Talk:Maya codices

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I reverted anon claim that the authenticity of the Grollier Codex is still in doubt. I recall unanimity about it over 20 years ago in discussion at the Austin glyph conferences. If there is some more recent scholarly doubt, please explain here. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 02:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, most likely the anon was relying on outdated reportage on say Thompson's views, but by the early 90s Coe is confident enough to declare it to be considered authentic by "almost all those Mayanists who are either epigraphers or iconographers, or both". AFAIK nothing's changed since then.--cjllw | TALK 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The anon was probably relying on a recent scholarly discussion of the Grolier's status in Arqueología Mexicana (2002: 70-79, English translation on internet) by the respected French archaeologist and iconographer, Claude Baudez. Baudez marshalled strong arguments against the fragment's authenticity. Therefore, I have added a few words about the persistence of legitimate doubts. Retal 23:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm, the article at present suggest the matter is very much settled on the side of the Grollier being a fraud, stating as a matter of fact that it has "been exposed as a forgery" and calls it "embarassing". It then adds almost as a postscript that if there is still some disagreement, the reason is "no doubt because great reputations are at stake."
A search of MesoAmerican studies websites on line failed to show such unanimity. If such has been reached, please provide references that there are not merely strong arguments for the Grollier being a fraud, but that there is complete or at least very near unanimous agreement among serious scholars. If not, I think we have a POV problem in the article. Just who or what "great reputations are at stake" -- if this is a simple fact rather than an accusation, name names and give specifics.
Note, as a dabbler rather than serious resarcher, I have no particular personal opinion on the question. I'd just like Wikipedia's summary of the current scholarly consensus (if there is one) to be accurate.
If I remember correctly (sorry I have to go by memory as much of my papers here in New Orleans were lost in an inconvenience a few years ago), at the 1980 Maya glyph conference in Austin, Linda Schele said something to the effect that the Grollier showed knowledge of Maya writing and iconography that only about 5 or 6 top researchers possessed when it became public, but progress sinces confirmed it was genuine since it showed some iconographic details that only recently became understood. No counter argument was offered, and Michael Coe concluded with an "I told you so" as to the Grollier's authenticity.
So, if it's a fraud, is it by one of the half dozen very top Mayanists of the last generation? And has the forger been identified? Wondering, Infrogmation (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I took your objections into account and changed the wording accordingly/ (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Spanish title[edit]

Maya codices is not the correct way of calling this in spanish. It should be Códices Mayas — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2007

This is the English wikipedia.·Maunus· tlahtōlli 18:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


I Changed the Aztec word for paper Amatl, for the Mayan huun, and put the scietyfic name of the Wild Fig Tree. Also added description of the burning of codex in Guatemala and mention other non legible codex and its source. mayasautenticos 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Authenticmaya

V century AD[edit]

What the hell does that mean? 5th century? If so, say 5th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:52, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Portions of the article were written by someone whose first language is Spanish, where it's usual to write centuries in Roman numerals. It's changed now.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Coe quotation[edit]

I removed the Coe quotation since it contained no relevant information which had not already been given in the article. 14:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced/Incorrect information[edit]

There is much in this article that I think is unsourced or at least very suspect. Despite the reference to Burns, I don't think there is any evidence that the Maya developed paper in the 5th century. I don't think we know what the Maya called their paper in classic times.

Where is the evidence that Dresden was written just before the Spanish Conquest? The content is relating events from 8th through the 13th centuries. The dates in the Serpent Pages go from 779 CE to 1052 CE, and the Venus pages relate events from 934 CE to 1324 CE. It is possible that the Dresden copy was made late, but the content is from much before the Spanish Conquest.

What does it mean by the "The only exact replica, including the huun, made by a German artist is displayed at the Museo Nacional de Arqueología in Guatemala City, since October, 2007"? The best copy of Dresden is the Forstemann reproduction from the 1890s.

Who gives the provenance of the Madrid Codex to Tayasal? This is, at best, speculation. There is no tracking where it came to Europe from.

I think the number of people who think the Grolier is not authentic is very small at this point. The controversy belongs back here, not in the article. There is no doubt in my mind at all that the Grolier is authentically pre-Columbian Maya, although if we had 200 codices instead of four, it would be just a footnote as it is terribly badly rendered. The fact that John Carlson found that it relates information that matches the Venus pages in Dresden is particularly damning to anyone doubting its authenticity.

This article is in need of much more work. --grr (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, by the 5th century CE, parchment was replacing papyrus as the primary writing material, and while Mayan paper might be more durable than papyrus, it is questionable that Mayan paper is more durable than parchment. Also, although called a "codex", the Mayan codex is not the same format as the "codex" used in teh West (Europe and Islamic worlds). Mayan codex is more like a "concerntina" style book you see used centuries later in China. (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)DB

Yes, that part definitely needs to be rewritten. First of all, parchment was invented in Pergamon in the 3rd or 2nd century BC and the codex format was already in use by the 1st century AD (mentioned by the Roman poet Martial). The page Codex furthermore mentions that parity between the scroll and the codex was achieved in the Roman Empire by AD 300. As for the 5th century AD and onwards in the Western Roman Empire, the codex was increasingly used with parchment (vellum to be precise), which is vastly superior to any other pre-modern non-synthetic writing material - including this Mayan paper made from the bark of trees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abvgd (talkcontribs) 23:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Physical medium[edit]

In the intro, is "Mesoamerican bark cloth" the same as "paper"/amati? -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


As the titles of books wouldn't the titles of the codices be italicized? Hyacinth (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference to Vail[edit]

Since the point made by the following passage is unclear, I have temporarily removed it: "Others have pointed out that the iconography and relationship of the venus cycle found in the Grolier codex is much too advanced to have been produced based on the knowledge available to scholars in the 1960s.[1]".

Alonso de Zorita[edit]

Does anybody know to which specific script this "(Zorita 1963, 271-2)" refers to? If you google the whole quote used in the article or parts of it most websites contain exactly the same passage as it is here on Wikipedia. I would like to read the whole text of Zorita and the context in which this sentence was used. When I was searching for books of Zorita I found the titles "Historia de la Nueva España" and "Brevíssima Relación" but I could not find them to read. What sense does it make to have a quotation like that in the text without giving the name of the used book? Bloche (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Maya codices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Vail was invoked but never defined (see the help page).