Pre-Columbian Codices and Making Carl Kauffman Introduction to Preservation LIS 713-Spring 2013

The Madrid

“Then he (Landa) collected the and the ancient and he commanded them burned and tied up. They burned many historical books of the ancient Yucatan which told of its beginning and history, which would be of much value if they had been translated in our own writing, because today there would be something original. At best there is no great authority for more than the traditions of these Indians” -Bernardo de Lizana 1633 (Coe & Kerr 1997, 222)

On July 12, 1562 occurred the infamous Auto de Fe in the town of Mani in the

Yucatan of and with it the destruction of much of Mayan culture. This act of ritual destruction in the name of the Inquisition included the burning of numerous codices because as its’ instigator Bishop Diego de Landa stated “We found in these books a large number of characters and as they contained nothing in which were not to be seen superstition and lies of the devil, we burned them all, which they (the Maya) regretted to an amazing degree, and which caused them much affliction.” This single act deprived the future of an untold wealth of knowledge concerning this great native American civilization as books and other artifacts were consigned to the flames, nor was this the only time that the conquering Spaniards condemned the creations of the Maya to oblivion. This systematic destruction of the books the Christian Spaniards found representative of an evil and alien culture was nearly successful. The humid and tropical climate of the Maya also contributes to the loss of ancient books and other artifacts.

Therefore destruction, time, and climate have left only four examples of these folded bark paper books to survive the centuries in varying degrees of preservation. Nonetheless, much has been learned of ancient Maya making traditions from these examples as well as from other forms of Mayan writing. The calligraphic Mayan writing was found in numerous forms; on carved stone stellae, on painted ceramic pottery and incised into stone and bone implements. The Maya also painted and wrote on surfaces in cave walls, wall murals and on wooden lintels that supported structures such as the temples at the

1 great city of Tikal in . Lastly, they wrote on paper created from the inner bark of the , a type of fig tree. In researching the subject of Pre-Columbian codices I had the great fortune to speak with one of the pre-eminent scholars in Maya studies, Karl

Taube professor at University of California-Riverside. Professor Taube helped greatly by clarifying many of the issues surrounding the and ancient Maya culture in general. I found his help particularly significant as I ran across his name in several of the books I used in researching this paper.

Bishop Diego de Landa

While much has been learned about Mayan writing and books from the few surviving codices, much has also been learned from depictions of scribes and scribal activities from the glyphs and scenes on ceramics and other surfaces employed by the

Maya for the purpose of recording their events and knowledge. It should also be noted that the Maya were not the only people in the pre-European world of to write or create books. Examples of pre-Columbian codices exist from cultures farther north in Mexico including from the and . There are in fact, considerably more of these similarly constructed screen fold codices with Aztec or origins in existence today. Some of the Aztec and Mixtec books were created before the Spanish

2 conquest while others were commissioned by the Spanish in the years following Cortez’ defeat of the Aztecs in 1521. These books were made using traditional methods and paper for their own purpose of understanding the converted people of Mexico. However, it is important to note that the Aztecs did not have as advanced a system of hieroglyphic writing as the Maya. As Esther Paszthory comments, Aztec writing consisted of ideographs and pictographs that functioned largely as “mnemonic devices for an essentially oral tradition” (Paszthory 1983, 180). Of course these books were also graphically beautiful and created with essentially the same materials and methods as the books created by other cultures including the Maya.

Some knowledge of pre-Columbian paper making can be learned from Spanish accounts in the years following the conquest as well as from a few isolated indigenous groups such as the people of central Mexico who still make paper from a Ficus tree. In fact, Michael D. Coe surmises that “there is no reason to believe that Maya paper-manufacture was different from that of non-Maya Mesoamerica” (Coe & Kerr

1997, 143). I asked Professor Taube if there are any examples of the Maya people of today making paper in a traditional manner and he said that unlike the Otomi he has never encountered any (K. Taube, personal communication, May 3, 2013).

The destruction of so much Mayan culture along with so many examples of Mayan books makes the preciousness of the surviving four even more evident. However, there rarity today is not necessarily representative of their significance to the pre-conquest

Maya. There were likely many thousands of such books before the conquest and their content will never be known. There is also much evidence that the Maya highly valued their books and their scribes. As Mary Ellen Miller points out if the written word held

3 little importance to the Maya Bishop Landa “would have had little reason to round them up and set them on fire” (Miller 1999, 188). The importance of books to the Maya is also suggested by archaeological evidence because it is known that Maya kings were often buried with books resting on their chests. Unfortunately the only remnants of these books consist of pieces of rotten stucco sizing (Miller 1999, 188). When I spoke with Karl

Taube he described these remains of codices found in Maya burial sites as “calcified bricks with signs of having contained paint” (K. Taube, personal communication, May 3,

2013).

Example of Maya glyphs

Mayan writing has undergone a long process of decipherment and with it an increased understanding that it is far more phonetically based than previously thought.

The Maya number system was understood long before the rest of Maya hieroglyphics and decipherment of their writing was not aided by Bishop Landas’ inaccurate, and perhaps remorseful, translation of the “Maya alphabet” following the great Auto De Fe.

Nevertheless after many years of difficult code breaking the result is in an understanding

4 that the Maya wrote in a logo syllabic system with a combination of symbols for whole words combined with others for phonetic syllables (Coe & Kerr 1997, 53). The links between Maya writing have also been made with specific , particularly

Cholan and Yucatec. These languages have modern descendants still spoken today. This knowledge of Mayan hieroglyphs also has led to an understanding that while following certain basic rules, there was much artistry and leeway in which Maya scribes could write. This allowed for considerable individuality in the style of writing and can be seen in both the surviving codices and on ceramic ware (Coe & Kerr 55-57). When I asked

Karl Taube about how wide-spread literacy may have been he suggested that it was almost definitely a province of the elite. This was because of evidence but also because he described the as “extremely visually complex and difficult.” This

Maya writing system was actually more complicated and hard to learn than similar systems such as those of China (K. Taube, personal communication, May 3, 2013).

Map of the Maya world

5

The existed across a broad span of time from its’ earliest origins of at least 1500BCE all the way until the first conquests by the Spanish in the 1540’s. It is also important to understand that there were several phases of Maya culture with the most “Classic period” being many years before the arrival of the Spanish. In addition, the Maya did not have a single empire or kingdom but rather established numerous city- states spread over an area referred to as Mesoamerica, referring to the countries of

Mexico and Central America. There were also fairly wide climate variations within the

Maya world from tropical rainforests, to milder mountain areas and flat tropical plains in the north of the Yucatan peninsula (Freidel & Schiele 1990, 50-65). Although it is likely that early forms of writing in Mesoamerica began with the Olmec civilization along the gulf coast of Mexico and spread to groups such as the Zapotecs it is the Maya that are perhaps best associated with Pre-Columbian writing systems. Much of our knowledge of

Maya scribes and written culture comes from the Classic period, approximately 200-

900AD in the form of pottery and ceramics which the Maya wrote upon and illustrated.

The four surviving codices are themselves, are much more recent creations from the Post- classic period right before the Spanish arrival. The oldest book, the Grolier Codex dates from approximately 1230 AD (Coe 1999, 199-200).

The existence of codices in the Pre-Columbian world would not have been possible without paper. Analysis of paper samples from the four codices as well as accounts from

Indians and Spanish observers have shown that the paper used throughout Mesoamerica came from the inner bark of Ficus tree a type of fig tree. There are around fifty types of trees belonging to the genus Ficus found throughout Mexico and different ones were used by different tribal groups as a paper source (Van Hagen 1944, 37). It has been noted that

6 many of the native Indian words for variations of the Ficus species contain the word for paper in one form or other. The Mexican term for native paper was amate, derived from the ancient Aztec language word for paper, amatl. Historically, there was a good deal of misinformation about the source of Pre-Columbian paper as it was often reported to be from the maguey plant. Von Hagen claims that much of this confusion came from a lack of first-hand accounts of paper making and so became an excepted fact (Von Hagen

1944, 47-52). Von Hagen himself, writing and researching in the 1930’s came across several indigenous groups living in isolated villages where they still made paper in the manner of the ancient Pre-Columbian civilizations. Adding to the evidence concerning the origins of Mesoamerican paper was an analysis of the paper used in the Dresden

Codex in 1910 by Dr. Rudolph Schwede. His microscopic analysis proved that the Ficus tree was the source of paper despite historical reproductions of the Dresden Code claiming that use of maguey based paper. Schwede later tested the Paris and Madrid codices with the same results (Von Hagen 1944, 61-62).

The tree specifically used as the source of Mayan book paper has been identified as the Ficus cotinifolia called by the Yucatec Maya, hun. Hun is coincidentally the name the Yucatec also used for both paper and for books themselves. As mentioned earlier, there is little reason to doubt that paper making varied between areas or cultures of

Mesoamerica. Thus Coe and Kerr summarize the process of paper making based on the evidence of the previously mentioned sources as a series of steps. First, fig branches of about five feet are harvested. The branches are then cut lengthwise and the bark is removed. After this the outer bark is peeled off and the inner bark is soaked in running water allowing the latex contained within the bark to surface. This is then scraped off

7 and the inner bark is dried. Then the bark is boiled in a pot containing lime. The fibers are then removed, rinsed and eventually cut to fit a wooden drying board at right angles,

“exactly as in preparation of in Egypt” (Coe & Kerr 1997, 143-44). This process of paper making has not entirely died out in Mexico as the previously mentioned Otomi people still create decorative and ritual objects made of amatl from the Ficus tree.

(Americas 2007, 43).

Coe and Kerr go on to explain that in the case of both the and the

Madrid Codex some sort of glue was applied to thicken the paper and lengthen it by combing sheets. This glue likely came from a vegetable source, possibly a species of orchid. In the case of the Dresden Codex the pages have the thickness of two layers of paper glued together while in both the Dresden and Madrid codices the length of the paper would have required some form of glue as the horizontal length of both are over about feet long. The codices were then coated with a white plaster or gesso substance which Dr. Schwede concluded was a type of calcium carbonate. This gesso substance is likely the same as the one used for a surface in Maya mural painting. Essentially this preparation method meant that the Maya actually wrote/painted on this surface rather than the actual paper (Coe & Kerr 1997, 144). Some of the other implements used in the creation of Maya books have been inferred from scenes of scribes on painted ceramics.

These implements include brush pens similar to those used by the Chinese and inkpots made of cut conch shells. Coe and Kerr also propose that the Maya may have used quill pens and polished their paper with smooth stones as seen in certain representations of scribes on painted ceramics. In any case though no brushes survive there are numerous depictions of scribes along with patron gods of scribes carrying brushes and inkpots. A

8 carbon based black was used and others colors were derived from vegetable and mineral sources. There is also much evidence from painted pottery and other Maya imagery that their books were covered with wooden boards and often layered with jaguar skins (Coe & Kerr 1997, 143-146).

The four surviving Maya codices are absolutely fascinating and beautiful examples of what must have been a much wider body of knowledge known to the ancient Maya.

Although the quality of calligraphy and painting varies between the books they are all stunning to look at without any understanding of their contents. As mentioned before they are all screen fold books prepared from fig bark paper, glued together and prepared with a white gesso-like surface. The dimensions of the Dresden Codex are approximately

8 inches high and just under 12 feet long with a total of 74 pages. The is larger at more than nine inches in height and 22 ½ feet long. The Madrid Codex contains

112 pages. None of the four books are from the Classic period and most likely date from a period of 100 years before the arrival of the Spanish. Coe notes that there are differences between the four books and that they were likely created at different times and places within the Maya world (Coe & Kerr 1997, 173). The names of the four books relate to the European cities, Paris, Madrid and Dresden where they have been kept for centuries. The case of the Grolier Codex is an odd one and its’ name comes from having been exhibited at the Grolier Club in New York City in the early 1970’s. The content of all four books are “essentially ritual-astronomical” and tied to the complex Maya calendrical system” (Coe & Kerr 1997, 178). The books contain numerous tables written using the Maya number system and relate to solar eclipses and rituals relating to the

Maya New Year.

9

The Dresden Codex

The codex that has drawn the most attention is the Dresden Codex. It has been studied for a longer period and a number of its pages were reproduced in the 1800’s. The first photographic facsimile was made in 1880 by Ernst Forstemann. Expert analyses have shown that some of the imagery was likely copied from earlier, Classic sources however the book also shows influences from the period close to the Spanish conquest.

This can be seen in the depictions of certain gods and their names which are likely Aztec in origin. Experts have also judged that the Dresden Codex was created by as many as eight different scribes and the fine quality of its execution was a reason that Coe and Kerr propose the use of higher quality quill pens for its’ execution (Coe & Kerr 1997, 179).

The survival of the Dresden Codex is also something of a miracle as it escaped pretty much unscathed from the horrendous Dresden bombings of World War II.

10

The

The Paris Codex is in poor shape. The pages are worn and much of the ink/paint has worn off as well. Its’ content contains similar number tables relating to the Maya calendar and New Year’s ceremonies. There is actually no high quality facsimile of this codex but it has been part of the collection at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris since

1832. The remaining two codices, the Madrid and Grolier have both drawn a certain amount of controversy as to their provenance. There is no doubt that the Madrid Codex is an authentic Maya book but there are some doubts as to when it was created. This codex has 56 leaves laid out with a network of red grids and like the others consists of tables relating to astronomy and ritual. Coe judges the quality of craftsmanship to be lower than that of the Dresden Codex. However, the oddest aspect of the Madrid Codex and the source of controversy is that there are two pieces of Spanish paper inserted into

11 the codex. There are no doubts that this paper came from Spanish sources and have

Spanish writing on them. This fact has led Coe to speculate that this book may have been created after the initial Spanish conquest. This seems to be a very interesting point and it should be remembered that unlike the , the Maya were not conquered in one fell swoop. The history of the Maya is quite different in that they continued to remain independent in parts of the Yucatan peninsula and Guatemala until as late as 1697 when the last independent kingdom at Tayasal fell to the Spanish. Thus it is likely that some traditional Maya practices including book making continued for nearly two hundred years following the initial Spanish attacks. Among Coe’s evidence for this post conquest creation of the Madrid Codex is his belief that the Spanish papers are intrinsic to the structure of the book. He also believes there is a fragment of a name written in Spanish that may be that of a murdered Franciscan missionary. This hypothesis has been challenged by other researchers who consider the addition of Spanish paper to be purely a surface addition. They also assert that there a number of reasons Spanish writing may have been occurred on these pages including a sort of “papal blessing” added at a later date (Vail et al 2003, 108). In addition these researchers note that the style of painting overall is consistent with the period occurring in the 100-200 years before the Spanish conquest. In any case this controversy brings up some intriguing possibilities such as the continued use and possible creation of Maya ritual books after the initial Spanish invasions.

12

Page from the Grolier Codex

This leads to the last and the most controversial of the four codices, the Grolier

Codex. This fragmentary book consists of 11 pages of gesso covered bark paper depicting anthropomorphic figures that relate to the planet Venus. As mentioned this book takes its name from the Grolier Club in New York where it was first exhibited in

1971 by the famous Mayan expert Michael Coe. The codex itself first appeared earlier in the 1960’s after it was claimed to have been found in a cave in , Mexico. Coe has claimed that radiocarbon dating shows the paper to be from around 1230 AD and many other experts have supported the Grolier’s authenticity. However, another famous Maya scholar, Eric Thompson quickly proposed that it is a forgery and that several other fakes had appeared in the 1960’s. More recently Susan Milbrath has also questioned the authenticity of the Grolier Codex. While she doesn’t doubt the age of the paper, she questions the fresh looking quality of the ink, and the fact that the imagery doesn’t fall

13 into known categories of Pre-Columbian artistry (Milbrath 2002, 55-60). Coe claims that the unusual imagery is related to its location saying that it is a Toltec-Maya creation, referring to the Toltec people who inhabited central Mexico in the 1200’s. Despite these issues, it seems that the majority of experts have agreed that the Grolier Codex is probably authentic, if unusual.

My talk with Professor Taube helped clarify many of the issues surrounding the four codices. In relation to the Grolier Codex he has absolutely no doubts as to its authenticity. He described any remaining questions about it to being about “politics” and has complete faith that it is valid. He did agree that it has unusual iconography in its depictions but that is due he says, to the fact that it is has a “Toltec-Maya” hybrid style of painting. When I asked about the possibility that the Madrid Codex could be post- conquest due to the presence of Spanish paper he disagreed, stating that the style of actual writing/painting is clearly post-classic from around 1300 or so. He believes the Spanish paper was added later and is in fact a “Papal bull” which was added as a sort of blessing to the otherwise heathen object. Taube is also the discoverer that the Dresden Codex has

Aztec influences meaning it was likely created quite soon before the conquest and that there was contact between the two cultures. He explained that this is because of a particular figure which represents an Aztec God in several ways. The first is that the

Aztec name is spelled out phonetically in Maya writing and the second is that the figure is seen wearing a pectoral pendant that has only ever been seen in Aztec imagery. The

Aztec Empire existed for a relatively short time in the two hundred years before the

Spanish conquest helping to date the Dresden Codex. Professor Taube also helped explain the contents of the codices. He agreed that in many ways they all have similar

14 content relating to “calendars, divination, astrological computations and the cycle of the planet Venus”, however he also mentioned that there are missing pages and that there are indications that historical events were also included in parts of the codices, particularly referring to a period in the mid 1300’s (K. Taube, personal communication, May 3,

2013).

Scribe on a painted ceramic dish

Finally, in relation to the Maya codices it is important to mention the scribes themselves. Scribes, along with their patron deities are well represented in Maya art.

There are many painted scenes on ceramics as well as sculpture showing scribes in various activities and using different implements. Based on this evidence it seems that

Maya scribes were a highly valued class that likely came from younger sons of nobility.

They are shown in scenes accompanying kings and royal retinues as well as in scenes of captivity. There is at least one scene painted on a vase showing a female scribe and there is archaeological evidence from ruined sites that scribes occupied specific buildings in cities such as Copan (Coe & Kerr 1997, 98). There are also many fascinating depictions

15 of the patron gods of scribes including Pawahtun, often shown as an old man with brush pens in hand or brushes sticking out from his hair. Other patron gods shown with scribal implements include the Young Maize God and various monkey deities.

As mentioned, other Pre-Columbian cultures created books using a form of hieroglyphics. The process of paper making appears to be the same throughout

Mesoamerica but it notable that groups such as the Mixtecs also used prepared animal skins such as deerskin to create books. In the area of the conquered Aztec Empire of central Mexico the Spanish even commissioned books using bark paper and traditional imagery for several generations after the conquest. One example of this is the Codex

Mendoza commissioned for King Charles V in 1541-42 (Paszthory 1983, 179). This use of native painters led to the creation of a number of hybrid books which gradually came to look more European in style. These books show both Pre-Columbian and native styles of painting and often have Spanish translations. The pre-Columbian examples of Aztec and Mixtec books served several purposes such as record keeping and ceremonial uses.

Others were used as histories and some included maps. Many of these books are called tonalamatl which literally translates into “day-book.” The contents of these religious books involved calendars and rituals used by priests for consulting and predicting futures events. They were likely consulted when children were born or when important decisions needed to be made (Paszthory 1983, 193). Examples of this type of religious codex include the Codex Borgia and Codex Borbonicus.

16

Page from the Codex Borbonicus

It is clear, however, that the Aztecs wrote down other information in their books one of which is the Codex Boturini. This screen fold book is approximately 7 inches high and

15 feet long and appears to show a progression of Aztec history through their migrations.

This book was either slightly pre-conquest or a commission from immediately after it. It is a simply drawn compared to the Maya codices but is still a fascinating picture book showing the migration of the Aztecs from their ancestral home until their settlement of the present day area. Other Aztec era books record much about the Aztec

Empire including maps and lists of tribute taken from subjected towns and villages.

(Paszthory 1983,197-199). Von Hagen notes that the Codex Mendoza lists a tribute of

24,000 reams of amatl paper to be supplied every 6 months. Such figures would suggest

17 that paper was a widely produced and important commodity in the Aztec world. (Von

Hagen 1944, 18). The Mixtecs also produced screen fold books which served a variety of purposes one of the most important of which was showing the genealogical progressions of rulers from divine sources (Boone 2000, 100-110).

The codex was only one of many creative and intellectual forms in which the Pre-

Columbian civilizations of Mesoamerica expressed themselves and their rarity suggests that writing and book making were a minor part of those cultures. However, the skill of their creation such as in the Dresden Codex and the quantity in which paper was required as tribute suggest that books and writing may actually have played a much more important part in the life of civilizations like the Maya and Aztecs. It is certainly known that far more codices existed until the Spanish systematically destroyed them in the name of Christianity following the conquest. Perhaps the transmission of knowledge through codices was not so unusual in Maya society (Coe & Kerr 1997, 54). In any case the loss of knowledge of these great civilizations is a sad fact perhaps best expressed by another

Spanish Franciscan at the time of the book burnings, Antonio de Ciudad Real, who stated

“thus was lost the knowledge of many ancient matters of that land which by them could have been known” (Coe & Kerr 1997, 222). However, when speaking with he seemed genuinely optimistic that more books could be found. In fact he thinks it is likely. His reasoning is that archaeologists find wooden remnants in dry caves throughout the Maya world fairly often. The way he put it was “when wood is preserved it is likely that paper could be as well.” Perhaps it is just a matter of time before someone stumbles across more of these creations and expands our knowledge of the ancient Maya

(K.Taube, personal communication, May 3, 2013).

18

Drunken Scribe (left bottom) and codex bundle (right bottom)

19

References

Amate Paper: An Ancient Art Renewed. 2007. Americas, 59(5), 43.

Boone, Elizabeth Hill. (2000). Stories in Red and Black: Pictorial Histories of the Aztecs and Mixtecs. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Coe, Michael D. (1999). The Maya 6th Edition. London: Thames & Hudson.

Coe, Michael D., Kerr, Justin. (1997). The Art of the Maya Scribe. London: Thames & Hudson.

Friedel, David, Schele, Linda. (1990). A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. New York: William Morrow.

Milbrath, Susan. 2002. New Questions Concerning the Authenticity of the Grolier Codex. Latin American Indian Literatures Journal, 18(1), 50-83.

Miller, Mary Ellen. Maya Art and Architecture. (1999). London: Thames & Hudson.

Paszthory, Esther. (1983). Aztec Art. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Vail, Gabrielle, Bricker, Victoria R., Aveni, Anthony F., Bricker, Harvey, Chuchiak, John F., Hernandez, Christine L., Just, Brian R., Macri, Marth R., Paxton, Meredith. 2003. New Perspectives on the Madrid Codex. Current Anthropology, 44, 105-112,

Von Hagen, Victor Wolfgang. (1944). The Aztec and Maya Papermakers. New York: Hacker Art Books.

20