Re-Creating Primordial Time: Foundation Rituals and Mythology in the Postclassic Maya Codices

Re-Creating Primordial Time

Re-Creating Primordial Time

FOUNDATION RITUALS AND MYTHOLOGY

IN THE POSTCLASSIC MAYA CODICES

Gabrielle Vail

Christine Hernández

UNIVERSITY PRESS OF COLORADO

Boulder

© 2013 by University Press of Colorado

Published by University Press of Colorado

5589 Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 206C

Boulder, Colorado 80303

All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

The University Press of Colorado is a cooperative publishing enterprise supported, in part, by Adams State University, Colorado State University, Fort Lewis College, Metropolitan State University of Denver, Regis University, University of Colorado, University of Northern Colorado, Utah State University, and Western State Colorado University.

This paper meets the requirements of the ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper).

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Vail, Gabrielle.

Re-creating primordial time : foundation rituals and mythology in the postclassic Maya codices / Gabrielle Vail, Christine Hernández.

pages cm

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-1-60732-220-7 (hardback) — ISBN 978-1-60732-221-4 (ebook)

1. Maya mythology. 2. Creation—Mythology. 3. Manuscripts, Maya. I. Hernández, Christine L. II. Title.

F1435.3.R3V34 2013

299.7’8423—dc23

2013003394

Design by Daniel Pratt

22   21   20   19   18   17   16   15   14   13           10   9   8   7   6   5   4   3   2   1

Cover illustration: Uppermost image on page 50 of the Venus table on pages 24, 49–50 of the Codex Dresdensis. From Ernst Wilhelm Förstemann’s Die Mayahandschrift der Königlichen öffentlichen bibliothek zu Dresden. Mit 74 tafeln in chromo-lichtdruck (1882). Naumann & Schroeder, Leipzig.

To the memory of Merle Greene Robertson,

whose pioneering spirit and dedication has long

been an inspiration to us.

Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

Preface: The Conceptual and Methodological Underpinnings of Our Study

Acknowledgments

1: Introduction to the Maya Codices

Appendix 1.1. The 260-Day Ritual Calendar (Tzolk’in)

2: Mexican Codices and Mythological Traditions

3: Mythological Episodes Related in Maya Sources

Appendix 3.1. Maya Deities and Supernaturals

Appendix 3.2. Chilam Balam Texts from K’atuns 13 Ahaw and 11 Ahaw

Appendix 3.3. 4 Ahaw 8 Kumk’u in Classic Period Texts

4: World Renewal in the Dresden Codex: The Yearbearer Ceremonies

Appendix 4.1. Deities in the Dresden Yearbearer Almanac

Appendix 4.2. Iconography and Text of the Dresden Yearbearer Almanac

Appendix 4.3. Almanac on Dresden 31b–35b

5: Flood Episodes and Crocodilians in the Maya Codices

Appendix 5.1. Calculation of Base Dates in the Preface to the Water Tables

6: Creation Mythology in Reference to Chaak, Chak Chel, and Mars in the Maya Codices

Appendix 6.1. Preface to Dresden Upper Seasonal Table

Appendix 6.2. Calendrical Structure, Dating, and Iconography of Borgia 27 and 28

7: Creation Mythology in the Dresden Venus Table and Related Almanacs

Appendix 7.1. Reckoning Predictive Dates of Venus’ Visibility and Invisibility in the Dresden Venus Table

Appendix 7.2. Hieroglyphic Texts on D. 24 and 46–50

Appendix 7.3. Notes on Deities: Dresden Venus Table

8: Madrid Yearbearer Celebrations and Creation Mythology

Appendix 8.1. Texts Associated with the Madrid Yearbearer Almanac

9: World Renewal Ceremonies in the Madrid Codex

10: A Reconsideration of Maya Deities Associated with Creation

Appendix 10.1. Captions to Mars Table

11: Cosmology in the Maya Codices

References Cited

Index

Figures

1.1. Almanac on D. 6b–7b containing four frames, each with an interval of ‘13’

1.2. Symbols for 0, 1, 5, and 20

1.3. Almanac on D. 42c–45c

1.4. Rituals on P. 4 corresponding to K’atun 11 Ahaw and involving the transfer of a K’awil effigy or headdress and the presentation of offerings

1.5. Frame from M. 69b showing the rain god Chaak seated in front of a deer offering

1.6. Almanac on M. 49c–50c containing five separate frames, each showing the generic god K’uh seated on a cartouche with a numbered Ahaw glyph

1.7. Frame from M. 73b showing the rain god Chaak associated with a cenote

2.1. Twenty days of the tonalpohualli

3.1. The ascent of the crocodilian Itzam Kab Ayin into the sky on D. 74

3.2. Itzam Kab Ayin on D. 4b–5b, where he is depicted as a bicephalic creature

3.3. Text from Temple XIX platform from Palenque, highlighting the decapitation of a crocodilian in primordial times

3.4. Starry Deer Crocodile from Altar D’, Copan

3.5. Mural painted on the floor of the Temple of the Fisherman from Late Postclassic Mayapán showing the spearing of a crocodile by a Venus deity

3.6. page 1 of the Codex Fejérváry-Mayer

3.7. East text from Quirigua Stela C, highlighting the establishment of three thrones or stones at the start of the current era

3.8. The three celestial hearthstones associated with the turtle constellation on M. 71a

3.9. The setting in order of the cosmos, as pictured on the Vase of the Seven Gods (Kerr 2796), at the start of the current era

3.10. Turtle with three star glyphs, as pictured on the Bonampak mural

3.11. The rebirth of the maize god from the celestial turtle, as detailed on a Classic period plate

3.12. Tablet from the Temple of the Foliated Cross, Palenque, detailing the maize tree of abundance and the Principal Bird Deity at its summit

3.13. Rituals associated with K’atun 10 Ahaw on P. 11, showing the falcon aspect of Itzamna as the omen for the time period

3.14. Deities performing autosacrifice at the central world tree on Borgia 53c

4.1. Yearbearer ceremonies on D. 25–28

4.2. Eb and Ben ceremonies on D. 25, featuring K’awil and K’in Ahaw

4.3. Original version of D. 26 and 28 (before correction)

4.4. Kaban and Etz’nab ceremonies on D. 26 (corrected), featuring the jaguar sun, K’in Ahaw, and Itzamna

4.5. Ik’ and Ak’bal ceremonies on D. 27, featuring the maize god, Itzamna, and the death god Kimil

4.6. Manik’ and Lamat ceremonies on D. 28 (corrected) featuring two variants of the death god and K’awil

4.7. Almanac on M. 89d–90d, showing the blindfolded Pawahtun deity in fr. 2

4.8. Sacrifice of the maize god, likely in a yearbearer context, on D. 34a

4.9. Deities holding yearbearer staffs on M. 20c

4.10. Carved column from Campeche depicting God L in the role of a Pawahtun, carrying K’awil on his back

4.11. Chaak wearing a cape with footprints on D. 35a

4.12. God L wearing a loincloth with footprints from the Temple of the Cross pier, Palenque

4.13. The cosmogram on M. 75–76, showing footsteps leading from the periphery at each of the intercardinal points to the center

4.14. References to the deity Bolon Okte’ on D. 60 in scenes emphasizing the capture of prisoners for sacrifice

4.15. The almanac on D. 31b–35b showing the four directional Chaaks (fr. 1, 3, 5, and 7) and the birth of the rains (fr. 2, 4, 6, and 8)

4.16. Mural 2 from Structure 16 at Tulum, which highlights the roles played by Chaak, Chak Chel, and the maize god in creation episodes

4.17. Capstone from the Temple of Owls, Chichén Itzá

5.1. Dresden 74 with annotations

5.2. The water tables on D. 69–74

5.3. The preface to the water tables on D. 69–70

5.4. The preface to the seasonal table on D. 61–63

5.5. The lower water table in the Dresden Codex

5.6. M. 32 almanacs cognate with D. 74

5.7. The crocodilian skyband throne on P. 3 in the context of a k’atun ritual

5.8. The crocodilian skyband throne on Piedras Negras Stela 11 in the context of an accession ritual or k’atun celebration

5.9. Sacrificial rituals associated with k’atun ceremonies from the west wall mural of Structure 1, Santa Rita

5.10. Tun endings portrayed on the north wall mural of Structure 1, Santa Rita

5.11. Continuation of tun mural from the north wall of Structure 1, Santa Rita

5.12. Primordial scene associated with the time before the flood and the birth of the new sun on P. 22

5.13. The descent of the sun on P. 21

5.14. The capture of prisoners for sacrifice by the black-painted God M on M. 83a–84a

6.1. Upper water table from the Dresden Codex

6.2. The Mars creature on M. 2a

6.3. The Mars table on D. 43b–45b

6.4. page 65a of the Dresden upper seasonal table

6.5. page 66a of the Dresden upper seasonal table

6.6. page 67a of the Dresden upper seasonal table

6.7. Pages 68a–69a of the Dresden upper seasonal table

6.8. The paired seasonal almanacs on M. 10b–11b featuring Chaak, Chak Chel, and K’uh

6.9. Chaak and Chak Chel pictured as rain bringers on M. 30

6.10. Paired almanacs on M. 31 featuring Chaak in his scorpion aspect, directional frogs, and a serpent with K’awil’s head

6.11. Almanacs featuring Tlaloc on Borgia 27 (upper) and 28 (lower)

6.12. Chaak and Chak Chel in association with the kab-ch’een ‘earth-cave’ on D. 42b

7.1. Venus table on D. 24 and 46–50

7.2. Preface to Venus table with columns 1–3 highlighted

7.3. First through thirteenth multiples in the Venus table preface with aberrant and grand multiples highlighted

7.4. D.46 with sections of the page highlighted

7.5. Venus almanac on B. 53–54

7.6. Compartments 1 and 2 from the Venus almanac on B. 53–54

7.7. Dates of Venus’ heliacal rise from the Anales de Cuauhtitlan passage marked on page 1 of the Codex Fejérváry-Mayer (1994)

7.8. Annotated portions of the Venus table preface

7.9. Dresden Venus table proper divided into left and right sides

7.10. Sections of the left side of the Venus table proper

7.11. Relationship between rows of haab dates and hieroglyphic captions in the Venus table proper

7.12. The elements of the Dresden Venus table corresponding to the 3 Xul run

7.13. The five distinctive paths traced out by Venus against the background stars during its Morning Star and Evening Star aspects

7.14. The three registers of pictures and captions from the right side of the Venus table

7.15. A comparison of the layout of pictures on D. 46 and Stela 2 from Aguateca

7.16. D. 50 pictures and captions

7.17. D. 46 pictures and captions

7.18. D. 47 pictures and captions

7.19. D. 48 pictures and captions

7.20. D. 49 pictures and captions

7.21. Venus’ heliacal rise above the eastern horizon over northern Yucatán at sunrise on June 21, A.D. 1227

7.22. The seasonal table on D. 65–69

7.23. Table of constellation from P. 23–24

7.24. Chaak seated on the head of an owl on D. 38c, fr. 3

7.25. Almanac depicting the activities of hunters on M. 40a–41a

7.26. A tattooed figure with spears and an atlatl on M. 92a

7.27. Almanac on M. 39b with calendrical structure

7.28. Venus’ heliacal rise above the eastern horizon over northern Yucatán at sunrise on April 3, A.D. 1491

7.29. Almanac on M. 12b–18b with calendrical structure outlined

7.30. M. 12b with bound jaguar and Venus/star glyph indicated

7.31. Almanac on M. 33a with calendrical structure

7.32. Sacrifice of the maize god on D. 42c

7.33. Frames 1 and 2 from the Dresden UWT

7.34. M. 16b–18b

7.35. Almanac on D. 3a with links to the Dresden Venus table

7.36. Capstone from Chichén Itzá showing Lahun Chan as a Venus warrior

7.37. The descent of Venus on D. 58b

7.38. A feathered serpent swallowing the sun during an eclipse on M. 67b

7.39. The yearbearer almanac on P. 19–20, showing attacks by jaguars in the lower left and upper right

7.40. Figure 8 from west half of the north wall, Structure 1 murals, Santa Rita

8.1. Kawak and K’an yearbearer ceremonies on M. 34–35

8.2. Muluk and Ix yearbearer ceremonies on M. 36–37

8.3. The quadripartite Pawahtuns and Chaak pictured planting on M. 26ab– 27ab

8.4. Yearbearer prognostications for the maize on M. 24c–25c

8.5. Prognostications for the maize on M. 24d

8.6. Prognostications for the maize on M. 25d

8.7. Planting rituals and prognostications for the maize on M. 26d–27d

8.8. Opossum Mam in fr. 2 of M. 90a

8.9. Yearbearer prognostications on M. 3a–6a

8.10. The opossum Pawahtun seated within a house on M. 68a

9.1. Bloodletting ritual in temple courtyard on M. 19b associated with the date 4 Ahaw

9.2. Incised bone from Tomb 116 at Tikal showing the transport of the dead maize god to the place of resurrection in a canoe manned by the Paddler Deities

9.3. The sun god seated in front of a mummy bundle on M. 71a

9.4. Turtle on M. 72b, associated with the date 4 Ahaw

9.5. Two versions of God M drilling new fire on M. 51a associated with the date 4 Ahaw

9.6. Figure performing genital sacrifice while standing on the back of turtle from Structure 213 cache, Santa Rita Corozal

9.7. Itzamna holding a stingray spine bloodletter on M. 81c, seated next to a turtle

9.8. Yearbearer imagery in the almanac on M. 88c

9.9. Goddesses in the act of stretching their warping frames on M. 102c on the date 4 Ahaw

9.10. Chak Chel weaving on M. 79c on the date 4 Ahaw

9.11. Ix Kab Chel weaving on M. 102d on the date 4 Ahaw

9.12. A hunting ritual associated with the month Sip on M. 51c

9.13. The ceremonial planting of trees on M. 60b associated with the date 4 Ahaw

9.14. A bathing ritual on M. 92c–93c associated with the date 4 Ahaw

9.15. The renovation of houses on M. 16a associated with the date 4 Ahaw

9.16. A ritual involving sacred stones on M. 80b–81b associated with the date 4 Ahaw

9.17. The birth of the deities from seeds on M. 83b associated with the date 4 Ahaw

9.18. Captive-taking by the black god Z (or L) on M. 79a and 80a

9.19. The spearing of God M by Kisin on M. 54c

10.1. God Y as a possible Sip on M. 45c in the context of a deer trapping almanac

10.2. God Y with antlers on D. 13c, where he is named Seven Sip and is paired with a deer, said to be his wife

10.3. God Y with his arms bound on M. 70a

10.4. A bearded figure (likely Yax Balam) named as Sip on P. 10b, where he wears a deer headdress

10.5. God Y wearing the skin of a deer or a peccary on M. 39c

10.6. A peccary with an upturned snout on M. 93a

10.7. Patron glyph of the month Sip

10.8. Peccaries from Bonampak mural

10.9. God L from a fresco at the Red Temple, Cacaxtla

10.10. God L pictured as the spouse of the earth goddess on D. 14c, fr. 2

10.11. The Pawahtun God N named with God L’s glyph and wearing his owl in his headdress on D. 14b, fr. 1

10.12. God L named as Pawah-ooch on D. 7a, fr. 1

10.13. The conflation of Chaak and Pawahtun on D. 41b

10.14. The skirted figure on M. 33b, which may represent the female version of God L or a conflation of this deity and Chak Chel

10.15. God M tending his bees on M. 109c, wearing the owl more commonly associated with God L

10.16. God M with a spear and in the kneeling posture reminiscent of the Morning Star deity on M. 52a–53a, fr. 2

10.17. Tzitzimitl ‘One House’ and Ahuiateotl ‘Five Flower’ descending from the sky on the occasion of a New Fire drilling, bringing sticks, stones, and axes to earth

10.18. Capstone from Xnubec featuring K’awil

Tables

1.1. 260-day structure of D. 6b–7b

1.2. 52-year structure of D. 6b–7b

3.1. World creators named in the Popol Vuh

4.1. Calendrical relationship among the frames on D. 25–28 and their correspondence to yearbearer rituals

4.2. Comparison of yearbearer prophecies on D. 25c–28c and D. 31b–35b

4.3. The hieroglyphic captions, prognostications, and pictures associated with frames 1, 3, 5, and 7 on D.31b–35b

4.4. Hieroglyphic captions and pictures corresponding to frames 2, 4, 6, and 8 on D. 31b–35b

5.1. Serpent number base dates and associated iconography in the seasonal table preface on D. 61– 62

5.2. Calendrical contexts for which Chak Chel is seen pouring water from an olla in the Maya codices

5.3. The astronomical events and haab stations occurring within the intervals of time recorded for frames 1 and 2 of the Dresden LWT

5.4. The calendrical overlap between M. 32a and M. 32b and associated Gregorian dates (A.D.), iconography, and astronomical events

6.1. Astronomical events and haab stations occurring within fr. 1 and 2 of the Dresden UWT

6.2. Astronomical events within the intervals of time associated with M. 31a, and associated iconography

6.1.1. Dates and events associated with D. 65a–69a

6.2.1. Gregorian, Julian, and Maya correspondences for the four Calendar Round dates on Borgia 27

6.2.2. Iconographic summary of B. 27

6.2.3. Gregorian, Julian, and Maya correspondences for the first set of Calendar Round dates on B. 28

7.1. The calendrics and hieroglyphic information on D. 46

7.2. The calendrics and hieroglyphic information on D. 47

7.3. The calendrics and hieroglyphic information on D. 48

7.4. The calendrics and hieroglyphic information on D. 49

7.5. The calendrics and hieroglyphic information on D. 50

7.6. An interpretation of the iconography and calendrics of the Venus almanac on pages 53–54 of the Borgia Codex

7.7. The 260-day tonalpohualli calendar with the dates mentioned in the Anales de Cuauhtitlan passage highlighted

7.8. The starting dates and corresponding Gregorian equivalents for the four historical versions of the Dresden Venus table proposed by the Brickers

7.9. The relationship of tzolk’in dates, haab dates, hieroglyphic captions, and additional calendrics to the Venus stations of the 18 K’ayab run

7.10. The relationship of tzolk’in dates, haab dates, hieroglyphic captions, and additional calendrics to the Venus stations of the 13 Mak run

7.11. The relationship of tzolk’in dates and haab dates to the Venus stations of the 3 Xul run

7.12. Description of the iconography of the right side pictures on D. 46–50

7.13. Calendrical reckoning of the 3 Xul run and its relationship to the iconography of the Venus table proper

7.14. Calendrical reckoning of the 18 K’ayab run and its relationship to the tzolk’in days and upper register gods in the Venus table proper

7.15. The calendrical reckoning of the 13 Mak run and its relationship to the tzolk’in days and upper register gods in the Venus table proper

7.16. Order of upper register deities linked to the MFIRST station in the preface: 18 K’ayab, 13 Mak, and 3 Xul runs of the Dresden Venus table

7.17. Summary of the iconography of the pictures on D. 46–50 and the associated first row date from the 3 Xul run

7.18. Calendrical reconstruction for the lower seasonal table on D. 65b–69b

7.19. Important dates for astronomical events and haab stations on M. 33a

7.20. Venus and haab station dates in the first two frames of the Dresden UWT

7.21. Tzolk’in dates from the central frame in D. 3a and their association with Venus MFIRST iconography contained in the Dresden Venus table

8.1. Color, directional, and deity associations for the K’an, Muluk, Ix, and Kawak yearbearers

8.2. Prognostications and associated deities for the K’an, Muluk, Ix, and Kawak yearbearers

8.3. Correspondences among the Dresden and Madrid yearbearers and Landa’s Relación

8.4. Calendrical structure and iconographic associations of M. 24c–25c

8.5. Depiction of torches and associated weather prognostications in almanacs in the Madrid and Dresden codices

8.6. Augural associations of the maize god in almanacs from the Madrid Codex

9.1. 4 Ahaw Almanacs in the Madrid Codex

10.1. Appearances of God L in the Maya codices

10.2. Deities with God L’s attributes and associations

10.3. Pawah-ooch in the Maya codices

10.4. God M in the Maya codices

10.5. Older Brother and Younger Brother in ethnographic contexts

Preface

The Conceptual and Methodological Underpinnings of Our Study

Methodologies for Studying the Maya Codices

Prior to the past twenty or so years, the most intensive period of research involving the Maya codices occurred during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. During that time the possibility that the hieroglyphic script involved a syllabic component was being considered, but it was ultimately dismissed. Because of this, early research on the codices tended to focus on the calendrical and iconographic aspects of the manuscripts. Although researchers recognized that certain codical instruments or scenes might have a mythological component, there was no real way to test these hypotheses or provide proof of their validity.

After the logosyllabic nature of the script had been established and it became possible to begin the process of hieroglyphic decipherment of the codices, efforts were focused less on complete transcriptions of the hieroglyphic captions to almanacs and more on identifying specific readings—both of graphemes (individual graphic units) and of words. This process formed the basis for works like those of David Stuart’s Ten Phonetic Syllables (1987) and Deciphering the Maya Script by David Kelley (1976).

The most important revolution in our understanding of the Maya codices occurred in the late twentieth century, with the work of Harvey and Victoria Bricker, who demonstrated that almanacs that were not directly linked to an absolute calendar such as the Long Count could be placed in real time through the triangulation of certain categories of data (see V. Bricker and H. Bricker 1992 for an explanation of their methodology). This brought about the realization that not all almanacs were intended to be used as repeating 260-day instruments, as previous scholars had supposed. Instead, at least some of them were intended as records of specific events that co-occurred within a specific period of time. By way of example, the almanac on D. 33c–39c includes references to seasonal and astronomical events (including the summer solstice and eclipse seasons) that allow it to be dated to the early sixteenth century.

A further step in our understanding of how the almanacs in the codices were intended to be used occurred approximately a decade later. In her work with the Madrid Codex, Gabrielle Vail (2002, 2004) found evidence suggesting that a great many almanacs (those with repeating iconography from frame to frame, in which only the actor changed) had been used to schedule seasonal events over a period of years, rather than targeting events that all occurred within a single 260-day period.

With this new understanding of the Maya codices, Vail and Hernández set out to transcribe the iconographic, calendrical, and textual information in the manuscripts and to incorporate this information into a database that would allow the modeling of relationships between these different sets of data. The result is the recently completed Maya Hieroglyphic Codices Database and Website (www.mayacodices.org), produced with the support of the National Endowment for the Humanities and with the technical expertise of William Giltinan.

During the project, Vail’s focus was on transcribing and translating the hieroglyphic texts, a task that had not previously been undertaken for the complete codical corpus. This, in combination with Hernández’s knowledge of the group of codices known as the Borgia Group from highland Mexico, led the authors to seek to better understand the context of the codical almanacs. The fact that many of the rituals depicted in the codices were similar to those described as part of New Year / yearbearer ceremonies by Spanish chroniclers prompted an investigation into whether they might have played a role in world renewal ceremonies, such as those discussed in Karl Taube’s (1988) doctoral dissertation, which in turn prompted an exploration of these types of ceremonies in both the prehispanic and contemporary Maya world. Since world renewal rituals are modeled on mythological acts undertaken by supernaturals and divine ancestors in primordial time, another important component of Vail and Hernández’s recent work has been the compilation of narratives (from prehispanic, colonial, and ethnographic sources) focused on cosmogenesis, the creation of people, foundation rituals, and other related topics.

Source Materials

In the past—and continuing today—colonial period sources (in particular, the Popol Vuh of the highland Maya K’iche’ culture) have been used to explain mythic episodes depicted in Classic period media from the Maya lowlands. A number of scholars have objected to this practice on the basis of the significant disjunction in both time and space. Nevertheless, specific characters who appear in the Popol Vuh can also be documented in Classic period ceramics. The most obvious of these connections involves Hunahpu and Xbalanque from the Popol Vuh, who are named Hun Ahaw and Yax Balam in lowland Maya contexts. They play a role in ceramic vessel scenes that can be related very specifically to different episodes in the Popol Vuh—most specifically involving the defeat of an avaricious bird (Seven Macaw in the Popol Vuh, and an avian form of Itzamna in the Classic period); the defeat of a series of Underworld lords; and the reinstating (and in some cases, the rescue) of their father (called Hun Hunahpu in the Popol Vuh), who is associated with the Classic Maya maize god.

The Popol Vuh can be characterized as a local narrative that encompasses topographic and other features of a specific landscape and that was sacred to the highland K’iche’ Maya and other groups, but one that shares a number of themes in common with narratives found throughout a broader Maya (and indeed Mesoamerican) tradition. Although there is good evidence to suggest that each site or region within the Maya area had its own founding deities, as well as locales of cosmological significance, these fit into a common cultural pattern that had resonance throughout a large part of the Mesoamerican world.

That this is the case can be seen by comparing the principal themes in the Popol Vuh with mythic traditions from elsewhere in Mesoamerica. Commonalities include a focus on twins/brothers, a journey to the Underworld to create the present race of humans, the formation of the earth from a crocodilian’s body, the existence of previous eras (before the creation of humans), the planning and carrying forth of a destructive flood to initiate a new world era, and the importance of foundational rituals. Each of these themes forms a core element of creation narratives related in indigenous texts written during the colonial period by Yucatec Maya speakers, as well as Nahuatl speakers from highland central Mexico.

The stories told (or retold) in the Popol Vuh are of great antiquity, as indicated by comparing particular episodes to iconography represented in Preclassic contexts, including a series of stelae at the Pacific coastal site of Izapa (not necessarily inhabited by Maya speakers) and also from depictions on the San Bartolo murals. Investigators have previously noted specific connections between the San Bartolo murals and the yearbearer pages of the Dresden Codex (Taube, Saturno, and Hurst 2010). The most obvious of these connections includes the depictions of the four world trees, references to an avian form of Itzamna, the making of faunal offerings, and the importance of bloodletting and/or sacrifice.

The San Bartolo murals and Classic period ceramic vessel scenes provide clear evidence that different regions elaborated on the events that are later described in the Popol Vuh as occurring in primordial time. A number of specific episodes are included in these sources—the most important referring to the resurrection of the maize god and his overcoming of the Underworld lords—that are not part of the Popol Vuh. This supports our interpretation that the story recorded in the Popol Vuh during the sixteenth century is a regional variant of a narrative that can be traced back a millennium and a half prior to that.

The story recorded in the Popol Vuh is not, however, purely a Maya narrative. Specific elements within the narrative—including place names and the names of supernaturals— provide vivid evidence of the Mexicanized nature of the ruling lineages of the highland Maya kingdoms during the Late Postclassic and early colonial periods. As Ruud van Akkeren (2000, cited in Christenson 2007) notes, the K’iche’ confederacy was likely formed from a linguistically diverse group of lineages composed of native highland Maya, Mexicanized clans from nearby Pacific Coastal areas, and immigrants (particularly the Cavec [Kawek]) from the Maya lowlands (Christenson 2007:31). According to Christenson (2007:31), This mixture of highland Maya, lowland Maya, and Mexicaninfluenced cultures ultimately gave birth to the traditions contained in the Popol Vuh.

Likewise, it is important to note that there are Mexican elements in indigenous Yucatec texts as well, both those recorded in the Maya codices and those in the colonial period Books of Chilam Balam (V. Bricker 2001; Vail and Aveni 2004; Vail and Hernández 2011). For this reason, our study focuses on a broad picture encompassing the cosmology, myths, and creation stories of the peoples of Mesoamerica. This aspect of our work was influenced by the collaborative efforts of Linda Schele and many other scholars in the early 1990s (Freidel, Schele, and Parker 1993; Looper 1995; Schele 1992; Schele and Mathews 1998), as well as the continuing research resulting from their earlier work.

A New Emphasis on Maya Mythology

It has long been recognized that many of the scenes painted and carved on Classic period Maya pottery vessels have a mythological focus (see, e.g., Coe 1973, 1989a; Houston and Stuart 1989; Taube 1993a). Nevertheless, despite the presence of supernaturals and Underworld deities on virtually every page of the Maya codices, a similar willingness to consider mythological interpretations of codical almanacs has been lacking from twentieth-century research, with several notable exceptions (Taube 1988). As a result, codical studies have until now remained focused on the dating of almanacs in real time and an exploration of their ritual content. This approach has been in sharp contrast to the paradigm shift among epigraphers working with Classic period texts under way since the 1990s.

In the early 1990s, a team of researchers undertook the task of demonstrating the importance of cosmological conceptions in the everyday life of the prehispanic Maya. It was suggested that events in the sky formed the basis of Maya creation stories, which included the setting of three stones to form a celestial hearth in the constellation of the turtle, and the resurrection of the maize god from this hearth. Specific configurations of the Milky Way were described as forming canoes and world trees, each playing a role in the creation story (Freidel, Schele, and Parker 1993; Schele 1992).

Since these initial proposals, the original ideas of scholars such as Schele, Looper, and Freidel have been refined, based on more recent interpretations of associated hieroglyphic texts and our understanding of the astronomy. What has remained from the pivotal research of the 1990s—and has proven an invaluable perspective for a new reading of the Maya codices—is the idea that the astronomical events being observed and recorded in hieroglyphic books, in architectural alignments, and in stone monuments were not perceived as objective scientific observations. Rather, they served to tie the present to the recent and distant past, based on patterns and cycles displayed in the sky that were attributed to foundational events undertaken by supernaturals in mythic time. This interpretation may be seen, for example, in new models for understanding Classic period texts (see, e.g., Carrasco 2010; Looper 2007; Stuart 2005) that recognize the ways in which events in the lives of historical individuals provide a bridge to similar events occurring in the primordial past. Quite frequently, a ruler’s life story is combined with episodes relating mythic occurrences that serve to situate him and his rule within a longer story. This is the case, for example, of the ruler K’inich Ahkal Mo’ Nahb of Palenque. One of the key events mentioned on the bench from Temple XIX that is ascribed to him is the decapitation of a crocodilian under the auspices of GI of the Palenque Triad, a key foundation event that led to the formation of the earth and the drilling of a new fire.

Innovations in Our Methodology

Traditionally, researchers have perceived a divide between these two approaches— the calendrical models of researchers such as Victoria and Harvey Bricker and the cosmological models of Schele and her colleagues. The goal of our project was to attempt to bridge this gap, to show that the codices, in common with recent studies of the monuments, provide a historical record at the same time that their almanacs reference mythological events. We have combined the careful methodological approach pioneered by the Brickers—which considers each category of data found in codical almanacs (calendrical, iconographic, and hieroglyphic) within an integrated framework that contributes toward our understanding of the whole—with the perspective advanced by Freidel, Looper, Schele, and others—which holds that it is only by understanding the mythological foundation of a culture that its rituals can be appreciated.

The result of this effort has been a validation of the methodological approach that we adopted. We have demonstrated, for example, that the Dresden Venus table both anticipates the heliacal rise of the planet over a period of 104 years based on real-time observations, and relates these future occurrences to episodes that took place before the present era and the creation of humans. Highlighted in its hieroglyphic texts and iconography is the struggle for power that was fought by the Underworld gods (of whom Venus was considered the principal lord) and those of the celestial sphere. This narrative mirrors stories recounted in colonial sources from both the highland and lowland Maya regions, as well as highland Mexico. We draw specific comparisons with the Books of Chilam Balam and accounts of the besting of the Oxlahun Ti’ K’uh (Thirteen Gods, the celestial lords) by the Bolon Ti’ K’uh (Nine Gods, those associated with Venus and the Underworld) during k’atuns 13 Ahaw and 11 Ahaw.

Other astronomical instruments from the Maya codices discussed in the following chapters similarly benefit from incorporating a dualistic perspective focused on historical and primordial time when interpreting their calendrical structure, iconographic component, and hieroglyphic texts. Our primary contribution is the idea that the astronomical tables in the Maya codices are not simple predictive instruments per se, but rather that they provide a means of encoding narratives about primordial time within the context of repeating astronomical cycles that have significance because of their relationship to events of world creation and destruction. The rituals enacted, the offerings made, and the resulting prognostications all stem from the way that current cycles interact with those from the distant past.

Note on Orthography

The issue of orthography is a complex one that we have attempted to address in as systematic a manner as possible. It is complicated in this volume by reference to texts from hieroglyphic sources spanning the Classic and Postclassic periods, as well as the inclusion of Yucatec texts from the colonial period that use the Latin script. To simplify matters, we use the colonial orthography (/c/ in place of /k/; /k/ in place of /k’/; /dz/ in place of /tz/; /dz’/ in place of /tz’/; and /u/ in place of /w/) for colonial period Yucatec texts such as the Books of Chilam Balam. In any quoted material, we follow the orthography of the original author for Maya words. Classic period texts are rendered in Classic Ch’olti’an and follow the orthography used in sources such as Stuart (2005) and Carrasco (2010). Hieroglyphic texts from the Maya codices utilize the orthography formulated by the authors of the Cordemex Dictionary for Classical Yucatec (Diccionario maya cordemex: Maya-español, español-maya; Barrera Vásquez et al. 1980), with the exception that we replace /ts/ and /ts’/ with /tz/ and /tz’/. Like Vásquez et al., we do not distinguish between /h/ and /j/ (the former a velar aspirant and the latter a glottal aspirant) in our transcriptions of the codical texts. Thus, -ah is used both for the Yucatec completive suffix and for the Ch’olan passive (-aj).

Some of the differences in the three orthographies are represented below.

Our transcriptions and translations of hieroglyphic texts incorporate the following conventions:

• A single question mark following a word indicates a proposed transcription or translation, although one that has not yet been established beyond question;

• A double question mark indicates that the word (or syllable) represented remains unknown;

• Eroded sections of the text are indicated by underlining:

____ [four underscores]—used for a whole line that is eroded

____ [three underscores]—used for a word that is eroded

____ [two underscores]—used for a syllable or part of a word that is eroded;

• Hyphens separate components of a glyph block when they are spelled out syllabically or with a combination of syllables and logographs.

Within the text itself, syllables are enclosed between slashes to distinguish them from complete words or logographs, and single quotation marks are used to provide translations of Maya words. They can be distinguished from double quotation marks, which signify a nickname or material quoted from a secondary source. Brackets are used to set off information that is extrapolated or added by authors but is not included in the original source material. Brackets are also used for alternate spellings (e.g. Bacab [Bakab]).

Texts and almanacs within the Maya codices are specified according to the page and register on which they occur. We follow the conventions used by previous scholars of labeling the registers of a page from top to bottom with the letters a, b, c, and d. When referring to a specified almanac, we use the following abbreviations:

Acknowledgments

We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to our mentors, Victoria and Harvey Bricker, for their support and encouragement of our codical studies over the past twenty years. It was their inspiration that led to the present volume. A number of other colleagues—most particularly Tony Aveni, Matthew Looper, Tim Knowlton, and Martha Macri—have also contributed significantly to the ideas discussed herein, as have two anonymous reviewers who provided a number of thoughtful comments for our consideration.

We would also like to thank those who contributed directly to the project through their editorial assistance, including Cynthia Vail, who dedicated countless hours to editing and proofreading our work, and Bailey Howard, who assisted with the citations and illustrations; and the senior author’s students, who contributed their artistic talents: Mallory Fenn and Evan Giomi. Additional thanks go to Adria Bryant, who assisted with the logistics of printing and mailing the manuscript.

Our families deserve a special note of thanks as well for their generosity in providing us with the time we needed to complete the project. Dyos b’o’otik to Ty Giltinan and Tirzo and Diego Hernández, and a fond remembrance to Jennifer Schwabach for her unwavering enthusiasm and support.

Re-Creating Primordial Time

1

Introduction to the Maya Codices

Studies of prehispanic Maya culture focus primarily on sites in the Classic period heartland—places such as Tikal, Calakmul, Copán, Palenque, and Yaxchilán, which reached their apogee during the sixth through ninth centuries. The northern Maya lowlands are less well known, with the exception of sites such as Chichén Itzá and those in the Puuc region. The time period after the depopulation of the great Maya cities, whether located in the northern or southern regions, has only recently been the focus of extensive research projects. This Postclassic period is a time of significant change in virtually all aspects of society. As our study shows, however, this time period is characterized by a continuation of mythological traditions from the Classic period, along with the introduction of new mythologies as a result of extensive cultural contact between populations in the northern Maya lowlands, the Gulf Coast region, and highland central and southern Mexico.

The Maya codices provide the primary source of textual and iconographic information for studies of Postclassic Maya culture. Where and when the three manuscripts now residing in European collections were painted remains a source of conjecture, although few codical scholars would dispute a general provenience in the northern lowlands.¹ Moreover, given the fragile nature of the material of which they are made, it seems likely that they were painted within a couple of generations of initial contact with Europeans in 1519. This is not to say, however, that the underlying content of the codices dates to this time period. Rather, as the work of recent scholars has demonstrated, many of the codical almanacs and tables reference astronomical and meteorological events dating from the Classic period, with the earliest dates corresponding to the fifth century (H. Bricker and V. Bricker 2011:359; V. Bricker and H. Bricker 1992; Vail and Hernández 2011). Some of these texts appear to have been intended solely as records of past events, whereas others were used for predictions in later centuries. Still other texts were newly made by the Postclassic scribes who drafted the extant versions of the manuscripts known as the Dresden, Madrid, and Paris codices (V. Bricker and H. Bricker 1992).

DOI: 10.5876/9781607322214.c01

Many of the almanacs in the Maya codices lack dates that would associate them with absolute time. Rather, they record rituals and prognostications that were related to various cycles occurring in nature, including periods of 260 days, 584 days, and 52 years. Historical dates in the Maya codices relate specifically to celestial events such as eclipses or the appearance of deities that embody different planetary cycles. History in the sense that we think of it, as events in the lives of individuals, is not recorded in these texts. In its place, mythical events in the lives of deities are given considerable weight and are viewed in terms of their relationship to human concerns such as the success or failure of the maize crop and the amount of rain received during the time period when the scribe was composing the record of these events.

Ties between the historical present and the mythological past were made in various ways in the Maya codices. The scribes responsible for the Dresden Codex made explicit reference to dates in mythic time, calculated from the base date of the current era, which corresponds to 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahaw 8 Kumk’u, or August 11, 3114 B.C.² In the codices, primordial time could also be referenced by specific iconographic elements, usually in combination with a short hieroglyphic caption. The Madrid scribes favored 4 Ahaw as the beginning date of almanacs with ties to creation episodes or to schedule ceremonies that were dedicated to renewing the world (see Chapter 9). In the Paris Codex, one means of linking historical and mythic time involved the depiction of bound crocodilians that formed skyband thrones to highlight parallels between the figures seated on the thrones and the act of subduing the earth crocodilian by mythic figures, such as the Hero Twins in the Popol Vuh.³

The Dresden was the earliest of the three Maya codices to come to light in Europe. It was purchased by the head of the Royal Library in Dresden in 1739 from an unknown source in Vienna. How and when the codex reached Vienna remains a matter of conjecture. Michael Coe (1989b) has suggested that it was one of the screenfold books described in a 1520 account of indigenous material sent by Hernán Cortés and his party to the Spanish court of Charles V. Cortés is said to have acquired native books from a visit to Cozumel in February 1519. More recently, John Chuchiak (2012) has put forth a different scenario to account for its presence in Vienna.

In an earlier study, Merideth Paxton (1991) concluded, on the basis of an iconographic analysis, that the codex was painted at some point during the Late Postclassic period and that this may have taken place at any one of a number of sites, including Chichén Itzá, Mayapán, Santa Rita Corozal, or Tulum.⁴ Analysis of the astronomical content of the Dresden Codex suggests that its pages contain copies of earlier almanacs and texts that date from the sixth through the twelfth centuries (V. Bricker and H. Bricker 1992:82, table 2.8; Vail and Hernández 2011). Victoria and Harvey Bricker (1992:83) suggest that the physical manuscript was most likely painted in the thirteenth century, although an early sixteenth-century date cannot be ruled out.

All but four of the Dresden’s 78 pages (39 on each side) were painted. The codex includes a combination of what researchers term almanacs and tables, the former being distinguished from the latter in not including dates in absolute time. Of particular interest to our study are several almanacs that concern the yearbearer ceremonies (those that mark the transition from one year to the next), as well as astronomical tables, which include a Venus table (on pages 24 and 46–50), an eclipse table (on pages 51–58), a seasonal table (on pages 61–69), paired water tables (on pages 69–74), and a Mars table (on pages 43–45).⁵ Early research on the Dresden Codex was undertaken by Ernst Förstemann (1901, 1904, 1906), a librarian at the Royal Library in the late nineteenth century.

The Madrid Codex has a very different history. It is first mentioned in the literature by the French scholar Brasseur de Bourbourg (1869–70). At the time, it was separated into two parts; Brasseur de Bourbourg named the first of these the Manuscrit Troano after its owner, Don Juan de Tro y Ortolano. The second part was purchased by the Museo Arqueológico de Madrid in 1875; little is known of its history before this, except that it originally belonged to someone from Extremadura, in southwestern Spain. Because this is where Cortés was originally from, the museum director named the codex fragment the Codex Cortesianus (Glass and Robertson 1975:153–154).

In the early 1880s, Léon de Rosny (1882) recognized that the Troano and Cortesianus codices were actually part of the same manuscript. The Troano was acquired by the Museo Arqueológico in 1888, and the two parts were reunited. Combined, the codex consists of 56 leaves, which are painted on both sides, for a total of 112 pages (Lee 1985:81). One of these pages includes an anomaly that has led to the possibility of tracing the early history of the codex. This consists of a fragment of European paper with a Latin text that is attached to the bottom of page 56 (Coe and Kerr 1997; Vail, Bricker et al. 2003; Vail and Aveni 2004:chap. 1).

Ethnohistorian John Chuchiak (2004) has identified the text on the patch as corresponding to a papal bull de la Santa Cruzada that was written in longhand. The style of the handwriting on the page indicates that it was written between 1575 and 1610. The content of the codex itself, however, is without doubt prehispanic (Graff 1997). It was likely painted at the end of the fifteenth century or the beginning of the sixteenth (H. Bricker and V. Bricker 2011:25).

Chuchiak (2004:70–71) was able to identify the handwriting on the patch as being that of the notary Gregorio de Aguilar. His cousin, Pedro Sánchez de Aguilar, was the commissioner of the Santa Cruzada and an ecclesiastical judge in the Chancenote region of Yucatán. In that role, he confiscated four hieroglyphic codices from this region between 1603 and 1608; several others were confiscated by other Catholic priests and extirpators between 1591 and 1608. The four seized by Sánchez de Aguilar, rather than being destroyed, were taken to Europe when Sánchez de Aguilar returned to Spain (Chuchiak 2004:72–74). One of these is very likely the manuscript now identified as the Madrid Codex.

What this reconstruction suggests is that a prehispanic manuscript was used in secret by indigenous Maya ah k’in ‘daykeepers’ in Chancenote for nearly a century without coming to the attention of the Spanish authorities. Shortly before it was confiscated, the newly acquired papal bull was attached to the codex, presumably because of its sacred status in the new religion (Chuchiak 2004:78). What happened to the codex from the time of its arrival in Spain in the early part of the seventeenth century until its two parts were first documented in the 1860s remains uncertain.

The Madrid Codex differs from the Dresden in a number of ways, including the fact that it does not contain any astronomical tables as scholars have defined them.⁶ Nevertheless, a number of its almanacs do record astronomical events that can be dated in real time (see, e.g., Aveni 2004; H. Bricker and V. Bricker 2011; V. Bricker 1997; V. Bricker and H. Bricker 1988; Vail 2006). In addition, several sections of the Madrid Codex have almanacs that are cognate with those in the Dresden Codex.⁷ Even more surprising is the fact that the Madrid and Borgia Group of codices have structural similarities that cannot be explained except by positing that some type of contact existed among the scribes of the two regions (Boone 2003; Hernández and V. Bricker 2004; Vail and Aveni 2004:chap. 1; Vail and Hernández 2010).

The Paris Codex is in very fragmentary condition; not only have the edges of each page eroded, but it is clear that it was originally a much longer manuscript. Only 22 painted leaves survive. Although it has several almanacs in a format similar to those in the Dresden and Madrid codices, it is the only extant codex in the Maya tradition that includes almanacs dedicated to tun and k’atun prophecies (detailed later in the chapter), and it also includes the only known table depicting astronomical constellations (what some scholars have called the zodiacal almanac).

The codex was acquired by the Bibliothèque Royal (now the Bibliothèque Nationale) in 1832, along with several other Mexican manuscripts (H. Bricker and V. Bricker 2011:13). It was copied, several years later (in 1835) by Agostino Aglio, as part of Kingsborough’s Antiquities of Mexico (Gates 1932; G. Stuart 1994), but it remained unpublished due to Kingsborough’s death.⁸

Because of these circumstances, the codex was not officially made known to the wider world until its publication by Léon de Rosny in the 1870s. As George Stuart (1994) and the Brickers (H. Bricker and V. Bricker 2011:13–14) point out, however, a description of the codex, along with a drawing of one of its pages, had been published in 1859. Nevertheless, it remains the least well known of the Maya codices, despite several full or partial commentaries (H. Bricker and V. Bricker 1992; Love 1994; Severin 1981; Treiber 1987). Its astronomical content has recently been the subject of a comprehensive analysis (H. Bricker and V. Bricker 2011:chap. 9, 12) that highlights its importance within the Maya manuscript tradition.

Sources for Interpreting the Mythological Content of the Maya Codices

It has been suggested that the scribes who drafted the Maya codices were part of a larger world system that linked the northern Maya lowlands to highland Mexico via a substantial trade network through the Gulf Coast region (Boone and Smith 2003; Vail and Hernández 2010:chap. 1). There are a number of explicit ties between the codex tradition characterizing highland Mexico represented by the Borgia Group codices (see chap. 2) and the Maya codices (Boone 2003; Vail and Hernández 2010). These ties may also be seen in mural programs from the Postclassic northern lowlands (Boone and Smith 2003; Masson 2003; Paxton 1986; Quirarte 1982; Taube 2010), including those at Mayapán, Santa Rita, and Tulum discussed in the following chapters.⁹ We have had the good fortune of being able to examine the Mayapán murals in person, but those from Santa Rita are no longer extant (Gann 1900), and the Tulum murals are best preserved in the photographs and paintings done by Felipe Dávalos as part of Arthur Miller’s excavations at the site in the 1970s (Miller 1982). These are housed at Dumbarton Oaks and were viewed by Vail during a recent visit.

In considering the influences on the Dresden and Madrid scribes, it is incumbent on us to remember the Classic period context in which the earliest versions of a number of the tables and almanacs were composed. During the Classic period, there is evidence that Maya populations from far-distant sites throughout the lowlands shared a widespread mythological tradition that incorporated a common set of deities and events, including a mythological flood that destroyed a previous creation; the death of the maize god in the Underworld, followed by his resurrection at a mythological place named Na Ho’ Chan; the establishment of a celestial hearth to mark the home of the creator deities; and the formation of humans from maize dough (detailed in Chapter 3).

Breakthroughs in our understanding of these mythological episodes in the 1990s revealed that they are referenced in monumental texts from sites in the southern lowlands (such as Quirigua), the western area (Palenque), and the northern lowlands (including Chichén Itzá and Cobá), and on pottery vessels from throughout the southern lowlands (Grube et al. 2003; Looper 1995; Schele 1992; D. Stuart 2005). Different regions likely had their own variants of these creation stories, but they focused on similar themes and would therefore most likely have been known to the scribes who drafted earlier versions of the almanacs and tables that were later modified and copied into the manuscripts known today as the Dresden, Madrid, and Paris codices.

The longevity of this mythological tradition can be documented by common elements found at the Late Preclassic site of San Bartolo in the Petén (Taube et al. 2010), Classic period Palenque, the Dresden Codex, and the colonial period Books of Chilam Balam. Similarly, a variant of this tradition—the setting up of trees in the world quarters to support the sky—is also known to us from two of the highland Mexican codices belonging to the Borgia Group: the Codex Fejérváry-Mayer and the Codex Borgia.

It has long been held that the Maya codices contain little information of a mythological nature, being concerned instead with divination and prophecy (Taube 1993a:18). In the pages that follow, we show that this supposition can no longer be supported. Instead, we believe that the Maya codices serve, in a sense, as a bridge between Classic mythological traditions and the cosmogonic episodes and creation stories contained in colonial period indigenous manuscripts. Following in the tradition of earlier studies (including Knowlton [2010] and Taube [1988]), we document connections between narratives related in the codices (through a combination of textual and iconographic referents) and those contained in the Yucatecan Books of Chilam Balam and the Popol Vuh from the K’iche’ culture of highland Guatemala.

The Books of Chilam Balam date to the late colonial period; each of the extant manuscripts is named for the community where it was first encountered by Western scholars (including Chumayel, Ixil, Kaua, Maní, and Tizimín, among others).¹⁰ The designation Chilam Balam refers to a specific chilan ‘prophet’, named Balam ‘Jaguar’, from the town of Maní who is said to have foretold the arrival of the Spaniards and of Christianity. The Chilam Balam texts are written in a modified version of the Latin alphabet, primarily in Classical Yucatec, although there are occasional words or sections in Nahuatl, Spanish, and Latin (V. Bricker 2000). There is compelling evidence in the Chilam Balam of Chumayel that suggests that portions of it were copied from an earlier (likely prehispanic) manuscript (Knowlton 2010:68–69).

The Books of Chilam Balam treat a variety of topics, including history, divination, calendrics, cosmology, mythology, religious doctrine, and others, which can be traced to a number of different traditions—Yucatec, Nahuatl, and European (Bricker and Miram 2002; Knowlton 2010:2). As Victoria Bricker (2000) has noted, this is similar to the Maya codices, which likewise incorporate material from more than one Mesoamerican tradition.

Our interest lies in the creation myths associated with K’atun 11 Ahaw contained in the Books of Chilam Balam of Chumayel and Tizimín and in the Códice Pérez (n.d.).¹¹ Although the three versions share a number of similarities, they are not identical (Knowlton 2010:54). In addition, the Tizimín and Pérez manuscripts also contain important mythological events associated with the preceding k’atun, K’atun 13 Ahaw (Knowlton 2010:72). We follow Timothy Knowlton’s (2010) translations of these texts (see Appendix 3.2).

In evaluating the content of the Chilam Balam creation stories, it is important to keep in mind that the Chilam Balam narratives cannot be seen as preserving prehispanic texts in an unadulterated form, any more than certain codical texts can be viewed as being purely Classic period in origin. Nevertheless, there are a number of specific correspondences that can be attributed to a common cultural heritage.

What, then, can be said of the Popol Vuh? Despite the geographic distance separating the Guatemalan highlands from the northern Maya lowlands, we consider it an important source for our analysis, in that much of its mythological content (included in the first two sections of the manuscript) seems to elaborate on a mythological tradition common to the Classic period Maya lowlands. Like parts of the Books of Chilam Balam, it has been suggested that the narrative known to us as the Popol Vuh was copied from one or more prehispanic hieroglyphic texts by native scribes (Taube 1993a:22; D. Tedlock 1996:25–30). Internal evidence suggests that the original alphabetic manuscript was compiled between 1554 and 1558 in Santa Cruz del Quiché (formerly Utatlán), and later taken to Chuvila, now called Chichicastenango (Christenson 2007:36–39). In the early eighteenth century, the parish priest of Chichicastenango, Francisco Ximénez, was shown the sixteenth-century manuscript and given permission to copy it (Christenson 2007:39–40). His copy and the Spanish translation he provided are housed in the Newberry Library in Chicago; the whereabouts of the original sixteenth-century manuscript is unknown, although Christenson (2007:40) believes that it may still be in Chichicastenango.

Another source that is largely contemporary with the Popol Vuh, but from a different cultural milieu, is Diego de Landa’s Relación de las cosas de Yucatán, dated to approximately 1566. Landa’s text, written after the Franciscan priest was recalled to Spain to account for his actions during the 1562 auto-de-fé in Maní, has been shown to be the work of several authors (Restall and Chuchiak 2002). Although Landa was in close contact with several native Maya speakers, the manuscript is heavily biased by his Catholic training and Eurocentric view of the world. Nevertheless, it does represent our primary source of information concerning a number of rituals celebrated by the Postclassic Maya of Yucatán, including the ceremonies associated with the eighteen months of the year and the rituals that marked the time of transition (Wayeb) from one year to the next. In addition, Landa discusses a number of Maya deities, many of whom are depicted in the Maya codices.

Ethnographic research over the past 150 years also provides an important source of information about Maya deities, creation stories, and other mythological episodes (e.g., McGee 1990; Redfield and Villa Rojas 1934; Thompson 1930, 1970b). Taking into account the five or more centuries that separate the Postclassic Maya from contemporary cultures, as well as conscious and unconscious efforts to eradicate indigenous religious practices, it is surprising to find so many examples of correspondence that can be documented between contemporary Maya rituals and beliefs and those depicted in the Postclassic codices.

Content of the Maya Codices

Each of the Maya codices is composed of a number of almanacs that relate deities, activities, and prophecies or prognostications to dates in one or more of the systems for reckoning time used by the Postclassic Maya. The most common system of dating found in Maya almanacs involves the 260-day tzolk’in calendar, which pairs twenty named days with