with pigments in vibrant reds, blues, and yellows. Folded in a screenfold or format, they could extend to several meters when unfolded, allowing for sequential reading of pictorial and hieroglyphic content from right to left. Primarily used by Maya scribes and priests in elite contexts, the codices functioned as practical tools for tracking celestial events, performing rituals, and interpreting omens, reflecting the Maya's sophisticated integration of , , and cosmology in daily and ceremonial life. Notably, the Grolier Codex stands out as the only one discovered within the , underscoring the rarity of such artifacts in their native region.

Postclassic Maya Scribal Traditions

The Postclassic period (ca. 900–1500 CE) marked a significant transformation in Maya scribal practices, following the decline of Classic-era southern lowland centers around 900 CE and the emergence of new political and cultural hubs in northern and highland . This shift saw a move from the monumental inscriptions and naturalistic art styles of the Classic period to more portable media like folded-screen codices, produced primarily in sites such as and in caves, reflecting decentralized ritual centers rather than grand palaces. Scribal production incorporated external influences, including warrior motifs like pelt knee bindings and back mirrors, as well as iconographic elements such as headdresses and temple imagery, evident in the stylized figures and deity portrayals of surviving manuscripts. Central to these traditions were specialized scribal groups known as ah tz'ib (or aj tz'ihb), elite artisans who operated within priestly or royal patronage systems to create ritual and divinatory texts. These scribes employed the Maya logosyllabic hieroglyphic script, recording in an Eastern Ch'olan language, to document esoteric knowledge primarily focused on astronomical observations and calendrical computations, such as almanacs for the Tzolk'in (260-day ritual cycle), Haab' (365-day solar year), and Long Count dating. Their works served ritual purposes, aiding day-keepers in predicting celestial events like cycles and lunar phases, often presented in pictorial tables that blended text and for priestly use. Postclassic manuscripts further integrated Central Mexican elements, resulting in hybrid stylistic and symbolic systems that adapted Toltec-Mixtec conventions to Maya frameworks, including modified almanacs that diverged from earlier traditions by emphasizing syncretic deity representations. This fusion extended to numeration practices, where (base-20) Maya systems occasionally incorporated Central Mexican positional notations in calendrical tables, enhancing the precision of astronomical predictions. The Maya Codex of Mexico, dated to ca. AD 1172–1252 (), exemplifies this early Postclassic synthesis in its Venus-focused content.

Discovery and Provenance

Initial Finding in the 1960s

The Maya Codex of Mexico was discovered in 1965 by looters exploring a dry cave in the Sierra de Chiapas near Ocosingo, . The looters reported finding the alongside several associated artifacts, including jade ornaments, a turquoise-inlaid wooden , and vessels, all of which were later separated and entered various private collections. Following its recovery, the was transferred to antiquities dealer Josué Sáenz, who purchased it in 1966 after being flown by the looters to a remote airstrip for inspection. Sáenz, a Mexican collector with interests in , initially sought expert authentication in but proceeded with the acquisition despite skepticism about its origins. The artifact's fragmented condition was immediately apparent during early examinations by Maya specialists, including , who viewed it in 1966 and described it as consisting of 11 surviving pages from an original 20-page screenfold manuscript made of bark paper. Additional assessments by epigrapher Eric von Euw and archaeologist Gordon F. Ekholm in the late 1960s confirmed the rough handling by looters, which had torn most pages apart, leaving only three consecutive sheets intact; today, 10 pages are publicly displayed in a conserved format. These initial reviews highlighted the codex's poor state but also its potential ritual significance, sparking early debates on authenticity due to its undocumented looted provenance.

Acquisition and Early Exhibitions

Following its emergence in private hands during the , the codex faced legal challenges that led to its . Following the , the codex was returned to Sáenz. In 1973, the Mexican government seized the codex from him and declared it national patrimony, acquiring it through the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH). INAH stored the codex securely, recognizing its significance as a pre-Columbian artifact despite ongoing questions. The made its public debut at the in from April 20 to June 5, 1971, in the exhibition "Ancient Maya Calligraphy," organized by archaeologist . This marked the first time a Maya had been displayed in the , drawing attention to its unique Venus almanac content and sparking interest among scholars and the public. Coe, who had examined photographic evidence of the manuscript since 1968, curated the show and later published a catalog in 1973 affirming its Maya origins based on stylistic and calendrical analysis. Early scholarly reactions were mixed, with some experts like Coe and linguist Floyd Lounsbury initially accepting its authenticity due to its alignment with known Maya scribal traditions. However, prominent Maya epigrapher J. Eric S. Thompson raised forgery suspicions in 1975, citing iconographic inconsistencies with other codices and the suspicious circumstances of its discovery. These debates persisted through the , fueled by the codex's undocumented provenance and the era's concerns over looted antiquities, though no concrete evidence of modern fabrication emerged at the time. In 2018, INAH officially renamed it the Maya Codex of Mexico to emphasize its .

Authenticity and Scientific Verification

Historical Debates on Forgery

Upon its public unveiling at the exhibition in New York in 1971, the immediately sparked among Mesoamerican scholars due to its undocumented and emergence from looted channels in southern during the 1960s, a period rife with forgeries in the antiquities market. Critics argued that the manuscript's sudden appearance without archaeological context suggested it could be a modern fabrication, potentially painted over ancient bark paper to mimic a pre-Columbian artifact. This skepticism was heightened by the codex's acquisition history: Mexican collector Josué Sáenz purchased it in 1966 despite an initial assessment by an antiquities expert deeming it and accompanying artifacts fakes, leading to private dealings that further eroded trust in its legitimacy. In the 1970s, prominent Mayanist J. Eric S. Thompson emerged as a leading skeptic, dismissing the codex as a in his 1975 commentary, primarily on stylistic grounds that he viewed as inconsistent with known Maya scribal traditions. Thompson contended that the paintings reflected modern interventions rather than authentic ancient techniques, echoing broader concerns about the use of contemporary materials to deceive collectors. , who facilitated the exhibition and published a detailed defense in his 1973 article in Science, countered these claims by highlighting the codex's intricate Venus tables and hybrid iconography as evidence of a genuine Postclassic Maya work, yet the debate persisted through the 1980s and 1990s in academic publications. Critics, including Susan Milbrath, pointed to anachronistic elements such as apparent influences in the numerals and deities, which they argued deviated from pure Maya conventions and suggested 20th-century fabrication by artists familiar with multiple Mesoamerican styles. The codex's circuitous path through private sales and exhibitions—loaned to the before being returned to in the mid-1970s amid legal pressures—intensified doubts about its credibility, as the opaque transactions mirrored patterns seen in other documented forgeries entering the market during that era. These historical debates, spanning over four decades, underscored the challenges of authenticating unprovenanced artifacts in Maya studies, with accusations often centering on the improbability of such a complete surviving intact without institutional oversight. The controversy was largely resolved in favor of authenticity through comprehensive studies by Mexico's Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) in 2018.

Modern Analyses and Confirmation

Building on a 2016 multidisciplinary study by international scholars including Michael D. Coe, Stephen D. Houston, Mary Miller, and Karl A. Taube, which employed UV fluorescence imaging, optical microscopy, and initial pigment and material analyses to confirm pre-Hispanic origins and dispel forgery claims, the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) of Mexico conducted a comprehensive study in 2018, employing advanced scientific techniques to verify the codex's pre-Columbian origins. Radiocarbon dating of samples from the amate paper, performed using accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) at Beta Analytic laboratory in Miami, yielded calibrated dates of 1021–1154 CE at 95% probability, placing the codex firmly in the Early Postclassic period and predating European contact by centuries. A 2020 revisit using improved pretreatment (Soxhlet extraction followed by ABA) refined this to 1159–1261 cal CE at 95% probability, considered more accurate due to removal of contaminants. Pigment analysis, utilizing non-destructive (XRF) spectrometry and optical microscopy, identified authentic ancient materials including (a synthetic indigo-palygorskite complex), red (Fe₂O₃), cochineal-derived browns, and lampblack, with no evidence of modern synthetic additives or anachronistic compounds. Epigraphic and stylistic examination by specialists, including Nikolai Grube, confirmed that the hieroglyphs and artistic motifs adhere to 11th–12th century Postclassic Maya conventions, exhibiting consistent syntax, iconography, and no post-Conquest influences.

Physical Characteristics

Materials and Construction

The Maya Codex of Mexico is constructed from three-ply amate paper primarily made from the inner bark of mulberry trees (Morus celtidifolia), with fine horizontal outer layers of mulberry sandwiching a coarser vertical inner layer of fibers, a material characteristic of Postclassic Maya scribal practices for its flexibility and longevity in screenfold manuscripts. To prepare the surface for inscription, the was coated with a thin layer of () applied as a white base, which was then polished to create a durable, even writing surface typical of elite Mesoamerican . This not only protected the bark from degradation but also provided a bright backdrop for painted elements. The employs an accordion-style folding mechanism, forming a screenfold with 10 surviving pages from an original total of at least 20, allowing it to open like a continuous strip for reading. Each page measures approximately 12.5 cm in width and up to 18 cm in height, with the original dimensions likely closer to 12.5 cm by just over 23 cm before losses; when fully unfolded, the extant portion spans about 1.25 meters. Binding remnants reveal that the individual sheets were adhered using a extracted from bulbs, a technique common in high-status Maya codex production to secure the folds without rigid covers. The edges exhibit precise cuts consistent with blades, underscoring the elite craftsmanship of Postclassic Maya artisans who produced such documents for and astronomical purposes.

Surviving Pages and Condition

The Maya Codex of Mexico, previously known as the Codex, survives as a fragmented consisting of 11 damaged pages recovered in from looters in a cave near Tortuguero, , . Of these, 10 pages remain intact and connected in varying degrees, with pages 4 through 6 still hinged together via their original attachments, while the others are separate folios; one page appears to have been lost or separated during the looting process, contributing to the codex's incomplete state. Scholars estimate the original length at approximately 20 pages, inferred from the repetitive structure of its almanac content, which would complete the full 104-year synodic cycle of the planet documented across the surviving sections. The pages exhibit significant damage attributable to looting and subsequent handling, including tears along fold edges and abraded margins from forceful separation by looters using modern tools, as evidenced by crisp cuts on certain edges. Creases from the original screenfold construction are prominent, with natural erosion of the friable layer creating sharp, irregular borders, particularly between pages 5 and 6. fading is notable, especially in red hematite-based colors that have worn down at joins and exposed areas, though blue and other pigments remain relatively stable; the lower third of all pages shows severe , manifesting as staining and material loss, likely from the humid environment or post-recovery exposure. While some pages have received minor reinforcement with modern adhesives to stabilize tears, the codex has not undergone full restoration, preserving its authentic despite ongoing fragility.

Content Analysis

Venus Almanac Structure

The Venus almanac in the Maya Codex of , also known as the Grolier Codex, functions as a divinatory table tracking the planet's synodic cycles over a 104-year period, spanning 65 Venus synodic periods (37,960 days total), equivalent to 104 Haab years, composed of 13 cycles of approximately eight solar years each (5 Venus periods ≈ 2,920 days). This structure mirrors aspects of the Dresden Codex's Venus table but employs a fragmented format across its ten surviving pages, originally part of a twenty-page manuscript. Each page organizes data around thirteen consecutive day signs from the 260-day Tzolk'in ritual calendar, facilitating predictions for Venus appearances within that segment. The almanac divides the 584-day Venus synodic period into four stations—morning star visibility (236 days), superior conjunction (90 days), evening star visibility (250 days), and inferior conjunction (8 days)—allowing priests to anticipate celestial events relative to the Tzolk'in. Numeration in the almanac adopts a hybrid system, primarily using the traditional Maya vigesimal notation of bars (each representing five units) and dots (each one unit) for distance counts and . However, the durations of the Venus stations themselves are denoted with Central Mexican-style dots diverging from standard Maya practice; for instance, the 236-day morning star phase is represented as eleven red dots for 11 uinals (220 days) plus a of 16 kins. This stylistic blend reflects postclassic Mesoamerican influences, enhancing the table's utility for cross-regional applications. The pages employ "ring numbers"—circular arrangements of numerals—to record intervals between events and corresponding Tzolk'in dates, ensuring alignment with the 52-year Calendar Round. In its ritual context, the synchronizes stations with ceremonial activities, such as warfare or sacrifices, by anchoring events to specific Tzolk'in coefficients; the base date, for example, is tied to 1 Ahau 8 Yax (Long Count 10.15.10.11.0, circa 1136 AD), marking the of as a portent for auspicious actions. Subsequent pages advance through the 104-year cycle, listing day signs like 13 Lamat or 8 Muluc alongside station distances to guide priests in timing rituals that invoke deities associated with cycles. This framework underscores the codex's role in integrating astronomical observation with divinatory practice, providing a portable tool for elite Maya scribes in the late postclassic period.

Deities and Symbolic Elements

The iconography of the Maya Codex of Mexico prominently features God K (K'awiil), a central deity serving as the patron of , depicted on multiple pages including 1 and 4 as a spear-brandishing with a plumed headdress, upturned snout, and -influenced attire such as a death collar and quetzal feathers. This figure embodies Venus's martial aspects, often positioned as the presiding regent in ritual scenes. Accompanying God K are death gods, such as God A', portrayed as skeletal entities with back mirrors, headdresses, and sacrificial blades; these appear on pages 2, 6, and 11, symbolizing the destructive and underworldly facets of Venus. deities, evoking warfare and nocturnal power, integrate into these compositions, notably on page 2 where a death god dons a spotted headdress with knee fringes. Symbolic motifs throughout the reinforce Venus's cyclical and significance, including bands framing celestial contexts, elements in headdresses—such as the plumed serpents on pages 3 and 5—and bar-and-dot numerals denoting Venus phases like the and evening star appearances. These numerals, often enclosed in red cartouches with distance affixes, align with actions, linking the planet's visibility to and ; for instance, blood streams from nasal sprays or decapitated figures underscore offerings to appease Venus's malevolent influence. Serpents, appearing as coiled motifs or in goddess headdresses like that of Ix Chel on page 5, evoke intertwined with destruction, while spots and shields amplify themes of . The deities and symbols on pages 2–11 illustrate an escalating sequence of Venus rituals, progressing from initial confrontations to climactic acts of subjugation, with each page tying visual elements to the planet's 104-year divinatory cycle. Page 2 opens with a death god hurling darts at a captive amid jaguar symbolism, evoking evening star warfare, while page 6 depicts a skeletal death god decapitating an aged figure, blood flowing in wavy lines to invoke rain and fertility through sacrifice. This builds to page 11, where a death god with a shield aims a dart at a bound captive near a water vessel with a snail, highlighting Venus's destructive culmination in drought-averting rituals and captive immolation. These motifs, calibrated to calendrical intervals, emphasize Venus not merely as a celestial body but as a divine agent demanding blood tribute.

Artistic Features

Painting Techniques and Pigments

The artwork of the Maya Codex of Mexico was created using a layered on a prepared surface of amate paper coated with white made from (). Artists began with loose underdrawings in thin lines, applied with a fine to sketch figures, grids, and guidelines for hieroglyphic columns; these preliminary lines often show corrections and adjustments in the final composition, such as repositioning of elements or text alignments. Outlines were then drawn using a in lampblack (carbon soot-based ), followed by filling interior areas with solid blocks of color, resulting in a flat, iconic style with minimal or modeling to emphasize symbolic forms. Fine, precise lines were employed for hieroglyphs, executed over the underdrawings without erasing, and the pages were painted only on one side, with pigments typically applied as the final layer over outlines. The pigments used were derived from natural minerals and organic sources, applied without a protective varnish to preserve the matte finish. Black was produced from carbon black, a soot-based material that formed the primary outlines and text. Red pigments derived from hematite (iron oxide), used in underdrawings, fills, and accents like blood motifs. The distinctive Maya blue, appearing prominently in backgrounds and deity elements on certain pages, consisted of indigo dye chemically bound to palygorskite clay, creating a stable, vibrant turquoise resistant to fading. These materials were mixed with organic binders, possibly from orchid bulbs or tree saps, and applied over the gesso layer for adhesion. Tools for application likely included brushes made from deer hair for broad fills and fine detailing, supplemented by reed pens for sharper lines in hieroglyphs and outlines. Scientific analyses, including (PIXE) and (RBS), have confirmed the authenticity of these pre-Columbian pigments and techniques, detecting no modern additives.

Stylistic Comparisons

The stylistic features of the Maya Codex of Mexico exhibit notable similarities to Postclassic codices, particularly in the depiction of deity poses and color schemes. For instance, the jaguar headdress on page 2 closely mirrors examples in the Codex Nuttall and , while turquoise back mirrors adorned with skulls on several pages align with motifs in the Codex Nuttall. Deity figures wielding spears and atlatls, often in aggressive striding poses with knotted leg elements and dart motifs, echo the military iconography seen in the Codex Nuttall's Venus-related scenes, such as pages 66-67. The codex's predominant use of red, black, and blue pigments for outlines and fills parallels the bold, limited palettes in manuscripts, emphasizing contrast over subtle shading. Comparisons to Chichen Itza murals further highlight shared Postclassic conventions, especially in Venus-god iconography. The rounded eye style and spear designs on the codex's Venus deities resemble those in the Temple of the Warriors murals, where similar weapons and captive figures appear. Skeletal death gods with nostril blades and severed heads, as on pages 3 and 6, parallel the exterior polychrome murals at , conveying themes of warfare and sacrifice. Additionally, the on page 8, featuring talons and hybrid bird-serpent traits, mirrors reliefs from 's ballcourt and temple facades, underscoring a common for celestial and martial motifs. Distinct early Postclassic traits set the codex apart from Maya art, including simplified hieroglyphs totaling fewer than 100 glyphs, primarily basic day signs without verbs or complex syntax. This contrasts sharply with the elaborate, scripts of period monuments and vases, which often exceed 800 unique glyphs. The codex employs bold, black outlines over initial sketch lines and grids, creating a more conventionalized and less naturalistic appearance than the loose, fluid sketches of works. These features reflect a shift toward efficiency in Postclassic manuscript production, prioritizing symbolic clarity over intricate detail. Toltec-Maya syncretism is evident in the codex's hybrid gods, distinguishing it from later Yucatecan codices like the . Figures such as the K'awiil deity on page 5 blend Maya axe-god elements with Toltec warrior garb, including atlatls and back mirrors inspired by Tula sculptures, a fusion also seen in Chichen Itza's hybrid . In contrast, the features more diverse, purely Maya pantheons with grounded poses and multi-hued palettes, lacking the codex's emphasis on skeletal, floating regents in cruder, stripped-down forms. This syncretic style positions the Maya Codex of Mexico as a bridge between Central Mexican and Maya traditions, with fewer god varieties and simpler compositions than the 's elaborate regents.

Significance and Legacy

Contributions to Maya Astronomy

The Maya Codex of Mexico advances our understanding of by documenting precise observations of through its fragmented , which tracks the planet's 584-day synodic period—a value approximating the actual 583.92 days and enabling accurate long-term predictions. This structures 's cycle over 104 years, equivalent to five Venus periods aligning exactly with eight solar years (2,920 days), demonstrating the Maya's sophisticated integration of into calendrical systems. Such precision supported practical applications in and warfare timing, allowing Postclassic Maya elites to coordinate raids and rituals with 's heliacal risings as the evening star. Central to the codex's ritual astronomy is the depiction of as a "death-bringer," embodied by deities like the Death God who oversee sacrificial violence tied to the planet's phases. The incorporates 8-day stations to delineate key intervals, such as the inferior conjunction, which influenced Postclassic calendars by extending ritual frameworks beyond the Classic Long Count's emphasis on longer epochs. These stations facilitated ceremonies where Venus's movements signaled opportunities for captive-taking and blood offerings to ensure agricultural and rainfall. As the sole surviving fragment of a Maya codex focused exclusively on , the Maya Codex of Mexico provides unique insights that complement the Dresden Codex's broader lunar and solar orientations, revealing greater variability in Venus regents and ritual motifs. Iconographic elements, including armed deities and bound victims, reinforce the almanac's astronomical data by linking celestial events to martial .

Impact on Mesoamerican Studies

The authentication of the Maya Codex of Mexico in 2018 by the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) through multidisciplinary analyses, including and examination, confirmed its pre-Columbian origins and elevated the scholarly value of artifacts with questionable provenance. Furthermore, the codex's hybrid iconography, blending Maya motifs with Toltec-Mixtec elements, has prompted studies of expanded Postclassic trade networks across , highlighting cultural exchanges in southern during the 11th–12th centuries CE. The codex provides key evidence of sustained Maya literacy into the Early Postclassic period, extending beyond the monumental inscriptions of Classic-era elite centers like and . Its abbreviated hieroglyphic texts and structure suggest production for a readership of moderate , indicating that codex-making and script use persisted in provincial or non-royal contexts, thus challenging prior emphases on Classic-period dominance in Maya writing systems. This has broadened understandings of pre-Columbian textual traditions as more decentralized and enduring than previously assumed. Ongoing research influenced by the codex includes advancements in Maya epigraphy, where its unique glyphs depicting deities have facilitated new readings of astronomical nomenclature and terminology. In , the manuscript's dynamic god portraits and hybrid styles continue to inform analyses of Mesoamerican religious symbolism and intercultural influences. The high-fidelity digital included in the INAH publication has enhanced global accessibility, enabling collaborative studies without risking the fragile original. Its public exhibition at the in 2023 and subsequent publications, such as the 2024 volume Códice Maya de México: Understanding the Oldest Surviving Book of the Americas, have further amplified scholarly and in its astronomical and cultural significance as of 2025.

Exhibitions and Preservation

Key Public Displays

The Maya Codex of Mexico, also known as the Grolier Codex, made its first public appearance in 1971 at the in , marking the inaugural exhibition of this ancient Maya manuscript for a scholarly audience. Curated by archaeologist , the display highlighted the codex's focus on a Venus almanac, with Coe's accompanying catalog detailing its astronomical significance and authenticity based on stylistic and material analysis. This event drew experts in Mesoamerican studies, fostering early debates on the artifact's while underscoring its rarity as one of only four surviving pre-Columbian . Following its authentication in the late 2010s and repatriation to , the codex debuted publicly in its home country during a limited exhibition at the Museo Nacional de Antropología in from September 28 to October 28, 2018. Titled "El Códice Maya de México: Eslabón, fuente y testigo," the display attracted 100,415 visitors over the month, offering insights into the codex's historical context through interactive modules on its cosmogonic and scientific elements. The exhibition featured the original manuscript alongside digital projections and videos, emphasizing its role in without replicas of other codices. In a rare international since 1971, the was exhibited at the in from October 18, 2022, to January 15, 2023. Titled "Códice Maya de México: The Oldest Book of the ," this display marked the first U.S. showing in over 50 years and highlighted the manuscript's astronomical content and Maya cosmological interpretations through high-resolution images and scholarly analysis. The Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) maintains a strict policy of limited public showings for the to minimize environmental risks and prevent deterioration, with international permitted only exceptionally, as in the 2022-2023 Getty exhibition. Protected in a hermetic case filled with during displays, the artifact's access is carefully controlled to preserve its fragile paper and pigments, highlighting ongoing conservation priorities.

Conservation and Future Access

Since its authentication in the late 2010s, the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) has implemented ongoing conservation measures for the Códice Maya de México to safeguard its fragile paper and pigments. These include storage in a climate-controlled environment at the Biblioteca Nacional de Antropología e Historia, with temperatures maintained between 15–22°C and relative at 45–60% to mitigate degradation from environmental factors such as and insects. UV filtering is applied during any handling or display to protect the organic pigments from light-induced fading, in line with protocols for the broader collection of Mexican codices. Minor repairs to the codex's edges and tears, resulting from past looting and handling, utilize reversible adhesives such as cellulose nitrate-based materials, allowing for future interventions without permanent alteration. The amate substrate's inherent fragility—prone to brittleness, staining, and structural weakening over time—necessitates minimal physical handling, with all interactions limited to essential research or conservation activities conducted by trained specialists. Full restoration is avoided to preserve the codex's historical authenticity, prioritizing preventive care over invasive treatments. To enhance accessibility while reducing wear, INAH provides digital scans of the through its online portal, offering high-resolution images of all surviving pages for public and scholarly use since its launch in 2018. features allow interactive exploration of the manuscript's details via a dedicated app, simulating closer examination without physical contact. Physical viewings remain restricted to approved researchers under supervised conditions, with exhibitions employing protective enclosures like hermetic capsules filled with inert gas to control microenvironmental factors. Future initiatives may include expanded experiences to broaden global access, building on current digital platforms.

References

  1. https://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/maya_codex/
  2. https://www.mesoweb.com/articles/Coe_etal/Fourth_Codex.pdf
  3. https://www.brown.edu/news/2016-09-07/mayacodex
  4. http://mayacodices.org/discovery.asp
  5. https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/72319/AI_Vol33_No2_MichaelArbagi1.pdf
  6. https://press.uchicago.edu/books/hoc/HOC_V2_B3/HOC_VOLUME2_Book3_chapter5.pdf
  7. https://www.mesoweb.com/resources/handbook/IMH2020.pdf
  8. https://traffickingculture.org/encyclopedia/case-studies/grolier-codex/
  9. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/maya-codex-once-thought-be-sketchy-real-thing-180960466/
  10. https://news.yale.edu/2017/01/18/authenticating-oldest-book-americas
  11. https://grolierclub.wordpress.com/2019/10/23/the-relationship-between-the-grolier-codex-and-the-grolier-club-of-new-york/
  12. https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/chemical-tests-prove-mayan-codex-not-a-fake/
  13. http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/44018
  14. https://theconversation.com/grolier-codex-ruled-genuine-what-the-oldest-manuscript-to-survive-spanish-conquest-reveals-67941
  15. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123324
  16. https://www.foxnews.com/science/ancient-mayan-codex-found-to-be-oldest-document-from-the-americas
  17. https://www.cultura.gob.mx/dgai/noticias-detalle/?id=56625&orden=1&ln=en
  18. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/ams-14c-dating-of-the-mayan-codex-of-mexico-revisited/476DEA751C1A75B274507450758D9537
  19. https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/657677/ams_14c_dating_of_the_mayan_codex_of_mexico_revisited.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  20. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/latin-american-antiquity/article/el-codice-maya-de-mexico-antes-grolier-sofia-martinez-del-campo-lanz-coordinator-2018-instituto-nacional-de-antropologia-y-historia-mexico-city-xvii-379-pp-isbn-9786075391588-codex-facsimile-included-in-boxed-set/523500C494EFE4538260557ABC513E1C
  21. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Grolier-Codex
  22. https://www.academia.edu/7908428/The_Grolier_Codex_A_Preliminary_Report_on_the_Content_and_Authenticity_of_a_Thirteenth_Century_Maya_Venus_Almanac_1982_Codice_Maya_de_Mexico_CMM_
  23. http://www.mayavase.com/grol/grolier.pdf
  24. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351390181_The_base_date_of_the_Maya_Codex_of_Mexico
  25. https://www.academia.edu/11295486/The_Twenty_Masks_of_Venus_A_Brief_Report_of_Study_and_Commentary_on_the_Thirteenth_Century_Maya_Grolier_Codex_a_Fragment_of_a_104_Year_Hybrid_Style_Maya_Divinatory_Venus_Almanac_2013_Codice_Maya_de_Mexico_CMM_
  26. https://www.fisica.unam.mx/pixe2007/Downloads/Proceedings/PDF_Files/PIXE2007-PII-43.pdf
  27. https://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/writing/what-did-the-scribes-write-with
  28. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/56/article/916143
  29. https://mna.inah.gob.mx/exposiciones_temporales_detalle.php?pl=El_Codice_Maya_de_Mexico
  30. https://codicemayademexico.inah.gob.mx/
  31. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342747054_Identificacion_de_adhesivos_en_laminados_en_papel_y_recomendaciones_de_conservacion_para_la_Coleccion_Antigua_de_la_Biblioteca_Nacional_de_Antropologia_e_Historia_BNAH_Mexico
  32. https://media.unesco.org/sites/default/files/webform/mow001/collection_of_mexican_codices.pdf
  33. https://el-gabinete.com/demos/sitioCodice/ar
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.