A Second Look and a THIRD Look: Madrid Codex
D. M. Urquidi
Fig. 01: First and last /^\ segment of the Serpent Calendar Pages in the Madrid Codex.
M-13 to M-18
The THIRD Look at the Madrid surprised me. I did not think I knew the glyphs well
enough to know they could be out of place. the arrow point above in Fig. 01 surprised
me since, although it is supposed to be AKBAL [tr. Night}, the lower [mouth] is not well
drawn out to fill in as an "incomplete" Akbal. It sort of looks like a reversed Kimi. I am
wondering if it is not inferring another CIMI [Kimi. The fact that it is raised above the
other glyphs and three of the dots of the serpent tail are included in the space.
This above strip of the calendar is not in my calendar pages. It is a cleaned up copy I got from
somewhere else and used it with counts of weeks, and sequencing of the glyphs.
The glyph M-48 is weird, more so, as a correction. Who did it????
The type of message to be cautious about are the two previous KIMI's.
In 2014, the first and last pages of the Serpent Calendar was what I thought I had
solved completely. Especially with the One-IMIX in the first column, together with
the two KIMI’s {Death} which appeared in columns 45 and 46. One IMIX was the
date proposed by Rome for the Maya Calendar system
enough to know they could be out of place. the arrow point above in Fig. 01 surprised
me since, although it is supposed to be AKBAL [tr. Night}, the lower [mouth] is not well
drawn out to fill in as an "incomplete" Akbal. It sort of looks like a reversed Kimi. I am
wondering if it is not inferring another CIMI [Kimi. The fact that it is raised above the
other glyphs and three of the dots of the serpent tail are included in the space.
This above strip of the calendar is not in my calendar pages. It is a cleaned up copy I got from
somewhere else and used it with counts of weeks, and sequencing of the glyphs.
The glyph M-48 is weird, more so, as a correction. Who did it????
The type of message to be cautious about are the two previous KIMI's.
In 2014, the first and last pages of the Serpent Calendar was what I thought I had
solved completely. Especially with the One-IMIX in the first column, together with
the two KIMI’s {Death} which appeared in columns 45 and 46. One IMIX was the
date proposed by Rome for the Maya Calendar system
The dates were pre-dated to Diego de Landa’s manuscripts dated from 1549 to-1579.
In 1978, Williams Gates published a Dover edition of his translation in a chapter
called “Yucatan,” with notes which included his note about the “common 52-year
cycle” of the Mesoamerican calendars, referred to by de Landa. I did not find it
in the translated text. It might be there, and I just did not find it, but. . . . . ?
In 1978, Williams Gates published a Dover edition of his translation in a chapter
called “Yucatan,” with notes which included his note about the “common 52-year
cycle” of the Mesoamerican calendars, referred to by de Landa. I did not find it
in the translated text. It might be there, and I just did not find it, but. . . . . ?
Gates also inferred de Landa made no mention of a 30-day calendar month, even
though it was necessary to use 30-days since the year was once 360-days within
each year of 52 weeks. [Gates, (1978, Sec. XXXIV, 59)
though it was necessary to use 30-days since the year was once 360-days within
each year of 52 weeks. [Gates, (1978, Sec. XXXIV, 59)
The daily difference when the 5.24 days were added made such a small change
per day that the number of weeks stayed the same. During a year the difference
was only 0.015 of a degree per day.
per day that the number of weeks stayed the same. During a year the difference
was only 0.015 of a degree per day.
So where did I go wrong? Stating that a 52-year computation is wrong is one thing,
but proving it is another. And apparently, I was unable to make a strong enough
statement with so little information. So the thing to do next is: go the Floyd
Lounsbury’s original article and find the “if’s” and the “maybe’s,” especially,
when there is a strong “NO” in his proposal.
but proving it is another. And apparently, I was unable to make a strong enough
statement with so little information. So the thing to do next is: go the Floyd
Lounsbury’s original article and find the “if’s” and the “maybe’s,” especially,
when there is a strong “NO” in his proposal.
Floyd left the following statement for all students to mull over and experiment
since he knew there was no verification from the Maya corpus itself. He threw in
the 52-years, in spite of the astronomy and the 350-year that he agreed with. Then,
he adjusted the figures that could not or would not fit the formulae he decided upon.
since he knew there was no verification from the Maya corpus itself. He threw in
the 52-years, in spite of the astronomy and the 350-year that he agreed with. Then,
he adjusted the figures that could not or would not fit the formulae he decided upon.
“The Maya left no treatises or mathematical or astronomical methods or theories.
There is no posing of a problem, proof of a theorem, or statement of an algorithm----none
of the usual kinds of source material for the history of science, Their writing system, if
not actually prohibitive of such disquisitions was at least conducive to brevity in the
extreme. What they left are the various end products of the application of their methods.
It is up to the students to decipher what the problems were and how they have been the
methods employed in their solution…” ”...It can hardly take the form of a history of
Maya mathematics, calendars, and astronomy.”
There is no posing of a problem, proof of a theorem, or statement of an algorithm----none
of the usual kinds of source material for the history of science, Their writing system, if
not actually prohibitive of such disquisitions was at least conducive to brevity in the
extreme. What they left are the various end products of the application of their methods.
It is up to the students to decipher what the problems were and how they have been the
methods employed in their solution…” ”...It can hardly take the form of a history of
Maya mathematics, calendars, and astronomy.”
Lounsbury, Floyd G. (1978. 759) “Maya Numeration, Computation, and
Calendrical Astronomy”. In. Dictionary Of Scientific Biography. New York, New York.
Charles Scribner's Sons. Volume 15, Supplement 1. 1978. P. 759-818.
Calendrical Astronomy”. In. Dictionary Of Scientific Biography. New York, New York.
Charles Scribner's Sons. Volume 15, Supplement 1. 1978. P. 759-818.
In short, Floyd Lounsbury himself was the student he inferred in the above quotation.
The data that he compiled seemed to fit, except that he did not understand
how the horizontal Serpent Calendar of the Madrid Codex used the vertical
Trecena as 4 X 3 units,
how the horizontal Serpent Calendar of the Madrid Codex used the vertical
Trecena as 4 X 3 units,
plus the fact the number One.is repeated for the 13 instead of its number.
n short, the numbers of the vertical Trecena are:
01, 2, 3, 4---5, 6, 7, 8--- 9, 10, 11, 12---01.
The 52-week horizontal calendar in the Madrid Codex is only a workday calendar.
They are equal to our workday calendars which leave out Saturdays and Sundays.
Those two days are for personal or civil activities that cannot be accomplished
during the working days.
They are equal to our workday calendars which leave out Saturdays and Sundays.
Those two days are for personal or civil activities that cannot be accomplished
during the working days.
The only way the Serpent Calendar will mesh with the following 4-year unit, is
when the glyphs: BEN, ET’ZNAB, AKBAL LAMAT, in that order, are
placed in the first row of the empty cartouches.
when the glyphs: BEN, ET’ZNAB, AKBAL LAMAT, in that order, are
placed in the first row of the empty cartouches.
IK: Springtime Slash and Burning a clearing for the milpas
MANIK: Summertime Planting and caring for the milpa maize growth
EB: Autumn time Preparing for the Harvest and storage or sale of the Maize
CAVAN: Winter time, preparing for thanks to a god and his/her helpers and for
civil celebrations.
Each if the four horizontal years must mesh with the vertical year. The best way
to understand the horizontal version is to number the beginning of each 20-day
a unit; separate each 20-day unit, by cutting them apart; then fit them back together
according to the original page drawings; noting the way each column was drawn.
to understand the horizontal version is to number the beginning of each 20-day
a unit; separate each 20-day unit, by cutting them apart; then fit them back together
according to the original page drawings; noting the way each column was drawn.
One can then see better the sequences needed for milpa care to regenerate the
necessary soil nutrients for future harvests in the same plot of ground. Then
the other two 4-year vertical units are related to two other milpas to be used
following the same cycle so each plot has enough nutrients for a good harvest.
If you are not farmers or come from a 4-H family, the above sequence for
three plots of land per household may seem like overworking the system.
However, it is a very precise procedure to regenerate the necessary nutrients
three plots of land per household may seem like overworking the system.
However, it is a very precise procedure to regenerate the necessary nutrients
from what is a very thin layer of soil on top of a stone surface.
(More to the Madrid also called the Tro-Cortesianus Codex in the next posting.)
It will begin on page 112 of the Madrid Tro-Cortesiaus Codex.
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
No comments:
Post a Comment