Authenticity Grolier Codex

1 authenticity

1.1 iconography
1.2 materials

1.2.1 testing

authenticity

english mayanist j. eric s. thompson cast strong doubts upon authenticity of grolier codex in 1975 article grolier codex, published in volume 27 of contributions of university of california. thompson argued codex modern forgery , unusual mix of styles in document not due mixing of cultures rather due hand of forger. thompson queried illustration of 4 stations of venus in codex, noting other mesoamerican codices illustrated more spectacular appearance of venus morning star. claim has been refuted more recently, evidence presented codex telleriano-remensis god of morning star presided on evening star. contents of document have not been copied directly of accepted maya codices, although resemble pages 46 50 of dresden codex.

following thompson s attack upon veracity of codex, number of scholars published opinions document genuine on course of 1980s , 1990s, including john b. carlson, yuri knorozov, thomas a. lee, jr., jesús ignacio mora echeverría, george e. stuart, , karl taube. in 2000, german epigrapher nikolai grube expressed belief document genuine, based upon precision of venus almanac. however, in later publication 2012, calls codex forgery. in 2002, french archaeologist claude-françois baudez commented – thompson before – codex serves no divinatory purpose , useless aid maya priest; believes document product of forger using pre-columbian materials relatively ignorant of subject. codex notable in use of prominent illustrations of uniform size , complete absence of hieroglyphic text; deities lack names , cardinal directions unmarked. in paper published in 2003, authors (including mayanist stephen d. houston) argue iconography , lack of hieroglyphic text result of strong central mexican stylistic influence.

a further avenue of defending codex s authenticity based not upon understanding of astrological , oracular content, upon understanding of language , hieroglyphics themselves. in 1973 michael coe write there no forger in world possibly know combine glyphs in manner presented in grolier codex. in 1983 study john carlson echoes coe conclusion grolier codex reflects knowledge of mayan language not known deciphered academics until 1982, long after codex s discovery in 1960s. carlson , coe not able disprove forgery hypothesis information, circumstances required potential forger possess information never reveal made veracity far more according them.

the radiocarbon dating of associated sheet of unstuccoed bark paper had been used support 13th-century date grolier codex. large quantities of pre-columbian bark paper reported have been found in dry caves, genuine piece of blank pre-columbian paper may have been used forger base painting falsified codex. however, existence of such stocks of pre-columbian paper has not been confirmed scholars. fact codex painted on 1 side while 3 uncontested maya codices painted on both sides has been used argument against authenticity, although michael coe has argued parts of non-maya mesoamerican codices had been left blank many years before being painted in style distinct opposite side. baudez, in 2002 critique of grolier codex, noted fact codex painted on 1 side irrelevant in determining authenticity, since there many examples of mesoamerican codices not being painted on both sides. further doubts have been cast upon how sáenz acquired codex , iconography of document itself. archaeologist donna yates considers coe s account of sáenz being contacted unnamed person , flown remote airstrip unidentified persons fantastical . of 2012, authenticity of document still disputed, although carlson has published further article reaffirming legitimacy, citing 2002 radiocarbon testing of samples codex own epigraphic , iconographic analyses.

in december 2015, michael coe, mary miller, stephen houston , karl taube once again published support legitimacy of codex, although no new analysis presented. however, donna yates, professor of university of glasgow studying antiquarian art crime, dismissed objections document s authenticity due team s new findings. these include sharp cuts in codex being caused gypsum plaster, not modern tools; no modern pigments found , contained mayan blue pigments difficult reproduce; figures drawn in codex align , conform grid lines of maya murals; radiocarbon dating of bark paper still confirmed belonging 12th–13th century; other items discovered along codex have been proven authentic. in august 2017, however, bruce love, archaeologist, expert in post-classic yucatec maya culture, , commentator of paris codex, dissected 2015 argument of coe , co-authors , pointed out number of misreadings , unfounded assertions in it; concluded thorough chemical analysis of organic materials contained in artefact able settle question.

iconography

the deity depicted on page 9 of grolier codex unknown @ time codex discovered, similar depictions later found @ 2 maya sites in mexico.

the artifact shows number of idiosyncrasies raise questions concerning authenticity. numbering systems used in codex conflict. maya bar-and-dot system used mark units, central mexican dot system used mark multiples of twenty (for example using 11 dots instead of 2 bars , dot, case in bar-and-dot system bar indicates 5 , dot indicates 1). bar-and-dot numbers placed within cartouche decorated knot @ top. other instance of such cartouche being used numbers in dresden codex, cartouche has specific function, indicating negative date count 0 year of great cycle of mesoamerican long count calendar (roughly equivalent function of bc in gregorian calendar). in grolier codex, numbers mark intervals between stations of venus, use of cartouche appears meaningless, although suggested means codex may read both front , back.

in grolier codex captives shown bound cords leading necks, common convention in mesoamerican art depiction of captives bound arms or wrists. of figures in codex represent deities (on pages 1–2, 4–6 , 9) , represent mortal warriors without supernatural attributes (on pages 3, 7 , 8). both deities , mortals performing same actions such capture of prisoner, or conquest symbolised spear passing through temple. although codex depicts stations of venus, none of warlike figures identified attributes associated planet in maya or central mexican art. on page 9, bound captive depicted high point of view sense of perspective french mesoamericanist , iconographer claude-françois baudez considers alien mesoamerican art. god k (k awiil) depicted twice in codex. however, attributes inconsistent other pre-columbian depictions, shown human incisors instead of snake fangs.

the deity depicted on page 9 of grolier codex believed mountain god split head. image otherwise unknown in 1960s. other examples of later discovered @ maya sites of tancah , pasión del cristo. coe , colleagues argue unlikely forger have known deity before described elsewhere.

materials

the paper used grolier codex appears authentic pre-columbian bark paper dating 13th century. number of non-destructive techniques have been applied codex in effort authenticate it, , results published in 2008. analysis revealed pre-columbian materials had been used in creation; no modern inorganic materials detected. inconsistencies revealed however; cuts along page edges seem have been made sharp blade in order give appearance of natural wear , tear , supposed water staining did not permeate paper. researchers commented staining appeared result of drops of dye or ink being applied surface of codex. in conclusion researchers unable support or refute pre-columbian nature of codex. unusually document supposedly stored in cave centuries, paint of codex still appears fresh.

testing

the codex tested in instituto de física of universidad nacional autónoma de méxico in mexico city using 3 megaelectronvolt pelletron particle accelerator. testing methods applied codex included ultraviolet imaging, infrared reflectography, optical microscopy, particle-induced x-ray emission , rutherford backscattering spectrometry (rbs). specific aim of non-destructive testing compare materials used in codex used in other pre-columbian codices.

the testing showed base layer onto codex painted composed of gypsum, material used base layer paintings since antiquity. black paint analysed rbs , found carbon-based pigment consistent other pre-columbian mexican codices. red colour used in codex red ochre, iron-based pigment. there little blue colouration in grolier codex , presence of distinctive maya blue pigment not confirmed. analysis particle-induced x-ray emission (pixe) revealed blue pigment used on codex not contain cobalt , contain clay. elemental composition matches of palygorskite, main inorganic component of maya blue. however, other materials such lapis lazuli not ruled out since pixe identifies elements, not compounds. investigators concluded codex contain original pre-columbian materials not confirm document authentic.