See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/294678884

New questions concerning the authenticity of the Grolier Codex

Article  in  Latin American Indian Literatures Journal · March 2002

CITATIONS READS

8 81

1 author:

Susan Milbrath
University of Florida
44 PUBLICATIONS   214 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Susan Milbrath on 09 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ""

L
A
T
I
N

tin American Indian A

M
eratures Journal
E

iew of American Indian Texts and Studies R

I
C
State McKeesport A
University Drive N
eesport, PA 15132-7698 I
N

I
A
N
L
I
T
I .. E

A
T
U
R

J
o
LATIN AMERICAN INDIAN

U
R LITERATURES JOURNAL
N
A A Review of American Indian Texts and Studies
L

L.

18

o.

s
P

I
Vol 18, No.1 Penn State McKeesport Spring 2002
1\1
50 LATIN AMERICAN INDiAN LITERATURES JOURNAL
New Questions
Codex shows one Venus god representing the morning star in each
Concerning the Authenticity
gods in each cycle. Linda Sehele and Rudy Larios (1 991 :6) note: "the
of the Grolier Codex
star, the evening star, superior conjunction and inferior conjunction."
Susan Milbrath
Florida Museum olNatural History
The Grolier Codex is an eleveri-page manuscript of bark paper
with a ~oat of gesso on both sides, and painted figures and numbers
on only one side. Study of the surviving pages, joined together in the
manner of a pre-Columbian screenfold, suggests the original pages
were about 18 cm. high and 12.5 cm wide. The anthropomorphic
figures have been interpreted as different representations ofthe planet
Venus based on their association with a column of glyphs that shows
the date on which specific Venus events occurred (Carlson 1983; Coe
1973). The vertical colunms of glyphs include both day signs and
numbers, each combination presumably showing the date of one of
the manifestations of Venus.
This fragmentary manuscript bears some resemblance to the
Dresden Codex Venus almanac. The Dresden Codex displays five
Venus cycles of584 days each and a tzolkln table of 146 x 260 days
that extends the almanac over a period of 104 years, equal to two
calendar rounds (5 x 584 x 13 = 2 x 52 x 365 = 146 x 260).1 The
Dresden Codex depicts five different gods of the morning star, each
positioned in the center of a separate page displaying the dates and
auguries associated with the four phases comprising each Venus
cycle of 584 days (fig. 1). 2 Above the Venus gods we see regents
who influence the Venus period represented, such as the Moon
Goddess on Dresden Codex 49 (fig. Id). On the bottom ofevery page,
NEW QUESTIONS CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY 51
a victim lies wounded by the morning star. Whereas the Dresden
ofthe five Venus cycles, the Orolier Codex seems to show four Venus
Grolier Codex demonstrates that there were five gods of the morning
Presumably there would have been twenty Venus gods in the com­
plete manuscript. Ten different gods are represented in the surviving
pages (1-11), if the last two pages were originally joined together
showing different parts ofthe same deity (figs. 2-5~ Carlson 1983:51).
Discovery and Publication of the Codex
The Grolier Codex first appeared on the art market in the 1960s.
It was seen by a wider audience in a 1971 exhibition at the Grolier
Club in New York City. In 1973 Michael Coe published the screen­
(old manuscript in a catalogue of the Grolier Club exhibit. He
suggested that the codex was painted in the thirteenth century by
Toltec-Mayan artists from the area of Xicalango in Campeche, and
he also noted that the codex blends elements of the Mixtec style (Coe
1973:151). Subsequently, Eric Thompson (1975) concluded that the
codex was a forgery, and he published a detailed analysis of the
problematical elements.
The history of the Grolier Codex provides evidence that the
manuscript may be a forgery. Now in the bodeg~ of the National
Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City (Museo Nacional de
Antropologia), the codex was sold to Josue Saenz in 1966 after
looters said they removed it from a dry cave in Chiapas (Carlson
1983:27; Lee 1985:161). It was reportedly found in a wooden box
with three pieces ofplain bark paper and a turquoise mask now in the
Dumbarton Oaks collection. Coe (1973: 150) noted that a radiocarbon
analysis of the bark paper produced a date of A.D. 1230 with a range
of plus or minus 130 years. Although the bark paper used in the
radiocarbon dating seems to be authentically pre-Columbian, it
should be noted that the sample was taken from a plain piece of bark
52 LATIN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL
paper that accompanied the codex, rather than the codex itself. The
bark paper suggests a Mayan source, based on the preference for ficus
bark paper in the Mayan area (as opposed to deerskin used in the
Mixtec area and in Mixteca-Puebla codices). Eric Thompson
(1975 :6-7) noted that bundles ofblank amate paper were found in the
1960s in a cave in Guerrero, indicating bark paper was also known
in areas more or less under Mixtec control. He pointed out that
because of its relative abundance this kind ofpaper was of little value
on the art market. The addition of painted figures would have greatly
increased the value. He maintained that the codex is related to six
fake codices of the same type seen by Jose L. Franco in the previous
decade.
After Thompson's 1975 publication identifying the Grolier Co­
dex as a fake, a number of scholars published works supporting the
aut)1enticity of the codex (Carlson 1983; Knorozov 1982; Lee 1985;
Mora.:'Echevenia 1984; Stuart 1986, 1992:43; Taube 1992). In fact,
Yurii Knorozov (1982:409-410) translates the Grolier Codex in two
briefpages of commentary. It is now often referred to as one of four
surviving pre-Columbian Mayan codices (Graff and Vail 2001:58).
Nonetheless, some doubts about the manuscript's authenticity have
resurfaced (Aveni 2001: 193; Sharer 1994:603).
Anaylsis of Carlson's 1983 Study
Aside from Coe's 1973 catalogue and Thompson's 1975 article,
the most comprehensive study of the Groher Codex published to date
is John Carlson's 1983 study. Carlson did not attempt to refute
Thompson's analysis, noting that his critique with an expanded study
ofthe Grolier would be published by Dumbarton Oaks. No such study
has appeared, so we must concentrate our analysis on his published
reports ofnew evidence for the manuscript's authenticity. Discussing
imagery of the evening star, Carlson (J 983:44) says that the "essen­
tial clinching argument for the authenticity of the Grolier Codex is
that it contains information that could not possibly have been known
to a potential faker in the early 1960s. " He notes that the death fi gures
NEW QUESTIONS CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY 53
on pages 2,6, and 11 representing the evening star are consistent with
patterns not recognized by researchers until Floyd Lounsbury's 1982
study. Carlson's conclusion is not warranted because Lounsbury's
(1982:165, Table 3, dates 14,15,17) publication does not actually
link skeletal imagery exclusively to the evening star phase. The skull
glyph and skull mask are found associated with classic Mayan dates
corresponding to inferior conjunction and heliacal rise as the morning
star, as well as the evening star phase. Thus skeletal imagery is
associated with three of the four Venus phases. The presence of
skeleta] features in images of the evening star neither confinns nor
denies the authenticity ofthe codex. Indeed, it is somewhat surprising
to see skeletal figures playing the role of evening star. The skeletal
figures in the Grolier Codex most closely resemble those from
Mixteca-Puebla codices, yet these screenfolds seem to link skeletal
figures with imagery of the morning star. All five manifestations of
the rising morning star are skeletal in the Codex Cospi (9-11), and a
parallel passage in the Codex Borgia shows two ofthe five as skeletal
figures.
Another of Carlson '5 lines of evidence is that the Groher figures
resemble paintings from Tancah and Tulum published in the 1980s
by Arthur Miller (1982). He says these paintings are "strikingly
similar in style to those found in the Grolier ... most of this material
was discovered recently and was thus largely unavailable to any
potential faker in 1966" (Carlson 1983 :41). On the other hand, Cae
(1 973: lSI ) notes Ii ttIe rei ati onship between the codex and the paint­
ings ofTulum. I concur and add that there is no real stylistic similarity
between the Grolier Codex and the Tancah paintings published by
Miller in 1982.
Carlson suggests. the Grober deities relate to a list of twenty
deities in the Dresden Codex designated with letters on lines 17, 21,
and 22 in Thompson's (1972:66) diagram of the Dresden Codex
Venus almanac (fig. 6a). Carlson (1983:44) notes a "clear-cut corre­
spondence" with two of the deities named as Venus stations, the
death god and the maize god known as God E in the system developed
by Paul Schellhas (1904). 3 But Cae (1973: 154) is more cautious,
suggesting only that the deity 00 GroJ,jer page 9 seems to he a maiz
54 LATIN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL NEW QUESTIONS CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY 5S

god (fig. 4) who "bears little resemblance to ... God E." God K Table 1: Dresden Codex 46-50, Lines 16 and 17
appears on pages I and 4 of the Grolier Codex (figs. 2, 3), which
suggests a counterpart to the Dresden list naming God K in associa­ Page Direction Position Possible Identity Glyphic Namel
tion with the southern direction, but his name appears only once in ScheJlhas Designation
the list whereas the Groher depicts God K twice (fig. 6b; Table I).
The Dresden names two death gods and possibly a third (God A'), 46b North A Turkey (ulum) T1:568:19
West B Scorplon (sinan) T146:537:23
which seems comparable to the three images of God A in the Grolier.
South C Lunar Rabbit? TI09:759
A variant of the aged Moon Goddess associated with the eastern East D Death God God A
direction in the Dresden list could be compared to an aged figure with 47b North E' Knife-eared Dog? T789?
a knotted headdress on Orolier 5 (fig. 3), identified as Ix Chel by Coe West F Death God variant T15.1024 or God A'
(1973: 154). The headdress suggests a connec ti on with the aged moon South G 13 Sky XIII T85-561
goddess (Goddess 0), who often wears a headdress formed by a East H Pauahtun GodN
48b North 1 Sun God GodG
knotted serpent (Madrid Codex 30b, Dresden Codex 39b; Milbrath
West J - 6 Lord Sky VI Tl68:548?
1999: 142-143). However, in the Grolier Codex we see a paper bow South K Lord of Night? T64: 168:504
with a double headed serpent above, indicating a misunderstanding East L Moon Goddess Goddess 110
of the headdress fonn. The identifications of Goddess 0 and God E 49b North M Patron of Pax TI058
iy the Grolierremain problematical, so these deities may not represent West N Death God God A variant
South 0 Kawil (Jupiter?) God K
an overlap with the Dresden list. The Dresden Codex list does not
East P Hunahpu GodS
really parallel the Grolier Codex because it names mostly different 50b North Q Maize God God E
deities. More significantly, the Dresden list seems to· refer to deities West R Black Merchant God T1054
who playa role at the time of specific Venus events, but the deities South S 7 Flower VII T159:582
are not themselves manifestations of the planet Venus (Kelley East T Mars Beast T792
1976:82, fig. 28).
Venus in the Grolier although neither god represents Venus in the
Dresden Codex. On Dresden 46 God K is the victim of an attack
Thompson's 1975 Study and
by morning star, but God K takes an opposite role in the Grolier
Further Evidence of Anomalies
when he appears as a manifestation of the morning star on page 4
(fig. 3). This switch is especially strange because evidence from
classic period inscriptions and the Dresden Codex indicates that
Thompson (1975) published an extensive analysis of what is
God K is a manifestation of the planet Jupiter (Milbrath 1999: 176,
wrong with the Grolier Codex. All of his conclusions remain valid.
233-240).
He questions the lack of divinatory glyphs, the unorthodox use of
ring numbers (numbers with rings around them, see below), the use
Another strange aspect of the Orolier Codex is that God K
of dots to signify a period of twenty days instead of one, and a figure
apparently represents Venus in two different Venus phases. The
on page 8 with an atlatl who holds a spear instead of a dart (the
fragmentary sequence opens on page I with God K in superior
weapon appropriate to an at]at]; fig. 4). He adds that a death god and
conjunction, and then he reappears as the morning star on page 4
God K are the only recognizable gods and that they take the role of
(figs. 2, 3). Both images have certain traits typical of postcJassic
representations of God K, including a branching, upturned snout and
 56 LATIN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL
a distinctive eye ornamented along its lower edge by a volute with
dot-like appendages seen on several other gods (fig. 7; Dresden 3a.,
Dresden 12a; Milbrath 1999:229, fig. 6.3). Nonetheless, many other
details are highly irregular. Thompson (1975:5) notes that God K in
the Grolier has a human jaw and teeth instead of the serpent's traits.
God K almost has a comical appearance with his buckteeth, very
unlike the Mayan style. Also, both images of God K are shown
holding implements of warfare, unlike any other known repre­
sentation of God K in the postclassic codices. God K's stepped
headdress on page 4 has no counterpart in other known images of the
deity. The layered form of flowered headband is characteristic of
goddesses in the Mixteca-Puebla codices but is never seen on God K
(fig. 8). It seems unlikely that this unusual God K image is a
conflation of the Mayan and Mixtec styles because God K is not
known from Mixteca·Puebla art.
As Thompson (1975:7) points out, the speared temples on
I <,' Oralier pages 5 and 8 (figs. 3, 4) are signs of military conquest in
Mexican cod ices inappropriate to Yen us imagery. He adds that Venus
holds bound captives in half of the scenes, an activity unknown in
other examples of Venus imagery. He notes that one such scene
"marks the planet's appearance as morning star, when, all sources
are agreed, he should .be hurling his darts" (Thompson 197.5:7). The
darts are the rays of Venus at heliacal rise. Mexican chronicles say
that Venus wounds different groups of people as it first rises as the
morning star (Thompson 1971:217). Venus is shown wo unding
different victims in scenes showing the heliacal rise of the morning
star in the Dresden Codex and the Codex Borgia group manuscripts
(fig. 9; Codex Borgia 53-54; Cospi or Bologna 9-11; Vaticanus B
80-84). With this in mind, Anthony Aveni (1980: 194) notes that it
seems unusual to find so many gods holding spears in the Grolier
Codex. Classic Mayan evidence makes it seem unlikely that all four
phases were considered malevolent or warlike. John Justeson
(l989:Table 8.8) concludes that star war events during the classic
period were uncorrunon during the planet's superior conjunction
phase, which argues against associating this phase with images of
attack. Ivan Sprajc (1993a, 1993b) provides abundant evidence that
the evening star phase was widely associated with agricultural fertil-
NEW QUESTIONS CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY 57
ity in Mesoamerica, contrasting with the malevolent nature of the
morning star.
Other anomalous aspects not discussed by Thompson are seen
on page 3 where the spear seems to stand up by itselfwhiIe the Venus
god holds a rope with both hands (fig. 2). The Venus god on page 7
shows an awkward connection between the upper and lower body,
reflecting tenets inconsistent with pre-Columbian artistry (fig. 4). The
pre-Columbian codices occasionally depict figures that are anatomi­
cally incorrect, as in the Mixtec Codex Nuttall which shows some
figures with misplaced arms, but these errors can only be detected
with careful study of the figures (Furst 1987:13, fig. 1). In the case
of the Grolier Codex, all these awkward elements could be explained
as the work ofan unskilled pre-Columbian artist, they are of increased
significance in light of the many other inconsistencies.
Questions about Coe's 1973 Analysis
Coe (1973: 151) suggests that many iconographic detai Is indicate
Mixtec influence, but the codex is essentially Mayan because of the
day signs and ring numbers. Nonetheless, the numbers depart from
known Mayan systems. The Venus intervals are formed by a combi­
nation of Mayan and Mixtec numbers. Ring numbers include bars
and dots aligned vertically in the Mayan fashion. These appear
alongside a horizontal string of dots arranged in the style of Mixtec
or Central Mexican codices. Coe (1973: 151) notes that the horizontal
dots stand for twenty~day periods, yet this type of numeration has no
established precedent in Mayan codices, nor are there parallels in the
three Mixteca-PuebIa codices that use Mayan numerals (Codex Fe­
jervary-Mayer, Codex Laud and Codex Cospi). For example, on
Grolier page 1 (fig. 2) the four dots are said to represent twenty days
each (totaling eighty days) to be added to a ring number with the
Mayan numeral ten for a total of ninety days, indicating the period
of superior conjunction. This use of the ring numbers differs from
their role as distance numbers that count back from the beginning of
the Mayan era, characteristic of most examples in the Dresden Codex
58 LATIN AMERlCAN INDiAN L1TERATURES JOURNAL
(Thompson 1972:21-22, 1975:2-3).4 Cae (1973:151) points out that
ring numbers also appear as day coefficients on pages 71 a-73a
Dresden Codex, but he concludes that the Grolier ring numbers
function differently from the known examples, all from the Dresden
Codex (Thompson 1975:2). Gabrielle Vail (personal corrununica­
tion, 2001) notes that a configuration resembling a ring number
appears on Madrid Codex 33a, but here the numbers are used to
complete the cycle of a tza/kin count, a function that differs from both
the Dresden and GTolier ring numbers. Unlike the Dresden and
Groher examples, the Madrid Codex ring number includes both red
and black numbers, the red presumably functioning as a tzo/kin date
coefficient and the black, an interval between dates.
The sequence of tzolkin dates in the Groher parallels those on
pages 48-50 of the Dresden Codex Venus almanac (fig. lO; Cae
1973: 150, Table 3). Coe (1973: Table 4) compares the form of day
sign, with those of the three surviving Mayan codices (fig. 11). He
finds n'b comparable glyphs for the Cib day signs on page 8 (fig. 4).
In the case of the Etz'nab glyphs on page 6 (fig. 3) he sees a link with
the Paris Codex. Comparing other glyph columns in the Groher, he
finds the highest degree of overlap with those in the Dresden Codex.
Coe suggests that the Ix glyphs on page 2 (fig. 2) of the Grolier find
their closest parallel in the Dresden Codex. Shared elements include
the jaguar spots in three triangular fields separated by dotted lines
(Dresden Codex 26). The Ix glyphs in the second column of tza/kin
dates on Dresden Codex 48 show considerable variety, but none of
the glyphs closely resemble the glyphs in the Grolier Codex (figs. 1c,
2). A parallel for the Grolier Ix glyphs may be seen in the Madrid
Codex, where the Ix glyphs sometimes resemble a face like the Ahau
glyph (fig. 12~ Madrid Codex 80a). It is strange that the Grolier glyphs
resemble those from three different codices, all apparently painted
hundreds of years apart (Milbrath 1999:6).
Cae (1973: 151) says that the most convincing parallels for the
Grolier Codex are with Toltec, Toltec-Mayan, and Mixtec art. He
lists the Toltec-Mayan or Toltec traits as the knee fringes, back
shields in three-quarters view, atlatls, triangular dart points, ruffed
padding on the arms, and death gods with kn,ives protruding from the
NEW QUESTIONS CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY 59
nasal opening. Except for the layered ann padding and long tassel on
the knee fringes, all these traits are also seen in Mixteca-Puebla
codices (Fejervary-Mayer 3, 14, 18, 37~ Laud 2, 5, 31-32). Cae
(1973: 151) notes that "the most convincing resemblances are to Laud
and Fejervary-Mayer codices," especially the death gods and the
tear-drop eye with a central pupil. This type ofpupil is seen on a deity
on Grolier page 7 that Cae classifies as Mayan, although the head­
dress, spear, and sandals more closely resemble Mixtec fonns. In a
sense, all the figures defy classification because they mix elements
from different styles. The speared temples on pages 5 and 8 (figs.
3-4) evoke images in the Codex Nuttall but also defy stylistic classi­
fication (fig. 13). Cae (1973:151) points out, "they can be matched
with neither with Mixtec-Mexican temples nor with those in the Maya
codices, which always have a Crossed-band element at the back
wall." The tree on page 7 similarly conflates styles, for the tree itself
recalls Mixtec forms, but instead of the expected image of the Earth
Monster at the base of the tree, we see a deity who seems to be God
C, a deity known primarily from Mayan codices (figs. 4, 14; Milbrath
1999: 225-227). One scene below the death god on page 11 represents
a blue pool of water with a shell that seems clearly Mixtec (figs. 5,
15). Cae (1973: 154) suggests that this scene fmds its counterpart in
the Codex Borgia scene showing the morning star spearing the water
goddess in a pool of water (fig. 9). Here again there is problem
because the Borgia scene represents the morning star spearing his
victim, while in the Grolier the page pertains to the evening star phase,
ifpage 11 is attached to page 10 as Carlson proposes.
Coe (1973:154) compares the "bird-man" on Grolier 8 (fig. 4)
with Toltec-Mayan examples published by Alfred lozzer(1957:figs,
434,436,584-586). However, these examples show multiple bands
on the bird legs, and the feathers form horizontal layers that do not
extend down the legs (fig. 16). A strange layered ruff of feathers with
tabbed elements rurming all the way down the bird legs on Groher 8
has no known counterpart.
Coe (1973: 154) comments on the unusual fonn of death collar
on page 6 (fig. 4), noting "death collars [in the Dresden Codex) are
always straight instead of pendulous as here." Indeed, the lack of
 60 LATIN AMERlCAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL
similarity is notable (compare Dresden 10c, 11 a. ] 2b, 13b, etc.;
Madrid 16b, 18a. 23d, 82b, Paris 4, 22). The Grolier example is
rendered quite awkwardly, looking like a bib that that is falling off
the figure's shoulders, although it is clearly modeled after Mayan
death collars with attached eyeballs that symbolize darkness and the
stars (Milbrath 1999:253). The closest counterpart to this form is seen
on Dresden Codex 8a and Madrid Codex 80c, and 82c, which show
the death collar tipped down in front; but even here the collar clearly
wraps around the neck (fig. 17).
Concluding Remarks
Anthony Aveni (1980: 194-] 96) states that the Groher Codex
shows "enOIDlOUS knowledge of Mayan calendrics and iconogra­
phy." I believe, to the contrary, that the codex shows evidence of a
lack df understanding of Mayan numbers and Mayan iconography.
Visualizing the codex as a blend of the Mixtec and Mayan style does
not help to explain the many anomalies. A number of the forms seem
to be misunderstandings ofpre-Columbian iconography. In my opin­
ion, the codex is not a pre-Columbian Mayan manuscript. The paper
may be old, but the codex itself is a sloppy artwork made at a time
when the conventions were no longer well understood. How recently
\ this codex was painted remains the question.
\ Studies of the Grolier Codex are ongoing at the Universidad
NacionaI Aut6noma de Mexico, and it appears that some of the pages
may have been cut with scissors, according to an article by Marie
Vander Meeren in a forthcoming book on the codex (Laura Elena
Sotelo, personal communication, 2001). Carlson (1983) suggests the
pigments could provide evidence about the manuscript's antiquity.
Coe (1973) identifies the red paint as hematite, but apparently he did
not have the pigments analyzed. He also notes that the black paint is
xobably carbon black and could be analyzed for C-14 dating (Coe
Jersonal communication, 2001). It would also be appropriate to
malyze the blue paint on page 11, because blue pigments have
Iistinctive signatures.
NEW QUESTIONS CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY 61
Thompson (1975:6) comments on the contrast between the
weathered paper and the fresh appearance of the paint. I would add
that the fact that the pigments are preserved even at the edges of
damaged pages raises questions (see especially page 6; fig. 3). Also,
the red sketch lines show that artist made numerous changes in the
positioning of f~ures, a detail not often seen in pre-Columbian
codices (fig.I8). As Elizabeth Boone (2000:24) notes, the artists
generally covered mistakes and changes with white paint or a second
application of gesso. The Codex Nuttall reverse depicts a few exam­
ples where the outlines of a previous image clearly shows beneath
the final painting (pages 47, 48, 53, and 54). These are deliberate
changes to the content of the codex, rather' than corrections to
individual figures. The Codex Grolier, by contrast, shows many
changes where an inept artist moved parts of the figure or place sign
without bothering to cover over the original lines.
The Grolier Codex falls outside the tenets of postclassic
Mesoamerican art styles, which tend to have an integrated quality
rather than a haphazard mixing ofelements from different styles. The
numerous irregularities in iconography seem suspicious, as does the
fresh appearance of the paint in a manuscript presumably hidden in
a cave for over seven hundred years. It is possible that it is a late
colonial period codex, but more likely it was painted as recently as
the 19605 when looters realized the blank paper they found in a cave
would be much more valuable with painted designs.
62 LATIN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL
Endnotes
1. The tzolkin, using thirteen numbers and twenty named days, is a
divination count of260 days that repeated without interruption. The annual
festival calendar, with no leap year correction, tracked a 365-day year using
twenty numbers and eighteen named festivals plus a five~day short festival.
The tzolkin and festival calendar interlocked in a pattern that repeated every
fifty-two years, the period known as the calendar round.
2. The Venus cycle in the Dresden Codex is subdivided into fOUT
unequal phases, with 236 days assigned to the moming star phase, ninety
days to the superior conjunction phase, 250 days to the evening star phase,
and eight days to the inferior conjunction phase (the period when planet is
lost in the glare of the sun; Aveni 200 1;fig 36). This last period approxi­
mates the planet's actual average period of invisibility during inferior
conjunction, but the ninety·day period is considerably longer than the
average period of fifty days fOf superior conjunction, when Venus becomes
invis~le as it passes behind the sun (Milbrath 1999;] 66). Consequently,
the moming staf phase is shorter than the real period of visibility, which
averages around 263 days for both morning star and evening star (Milbrath
1999:51).
3. When Schellhas (1904) published his analysis of the deities in the
Mayan codices, he adopted a system of letter designation whereby each
deity was labeled with a specific letter, beginning with A, a letter designat­
ing the skeletal death god. This system has proved to be of great value
because it has allowed scholars to refer to !.he same deities despite different
opinions about their true identity. Most recently, Karl Taube (1992) has
used the same system to organize his analysis of Mayan deities.
4. Nearly all the dates in the Dresden Codex lying before the date that
marks the beginning of the Mayan era (13.0.0.0.04 Ahau 8 Cumku) are
fixed in the Long COUtlt by subtracting ring numbers, which are distance
numbers with the kin or day coefficient enclosed in a looped ring
(Thompson 1972:20-21).
5. Red lines have a brownish tone in Cae's 1973 edition, and they are
distinctly red in Lee's 1985 edition. George Stuart (1986: 168) notes that
the true color lies somewhere in between. The Lee edition uses halftone
screens made directly from photos of the original codex.
NEW QUESTIONS CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY 63
References Cited
Aveni, Anthony F. Skywatchers ofAncient Mexico. Austin: University
of Texas Press, 1980.
_ _. Skywalchers: A Revised and Updated Version of Skywatchers of
Ancient Mexico. University of Texas Press, 2001.
Boone, Elizabeth H. Stories in Red and Black: Pictorial Histories of
the Aztecs and Mixtecs. Austin; University ofTexas Press, 2000.
Carlson, John B. "The Grolier Codex: A Preliminary Report on the
Content and Authenticity of a 13th-century Maya Venus Almanac." In
Calendars in Mesoamerica and P&u: Native American Computations of
Time, edited by Anthony F. Aveni and Gordon Brotherston, pp. 27-58.
Oxford; BAR International Series 174, 1983.
Coe, Michael D. 71le Maya Scribe and His World. New York: Grolier
Club,1973.
Codex Borgia. Facsimile edition. Mex.ico: Fondo de Cullura
Economica, 1963.
Codex Cospi. Facsimile edition. Puebla, Mexico: Centro Regional de
Puebla, INAH, 1988.
Codex Fejervary-Mayer. Facsimile edition. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura
Economica, 1992.
Codex Laud. (see Martinez Marin 1961)
Codex Nuttall. (see Nuttall 1975)
Codex Vaticanus B. Facsimile edition. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura
Economica, 1993.
Dresden Codex (see Thompson] 972).
Furst, Jin Leslie. "Mixtee Narrative Conventions and Variations:
Problems in Defining Codex Nuttall as Mixtec." Latin Amen·can Indian
Literatures Journal 3, no. 1 (1987): 9·25.
64 LATIN AMERlCAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL
Gra ff, Don and Gabrielle Vai I. "Censers and Stars: Issues in the Dating
of the Madrid Codex." Latin American Indian Literatures Journal 17, no.
1 (2001):58-95.
Justeson, John. "The Ancient Maya Ethnoastronomy: An Overview
of Hieroglyphic Sources." In World Archaeoastronomy: Selected Papers
from the Second Oxford International Conference on Archaeoaslronomy,
edited by Anthony F. Aveni, pp. 76-129. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1989.
Kelley, David H. Deciphering the Maya Script. Austin: University of
Texas Press, 1976.
Knorozov, Ywi. Maya Hieroglyphic Codices. Translated by Sophie
D. Coe. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, pub. 8. Albany: State Univer­
sity of New York at Albany, 1982.
'Lee, Thomas A. Los Codices Maya. Fundaci6n Arqueologica Nuevo
Mundo, A.c. San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, y Brigham Young
University, Provo, Utah, 1985.
Lounsbury, Floyd. "Astronomical Knowledge and Its Uses at Bonam­
pak." In Archaeoastrollomyin the New World, edited by Anthony F. Aveni,
pp. 143-168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Madrid Codex (see Lee 1985).
Martinez Marin, Carlos. C6dice Laud. I.N.A.H. Serie Investigaciones.
Mex.ico, D.'F.: ~nstituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, 1961.
Milbrath, Susan. Star Gods ofthe Maya: Astronomy in Art, Folklore,
and Calendars. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999.
Miller, Arthur G. On the Edge ofthe Sea: Mural Painting at Tancah­
Tulum, Quintana Roo. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1982.
Mora-Echeverria, Jesus Ignacio. "Practicas y conceptos prehi span
icos
sobre espacio y tiempo: a proposito del calendario ritual mesoamericano."
Boletin Bibliografico de Antropologia Americana 9 (1984):5-46. Mexico,
D.F.: Instituto Panamericano de Geografia e Historia.
NEW QUESTIONS CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY 65
Nuttall, Zelia, editor. The Codex. Nut/all: A Picture Manuscript from
Ancient Mexico. The Peabody Museum Facsimile with New Introductory
Text by Arthur G. Miller. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1975. Paris
Codex. (see Lee 1985).
Schell has, Paul. "Representation ofDei ties ofthe Maya Manuscripts."
Papers ofPeabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, Harvard Uni­
versity, vol. 4, no. 1. Cambridge: The Peabody Museum, 1904.
Schele, Linda, and Rudi Larios. "Some Venus Dates on the Hiero­
glyphic Stair of Copan." Copfm Notes 99. Austin: Kinkos, 1991.
Seier, Eduard. Gesamme/re Abhandlungim zur Amerikanischen
Sprach- und Altertumskunde. vol. I. Graz: Akademische Druck-u Verlag­
sanstalt, 1960-1961.
__. Comentarios af C6dice Borgia, vol. 2. Mexico City: Fondo de
Cultura Economica, 1963.
Sharer, Robert J. The Ancient Maya. 5th ed. Stanford: Stanford Uni­
yersity Press, 1994.
Sprajc, Ivan. "The Venus-Rain-Maize Complex in the Mesoamerican
World View: Part I. " Journal ofthe History ofAstronomy 17 (1993a): 17-70.
_ _."The Venus-Rain-Maize Complex in the Mesoamerican War! d View:
Part n." Archaeoastronomy (Supplement to the Journal of the History of
Astronomy) 18 {l993b):S27-S53.
Stuart, George E. "Los Codices Maya." Archaeoastronomy lX, nos.
1-4 (1986):164-176.
_ _."Quest for Deciphennent: A Historical and Biographical Survey of
the Maya Hieroglyphic Investigation." In Neo.v Theories on the Ancient
Maya, edited by Elin C. Danien and Robert J. Sharer, pp. 1-64, 1992.
Taube, Karl A. The Major Gods of Ancient Yucatan. Studies in
Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, no. 32. Washington, D.C.: Dumbar­
ton Oaks, 1992.
Thompson, J. Eric S. Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: An Introduction.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1971.
_ _. A Commentary on the Dresden Codex: A Maya Hieroglyphic Book.
Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 93. Philadelphia:
66 LATIN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL NEW QUESTIONS CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY 67

American Philosophical Society, 1972.

~~
__."The Groller Codex." Studies in Ancien/ Mesoamerica II. Contribu~

tions of the Archaeological Research Facillty no, 27, pp. 1~9. Berkeley:

Department of Anthropology, University of Califomi a, 1975.

Tozzet, Alfred M. Chichen Itza and Its Cenote o/Sacrifice. Memoirs

of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, vols. 11, 12. Cambridge: The
Peabody Museum, 1957.

Villacorta, J. Antonio and Carlos A. Villacorta. Codices mayas. 2d ed.

Guatemala City: Tipografia Naciona1, 1977.

J "

~
___ . -._m~
;If!I:/llii~.•~ !<~~~e~
li'~1i@.VJc::!»7,~
~~€G) ~~(i)Mlf#"!a
.
·ttI&~
II
il'~
'::2)~ ~~
I -:C~'j.

~.,,~
:%..'b_ .....
~~
::'
I

. .~~~"
....
.':':'\

P£7 ~:lI,:;7Sl·~~~."n
~~;~:~I ,~S;r . 1
'J
=
:,:~-::-,-) ~ ~~ v

Figure ) a. Dresden Codex 46. Venus Almanac show jng one of the fi ve gods of the
morning star in lhe center oflhe page (after ViJlacoTta and Villacorta 1977).
68 LATIN AMERlCAN INDIAN LlTERATURES JOURNAL NEW QUESTIONS CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY 69

.,.
-J{
:x
,..J ;4.L
.: , -- CI!"
r;:­
--
' J C:) L; L.J
at, .. ..b:J
\
~
~.
l:;j @ ® :DfgJ...u_, "
(':FJ if,(fj) t:h"" .c._
,'''.
.' ~. o (:;, . .
-
~/.!l!B~:@~~
~, r'J (f}:nJJ =w
63 "r.:J ItJIJ
·y':):r-lY
~_a~
;1\; -. )
......:JJL,..' :.. Q ~'I~ ~erSl:GJ~
t ou;J. - \':;;~..' -:.~
(!-;. • :
,l,;i. ...... ~"@Qfiifn(.B r=~4~~
1n'l mGID
:(;Q ,,~
01'
nt1iJ . . .....:':~)'
fd ~~
(J
. ,, ,
~ .b'i ~"'@nEO feD
~ 1r:T.l~· . ,. ~'. .~, ;.(;J ot3J=Gh~
, .,/lr.)

~@.m:Ui~
0

" -'. ", if

II6:ii (j) ~ :,~ ,.
~'6YdJ:~ D(:tJ I £fiJ :ftI/ ~ eJ ,.
oiX'l ~:r.c I~ _ :irt:;t~ : £P • C?J
~:zt!9
.~ . . ...
' ~fjJ'1f3 Ifl}
Dt::;U -tU:I
~" .. .1' .... l
-'. ,.'\, ..,;,~
,', ~
","
':/.,.-'"..;:.'­ "!¥i} :U~ lliJ D.~ :
sf1)Ufio~ of1l) I~
f • ---~ :&:J e@Ii;:J:,fl!)' '~~If ~- .. _·',I

:JaJ·~ "f'ffi) U6l!J OOWl\U;@FI ~

:ItJ~~ u@ @
·(d,}:I~·I.~
-~~
I t:fi1 JI~-~~GtWe{$
I) 0 011• :

~:'~:::If@: ! "," ,I~§!W

J(j1:Itfi~f/lf.iG~~ j
l" ~~~l~reGJ~~
_ I)-_:...:'~lf~·

I .'
:QI. ~t ~. tt!o~~~:{,~a~
' S;j89]~Ir.et.4.:IS'~ il ~ -- I,
.
,·a!J~i:J~
em!!)~~~~
• ~ . .
~.~. ~. ~.

~·I~~~
~~{;AAJ [~~LDtW
•• •••••••• •••••••••••••••
.
, ~-
--.:.:.::
<:;;jJIi> ••• --- ==
::!::t ••
--- ~
.\:~~:IIJ(6)1ii [V'~i

~W,~:JJ~Il:~~~~

:iJi~I~··~
--.-. . ~_.

.
~~,
.:";~.~
~~~ - ~.:JC'l,(!jJ~:
~~if!1:l'£f '~
. ~Wl':.!..~.MG.9J
~
ii~_~lWi~

. -'-, :
Wte~:~
:~:~:I~'nJj \ =?~ -, • ~ r '-.,
=I(;I1:Ma:t!J1(j}
o r
o:::=a c,ooO 0 r-:'~ ~ oooo's@
= ~~.
0

;~~E3~i
<l
= =c:::::=oco
======
Figure Ib, Dresden Codex 47. Venus Almanac showing one of the five gods of the Figw-e Ie. Dresden Codex 48. Venus Almanac showing one of the five gods of the
morning slat (after Villacorta and Villacorta 1977). morning star (aOer Villacorta and Villacorta 1977).
70 LATIN AMERlCAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL NEW QUESTIONS CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY 71

- ./.

r
~
/~

<..... '.
':
:"'.1
-.
\: .... "'"
!~~>'
. ~.'
..),.... ' .
'-------­
.
:;~'.' '''''~I~I~..
l:'J~U'~;
­
.

-.
Gilt!..·!afJoftiJ ~~~~ j
, ,..;<\ 0 ~ ~ 0&!:T.'l J:JI::!lJ ~ ~ .6'1 .... .
I"" ~ L.'l I.V onA) [gil ~L:1Ilft.1
I~ f@,'- -(!):I@~& rr:z= - ,I
~~'D@~ S:g@ ~($t
!!~:m(!J g @.~ II ....-,r:l ••n
··t ~h1Ji~~~
"h:~geo@~ ,.
ol9 I GJ:I@ilf1)} I~
j
.• oI@DiVill1'!~ ,.
o ~!lIf!) ! ~~ l!J
...
. ,.­
iJ819i1@ ·1ei'·1 @~~~ 0-------..

I ",
11';;jjl~.~~~I!

~~~~ .• f_~,
~~~$J ~ J~K"@em·
~~:Ui1;'!
~~'.
- 'I
..............
--.-~

- =--
...!....
..= .. .•••
•• .:..:.
• •••• •••
---~"""'-l . I

.m.IitUil :m
• •• •
=~ ~Il

I)'
~~~f!J
~~.ml "
·J~n.e;1I·'

·LWi@~fffJ·· :. ~~ ..
J. ~~ ."
fi;lQ~fJ!j~ .' -.
·I~·~~I~
E§j C!Iib'
@2!
' .. ~.' I

~§6.E!!§~

Figure lei Dresden Codex 49. Venus Almanac showing one of the five gods of the Figure Ie. Dresden Codex 50. Venus Almanae showing one of the five gods of the
morning Slar (after Villacorta and Villaeorta 1977), morning star (after Villacorta and Vi lIacorta 1977).
72 LATfN AMERlCAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL NEW QUESTIONS CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY 73
4 5

I " 3

Figure 2. Grolier Codex pages 1-3 (after Cae 1973 and Carlson 1983).

Figure 3. Grolier Codex pages 4-6 (after Coe 1973 and Carlson 1983).
74 LATIN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL NEW QUESTIONS CONCERNING AUTHENTlCITY 75

7 8
10

Figure 4. Groller Codex pages 7-9 (after Coe ]973 and Carlson 1983). Figure 5. Grolier Codex pages 10-1) (after Coe 1973 and Carlson 1983).
 LATIN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

UD~ Cib Clm.! Clb ~n Ahau Oc Ahau

Lamat IUn 10: Kan Eb 1..aJn>u Ku:'D&b ~",at Cib Eb It. Eb Ab"-u
I
3 2 5 (j
2 I 4
J2 1 13 3 II U 12 2 10 12 II I 9
2

II
6
10
3
13
8
8

10
5
9
4
12

7
2
9
4
8
3
Jl
6
6
J •
3
1
2
10
5
3
13
7
2
6
I
9
4
4
J2
4
I 13 3 II
13 12 2
10 12 II I 9 II 10 IJ 8 10 9 12 7
5
9 8 II 6
8 7 10
5 7 6 9 4 6 5 8 3 5 4 7 2
(0 4 3 6 I
3 2 5
13 2 1 4 12 1 IJ 3 11 13 12 2 10
7
12 II I 9
II 10 13
8 JO 9 12 7 9 I 11 6 8 7 10 5
8
7 (0 9 4
6 5 8
3 5 4 7 2 4 3 6 1 3 2 5 13
9
2 I 4 J2
I 13 J
II 13 12 2 10 12 11 I 9 Il 10 13 II
10
10 9 12 7
9 8 II
6 8 7 10 3 7 6 9 4 6 3 8 3
11
5 4 7 2
4 3 6
I 3 2 5 IJ 2 1 4 12 1 13 l II
12
13 12 2 10
12 II I
9 11 10 lJ 8 10 9 12 7 9 8 II 6
13
8 7 10 5
1 6 9
4 6 5 8 3 5 4 1 2 4 3 6 I

It 4 14 '9 7
J 8 18
6 L7 7 12 • 0 II 1 6 14 10 0 5 13
Pu Kayab Muan eh'co

..
Vanln Zac Zee Xul
Cumku Zoll' Vax Vax Zip Mot Uo Uo Kankin U,,-y.b Mac Mac
L6 ~. W. S. E. N. W. S. E. N. W. S. E. N. W. S. E. N. W. So E.
17
.... B C 0 E F" G
H I J K l N 0 P 0 R S T
18
Rod I Rod I Rod t Rtd t Rod Red Red
t Red Red Red Red Rod Red Red Red Red Rod. Red Red
Vtnu. Venuo V.nu.s Venus
Venu. V..,.us Venu.
Venus Venus. V.nuo V~nu. Venus Yenu. Vcnu& VtnUJ Venus Vc-nul Venu. Venu3 V~nus
19
1.16 326 516 584
820 910 1160
1168 1404 1494 1144 1752 19&3 2018 23lS 2336 2512 2662 2912 2920
J e' 20
8 18 4 12
J 13 18,
6 2 7 17 5 16 6 II 19 15 0 10 18
Zac Muan Vax V=.
2.0 .. ' Mol Uo
Zip Muan POP Mac Kanlr.ln Yaxlcln C.b Xul Xul Cumku Zee Kayab Kayab
21
T A B C 0 E. F C \\"In.~ \l"inJed \\~n~ Wil>~ IVlnaed Wlnaed WinJed Win~ Wln,ed WiD~ WinKed
Ch..en Chu~n Cbu<n Chuen Chu~n Chum Chuen Chu<n Chum Ch.. en Ch.. en Chuen
12
\\"in~ed WinKed IVln~d Win.ed "'
,. .. .. H I J J,; L M N 0 p Q R S
ChU~D Chm:n Chuen Chuen

23
Rod Rod Red Red R~d Red Red
Red .. .. .. .. Red Red Red Red Rod. Red Red R~d
'"ental Venus VenUI V~nu.
Vtnu!I V.nu. Venus
Vcnu, Vcnu'l Vil:DUIi Venul Venua Vemu. Vrnu. V~nu!. Vc:aus
24
E. N. W. S. E. N. \Y. S, E. N. W, S. E. N. W. S. E. N. W. S.
25
19 4 14 2
13 J 8
16 7 11 2 LO 6 16 I 9 0 10 15 J
Ka)'ab Zol.· Pax Kllyab
Va>< Muan Ch'en
Ch'eo Zip Yukin Uo Uo Kankln Cuenku Mac Mac Yukln Zac ~ Xul
26
lJ6 90 150 a
136 90 250
8 236 90 150 8 a6 90 250 8 236 90 HO 8

Pot• .-6 POI<~ POI' '" POI' '-9 POI< JO

..<i ~~~~~~imoo·I@J ~~jgJB8if!3.'iJ~ ~:H3 ~

A. B c D E F G H I J K L M. N o p Q R s T

e 6a. b. Layout of Venus Cycle in Dresden Codex 46-50 and associated list

of twenty Gods (after Thompson 1971:Tabie 17, fig. 42, 1-20).

 NEW QUESTIONS CONCERNING AlJfHENTICITY 77

••••••••••

Figure 7. God K in the

Dresden Codex 12a
(after Villacorta and Figure 8. Goddess with layered flowered
VilJacorta 1977). headband in Codex Fejervary-Mayer
~ 37b (after SeIer 1963, vol. 2. fig. 151).

Figure 9. Morning star spears water goddess; Codex Borgia 53 (after Seier 1960-61,
vol. ].329, fig. 35).
 'LATIN AMERlCAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL

~OQ. (0........1 '0

~ It B c D E o 1\ I( w II o ~ a
" •
,"""""'" 5C lB It ws 6C ES oC ...s 5C es It ...s SoC u IC ..e Ie fa IC "5

1II"1l_

c.y.'O~ CIt> Clml 0& Kan A/leu Dc

_u ~,
110

teon
~100

I> OWl
r.llI

l&
$0

loa....'
~

£".... &
•
~,
nI

0&
110

£b
~

• £& "'­
1 13 I 11 lJ 11 , 10 1l

II ,0 n
• ,0
• 12 , • • II
• • 1 10 , 7
• • 4

•, • • ~
• • t 2 ~ 3
• \ J J
• n J 1 4 n

" • " 13 If 2 10 12 \\ \
• 1\ III U
• 10
• II 1

• • It • • T 10 5 1
• • • • • • J I • J
,
r

•
.,
~
•, I ~ 2
• 13 J 1
• \J 1 .s 3 \I IS IJ

,
'0
,
11
• 1\ 10 U I \11
• '2 J • • 11
•, I \0

J
• • ~
• • • ~ , ~
• T J
• 3
•, 3 2
• II

2 1 • \2 \ 13 '3 '\ IJ n J 10 \2 11
• \I 10 ,J I

J
10

U
I
•
•
12
12

2
T

'0
•
~

'2
•
S

11
11

•,
•
I

•
•
3

11 ,0
I

1
,0

13
I• \J

I
J

10
•
1

•
•
•
IJ
~

IZ

J
,
•,
•
I

IJ

•
•
3

11
J

II

•
• J '0
• 1
• , • • • • 3 I
• , 2 4 J
• \

·1C.~Cor;_
fl. I........ ).'

c.._C<><'oI_
1oIIS.~'.'
Figure 10

'e 10. Parallel sections ofrzolkin tables in Dresden Codex 46--50 (after Coe

1973:Table 3 and Carlson 1983, Table 2).

 NEW QUESTIONS CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY 79

T.bI. 4. pegr_ 01 Slmn.r1ly 01 Gl1lller Day Glyph.

-'Ih OItl.r "aya Codlee.
'®~

@i)~1

Groner
day signs Oresden Paris Mldrid

Kan 1 0

~(:).
III 1 0 0
Eb 1 0 1
Umel 1 0 0

0CS:

E!z'''''b 1 2 0
Cib 0 0 0
Ik 2 (p.2b) 0 0
-­ -­2 -

~(g

Totals 7 2

Figure 11. Gralier Codex tzolkin Glyphs

compared with other Maya codices Figure 12. Ix glyph at lower left
(after Coe 1973: Table 4). from the Madrid Codex 80a
similar to Grolier Codex 2(after
Villacora and Villacorta 1977).

Figure 13. Speared temple on Codex Nuttall 45 (after Nuttall 1975).

80 LATIN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL NEW QUESTIONS CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY 8]

...­
•
e. __

e
"
e
-
I .'

,~~ .. h~ - .. ~- ­ ~
Figure 14. Mixtec tree with earth monster head at base 00 Codex Laud 38 (after
Martinez Marln 1961).
Figure 15. Blue pool of water with a shell on Codex Nuttall 44 (after Nuttall 1975).
 82 LATIN AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURES JOURNAL NEW QUESTIONS CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY 83

,
~~~ . tJi·
~~

~~..
~
,.~-

~
o 0'.. .
:

Figure 17. Maya style death collar

like those seen in Madrid Codex
82e (after Villacorta and
Villaeorta 1977).

Figure 18. Red sketch lines showing changes in

the positioning of figures on Grolier 7, note
Figure 16. ToltevMaya "bird-man" (after Tozz.er 1957:figs. 434, 436, 584-585). God C bead, f}ttee branches, and headdress
feathers (after Coe 1973: 153).
View publication stats