1782976434_Archaeoastronomy

7/26/2019 1782976434_Archaeoastronomy

1/177


2/177

Archaeoastronomyand the Maya

edited by

Gerardo Aldana y Villalobosand Edwin L. Barnhart

Oxbow Books

Oxford & Philadelphia


3/177

Published in the United Kingdom in 2014 byOXBOW BOOKS10 Hythe Bridge Street, Oxford OX1 2EW

and in the United States byOXBOW BOOKS908 Darby Road, Havertown, PA 19083

Oxbow Books and the individual contributors 2014

Paperback Edition: ISBN 978-1-78297-643-1Digital Edition: ISBN 978-1-78297-644-8; Mobi: ISBN 978-1-78297-645-5; PDF: ISBN 978-1-78297-646-2

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Archaeoastronomy and the Maya / edited by Gerardo Aldana y Villalobos and Edwin L. Barnhart. -- Paperbackedition. pages cm Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-78297-643-11. Maya astronomy. 2. Archaeoastronomy--Central America. 3. Archaeoastronomy--Mexico. I. Aldana yVillalobos, Gerardo, editor, author. II. Barnhart, Edwin Lawrence, editor. F1435.3.C14A73 2014 972.81016--dc23 2014019098

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronicor mechanical including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, withoutpermission from the publisher in writing.

Printed in the United Kingdom by Berforts Information Press Ltd, Eynsham, Oxfordshire

For a complete list of Oxbow titles, please contact:

UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOxbow Books Oxbow Books

Telephone (01865) 241249, Fax (01865) 794449 Telephone (800) 791-9354, Fax (610) 853-9146Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

www.oxbowbooks.com www.casemateacademic.com/oxbow

Oxbow Books is part of the Casemate Group

Cover image: Photographs of Palenque architecture by Alonso Mendez


4/177

CONENS

Contributors ivForeword: Te long and winding road to publication v E BGlossary vii

Introduction: owards an archaeoastronomy 2.0? 1 G A V1. Cosmic order at Chocol: implications of solar observations of the eastern horizon at Chocol,

Suchitepquez, Guatemala 17H H. G

2. eotihuacan architectural alignments in the central Maya lowlands? 41 I

3. Te astronomical architecture of Palenques emple of the Sun 57 A M, C K, E L. B C P

4. An oracular hypothesis: the Dresden Codex Venus able and the cultural translation of science 77 G A V

5. Centering the world: zenith and nadir passages at Palenque 97 A M C K

6. Te many faces of Venus in Mesoamerica 111 S M

7. Glyphs G and F: the cycle of nine, the lunar nodes, and the draconic month 135

M J. G

8. Epilogue: Mayan astronomers at work 157 G A V


5/177

CONRIBUORS

GERARDOALDANADepartments of Anthropology and Chicana/o Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara CA 93106

EDWINL. BARNHARTMaya Exploration Center, 3267 Bee Caves Road, Suite 107161, Austin, TX78746aya

HAROLDH.GREENIndependent Scholar, 17705 Westside Hwy SW, Vashon, WA 98070

MICHAELGROFEDepartment of Anthropology, American River College, Sacramento CA 95841

CAROLKARASIKMaya Exploration Center, San Cristbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mxico

ALONSOMENDEZIndependent Scholar, San Cristbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mxico

SUSANMILBRATHFlorida Museum of Natural History, 110 Dickinson Hall, Museum Road & Newell Drive, Gainesville, FL 32611

CHRISTOPHERPOWELLMaya Exploration Center, 3267 Bee Caves Road, Suite 107161, Austin, TX78746

IVANPRAJCScientific Research Center of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Novi trg 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia


6/177

FOREWORDThe long and winding road to publication

Edwin Barnhart

This volume was born out of a Maya Archaeo-astronomy Symposium at the 2007 Society ofAmerican Archaeologists (SAA) meetings inAustin, Texas. Though its publication is nowseven years later, Im pleased to see that thecontributions are still relevant and have stoodthe test of time as important studies (at least sofar). It was in the fall of 2006 that my friend andcolleague Hal Green called me and said, Ed,I think the SAAs are ready for another Maya

Archaeoastronomy symposium and I thinkyou should organize it. I had met Hal at theTexas Maya Meetings, where we had shared ourideas and became supporters of one anothersresearch. I had been making observations atPalenque along with my colleagues ChristopherPowell, Alonso Mendez, and Carol Karasikfor five years at that point and we were readyto share the results. Hal had been makingobservations of his own along the horizon atChocol and he too was keen to share. We hada core group together, but we would need morepresenters to make an entire symposium. Who

would we reach out to? Hal agreed to help mebrainstorm and get the invitations out.

I proposed that we make it a meeting ofnewly contributing scholars and seasonedveterans in the field of archaeoastronomy.My initial thoughts for upcoming scholarsfell to Michael Grofe and Ignacio Cases,both of whom were making some interestingbreakthroughs in our understanding of the

Maya Lunar Series. It was Hal who suggestedthe co-editor of this volume Gerardo Aldana.Hal had read Aldanas work on the originsof the Haab calendar in the inscriptions ofTakalik Abaj and was duly impressed. For themore established scholars of our group, wereached out to Susan Milbrath, author of StarGods of the Maya, linguistic and epigraphicexperts Martha Macri and John Justeson, Mayamathematics expert Stan Iwaniszewski, and

veteran archaeoastronomer and archaeologistIvan Sprajc. To our delight, each of themaccepted the invitation and submitted papers.Finally, like the icing on the cake, acknowledgedfather of Mesoamerican archaeoastronomyAnthony Aveni agreed to be the symposiumsdiscussant.

The day of the symposium was April 27,2007 and it was a well-received success. Thelecture hall was full (which rarely happensat archaeological conferences) and many ofour respected colleagues sat in. Avenis finalcomments were full of praise for how far the

field had advanced since the 1970s. In themonths before the meeting, we members ofthe symposium agreed that the SAAs 15 minuteper presenter time limit was insufficient andthat we should plan a follow up meeting thatevening. Maya Exploration Center sponsoredthat meeting in a conference room at thedowntown Austin Radisson. Each member inturn had a chance to elaborate on their research


7/177

vi

and receive helpful feedback. Ignacio Cases,who preferred to be called by his nicknameNacho, explained his hypothesis that ourtrouble in linking the Maya Lunar Series withactual moon cycles may lie in the fact that theMaya were not counting the days of the moonsdisappearance during new moon as part of

the cycle. Christopher Powell spoke aboutpossible building alignments towards lunarmaximums and minimums. Aveni objectedto Powells idea, but Powell countered with achallenge to Aveni to list the number of Venusalignments we can actually prove (Aveni hassupported the idea of Venus alignments inmultiple publications). As each of them couldonly come up with two examples, it was adraw. The last person to speak at the extendedsession was Michael Grofe, who explained hisnew ideas about evidence that the Maya weretracking sidereal periods of planets and howit could have led them to an ability to calculateprecession of the equinoxes. Grofes ideaswere offhandedly dismissed by Aveni andJusteson, but members like Carol Karasik andmyself were more convinced. That was 2007,and in 2012 Grofes ideas in this regard reachedsuch wide acceptance that even Aveni publiclyretracted his criticism (which he had voicedagain in his own 2012 book) and congratulatedGrofe on his groundbreaking discoveries.

Encouraged by Hal and Gerardo, I soughta contract to publish the symposiums papers

into a single edited volume. After about eightmonths, I had a contract in hand and brought

it to the other members. Most were happy tocontribute, though a few like Justeson andMacri had already found other publicationopportunities for their papers. The omissionof Casess paper is the one I personally regretthe most, but family illnesses followed by hisown protracted illness prevented him from

contributing. The few papers that dropped outtriggered a new round of contract revisions anda few more months. Then collecting the paperstook a few more months. Then life happenedand yet more months went by. Finally, aboutthree years after the symposiums conclusion,Gerardo contacted me and generously offeredto help me get the volume back on track. Soin 2010, he and I became co-editors and thingsgot rolling again.

Largely through the Gerardos efforts, thepapers were compiled into a coherent volumeand sent to the publisher for peer review.Perhaps due to the still relatively esotericnature of archaeoastronomy studies, qualifiedreviewers were difficult to find. Through avery long process of review and revision,though, the volume has found a happy homethrough the tireless efforts of Julie Gardinerand Julie Blackmore at Oxbow Books. Sonow, seven years later, our long road comes toan end and the volume is finally out. I hopeit serves a foundation stone on the path tobetter understanding ancient Maya astronomyand an inspiration to the next generation of

archaeoastronomers.

Foreword


8/177

GLOSSARY

260-Day Count: Calendric count unique toMesoamerica made up of 13 coefficients and20 Day Signs. Referred to by modern Kicheajqiij(daykeepers) as the chol qiijor the orderof days. In this book, the Yucatec names forthe Day Signs are used such that a sequence ofdates would be:1 Imix, 2 Ik, 3 Akbal, 4 Kan,5 Chikchan, 6 Kimi, 7 Manik, 8 Lamat, 9 Muluk,

10 Ok, 11 Chuwen, 12 Eb, 13 Ben, 1 Ix, 2 Men,3 Kib, 4 Kaban, 5 Etznab, 6 Kawak, 7 Ajaw, 8Imix, 9 Ik

365-Day Count: Calendric count approximatingthe tropical year. Each month was initiatedby its seating, followed by a count throughcoefficients of 1 through 19. This is oftenrendered 019 for the 20 days of each month:Pohp, Wo, Sip, Sotz, Tzek, Xul, Yaxkin, Mol, Chen,Yax, Sak, Keh, Mak, Kankin, Muwan, Pax, Kayab,Kumku. The final five days (seating through4) were contained in the period of Wayeb. The365 Day Count did not incorporate a leap day;it therefore slipped through the seasons duringthe Classic Maya period.

Ajkin:Yucatec Mayan phrase linguistically renderedas the agentive prefixed to time, and so oftentranslated as daykeeper. In Kiche Mayan, thecognate term is ajqiij.

Calendar Correlation: Because the Long Count isa strict count of days, it is mathematicallyequivalent to the Julian Day Number. Datescan therefore be converted between the twosystems by adding an integer constant. Themost commonly accepted Calendar CorrelationConstant is the GMT of 584,283 days suchthat a Long Count date can be converted to

a Gregorian date using: LC + 584,283 = JD.Recently, however, the GMT has come underconcerted critique, and so may not accuratelytranslate between the two calendars.

Celestial Equator: One tradition for mapping thecelestial realm is based on defining positionsrelative to the observed axis of rotation ofthe celestial sphere. The Earths equator isprojected onto the rotation such that theCelestial Equator has a declination of 0,

the North Celestial Pole is 90 and the SouthCelestial Pole is -90.

Declination: Relative to the celestial equator, definedas the angle along an hour circle either north(+) or south (-).

Draconic Month:The number of days it takes for theMoon to return to the same node in its orbit,

where a node is the point of intersection between

the Moons orbit and the Ecliptic. Eclipses willonly occur when the Moon is at a node.

E-Group complexes:Architectural groups first foundin the Middle Preclassic comprising a longplatform stretching north-south to the east ofa plaza. In the middle of the plaza, a viewingpyramid was situated so that the summer solsticesunrise could be viewed behind a structure atthe north extreme of the platform, the wintersolstice sunrise behind the southern structure,and the equinoxes behind the central structure.

The first of these identified archaeologicallywas at Uaxactun, the map designation of whichinspired the name E-Group.

Equinox:Observationally, the days on which the Sunrises due East, which correspond approximatelyto March 21 (as the Vernal Equinox) andSeptember 22 (the Autumnal Equinox).

Gregorian Calendar: Currently used system, resultingfrom the revision to the Julian Calendar usedby the Catholic Church until 1582. Where the

Julian Calendar only used 1 leap day everyfour years, thus setting a period of 365. 25days per year, the Gregorian year incorporatesaccommodations at the level of centuries tomore closely approximate the tropical year witha period of 365. 2425 days.

Initial Series: Often the lead hieroglyphs of a carvedinscription. The first element is a standardizedsymbol known as the Initial Series IntroductoryGlyph (ISIG) and includes a variable elementconnected to the current 365 Day Count month.

The Long Count, 260 Day Count, 365 DayCount and Supplementary Series make up therest of the Initial Series.

Julian Day Number:A linear count of days set to zeroon January 1, 4713 BC. Astronomers adopted


9/177

viii

the system in the late 19th century to avoidcumbersome calculations based on Gregorianyears with leap days. Julian Day Numbersrepresent pure intervals of time and shouldnot be confused with Julian Calendar dates.

Long Count : A modified vigesimal (base 20)system of numeration. A transcribed LongCount date might be bolon pih bolon winikhaabka haab kan winik waxak kin, which is thentranslated in the academic literature as 9 pih, 9

winikhaab, 2 haab, 4 winik, 8 kin, or 9 baktun,9 katun, 2 tun, 4 winal, 8 kin and rendered9.9.2.4.8. In decimal notation, 9.9.2.4.8 equals9144000+97200+2360+420+8 =1,361,608 and corresponds to the number ofdays elapsed from the Long Count zero date.

Kin: Base period of the Long Count, equivalentto 1 day. In hieroglyphic texts it can also referexplicitly to the Sun, or more abstractly to time.

Winal: Period of 20 kin. The glyphic referent isnow read as winik.

Tun: Period of 360 days. Intermediate period withinthe Long Count, incorporating the modificationfrom a strict vigesimal numeration. One tun iseighteen winal. The glyphic referent is nowread as haab.

Katun: Period of 7,200 days. Intermediate periodwithin the Long Count; one katun is 20 tun.The glyphic referent is now read as winikhaab.

Baktun: Period of 144,000 days. Most commonlythe largest period of the Long Count, equivalentto 20 katun. (Occasionally, larger periods wereused for numerological and/or mythologicalpurposes.) The glyphic referent is now readaspih.

Lunar Series:Subset of the Supplementary Series usedto place the Moon Age into a numerologicalcontext. Glyph A gives the period of thecurrent lunar synodic period, either 29 or 30days. Glyph X gives the hieroglyphic name ofthe current lunar synodic period. Glyph B is ahieroglyphic phrase reading: u chok kaaba orthe sprouting name of (referring to the nameof the Moon at its first visibility for that period).Glyph C contains the numerological construct,assigning any given synodic month to one of6 possible periods associated with 3 differentdeities. The overall construct places any givenlunar month within a cycle of 18 unique lunar

periods, but the hieroglyphic record makes clearthat the overall length was sometimes modifiedfrom 18. Glyph D is made up of a coefficientterm (between 1 and 20) and a hieroglyphicphrase reading: huliiyor since it arrived, so thattogether they give the Moon Age as the numberof days since the newly sprouted Moon arrived.Glyph E provides the glyph for 20 to be used

when the Moon Age is greater than 19.Moon Age: Number of days elapsed relative to the

defined start of a lunar synodic period. Fora tradition initiating months by conjunctionof the Moon with the Sun, the Moon Age isapproximately 7 days at first quarter (when it ishalf-moon waxing), 15 days at full moon, and22 days at third quarter (when it is half-moon

waning). The length of the current month isrecorded in the Supplementary Series as Glyph

A, alternating as 29 or 30 days in long-termapproximation to the Moons synodic periodof 29. 53 days.

Nadir: Defined as the opposite of zenith.Period Ending Dates: Completions of the tun period

within the Long Count all may be consideredperiod-ending dates, though the officiallycommemorated ones are those of baktuns,katuns, and 5-tun, 10-tun, 15-tun and 13-tundates, e.g. 9.0.0.0.0, 9.16.0.0.0.0, 9.16.15.0.0.

Solstice: Observationally, the days of the extremenortherly or southerly rises (and sets) of theSun, corresponding to approximately June 21

(Summer Solstice) and December 21 (WinterSolstice).Supplementary Series: Hieroglyphic text often included

with a Long Count date, frequently placedas a clause between the 260 Day Count andthe 365 Day Count dates. Because the latterportions of this text were the most frequentlyrepresented among the inscriptions consideredby Sylvanus Morley, he gave the glyphs withinthe Supplementary Series letter designations,starting from the end, so that a full date couldbe transcribed as: Coeff. Baktun, Coeff. Katun,Coeff. Tun, Coeff. Winal, Coeff. Kin. 260DCdate G F E D C B X A 365 DC date. Glyphs

A, X, B, C, D, and E have been determined torepresent a complete description of a MoonAge within the numerological context ofthe Lunar Series. Glyphs F and G have beenunderstood to represent parallels to the Aztec

Yohualteuctin (Lords of the Night) and sowere used for counting the hours of the nightand for generating astrological omens. Theirfurther investigation is the subject of Chapter7 of this volume.

Synodic Period: The number of days it takes for acelestial body to return to a defined positionrelative to the Sun. For the planets, the synodicperiod is an average from which any given

observable period may deviate by multiple days.Sidereal Period: The number of days it takes for a

celestial body to return to a defined positionrelative to another star (i.e. not our Sun).

Tropical Year:Actual number of days it takes for theEarth to orbit the Sun, or 365.2422.

Zenith: Defined relative to an observer as a distantpoint directly above her/him (i.e. along thenormal vector to the earths tangent plane atthe position of the observer).

Glossary


10/177

Te study of Mesoamerican astronomy throughthe archaeological record has a long history.Half a century before archaeoastronomywas officially conceptualized, an interest inastronomy shaped the earliest years of researchinto ancient Mayan civilization. Te trajectorytravelled by astronomy within Mayan studies

reaches back before scientific expeditions weremarshaled, and passes through unstable times,including close encounters with science fictionand popular culture. A brief review of thishistorical trajectory provides a useful context forits state today and, in turn, the contributionsmaking up the chapters of this book.

Spurred by the work of a German librarianpuzzling over a bark-paper manuscriptfilled with hieroglyphic words, numbers,and calendric records, an interpretation ofMayan culture based on impressive Mayanastronomical accomplishments began to take

shape by the end of the nineteenth century.raining his attention on the Dresden Codex,Ernst Frstemann first deciphered the base-twenty numerical system represented on nearlyevery page (1894; Coe 1999: 108). He thenused this to reveal provocative astronomicalpatterns. Making use of some of the basicglyphs interpreted (the decipherment was stillalmost a century away) by other Mayanists,

Frstemann contributed the first major insightinto ancient Mayan scientific activity. On 14 ofthe 78 pages of the manuscript, he found tablescapturing the cyclical visibilities of Venus andlunar cycles behind eclipses (1894; 1895). Atthe turn of the century within a small andrelatively new field, Frstemann had laid the

groundwork to establish the astronomy in theDresden Codex as an important anchor to theinterpretation of ancient Mayan cultures.

Frstemanns work didnt just impactthe field on interpretive levels. he earlytwentieth-century Mayanist (and U.S. spy inCentral America) Sylvanus Morley tailoredhis investigations to incorporate Frstemannsinsights (Coe 1999: 129). Morley eventuallybecame director of the Carnegie Institutesarchaeological operations, setting up a large-scale excavation at Chichen Itza, which inturn produced two of the best known Mayan

archaeologists of the twentieth century: atianaProskouriakoff and Eric hompson. ButMorley started his archaeological interventioninto the Maya area years before workingat Chichen Itza at the regions southernboundary. Beginning with sponsorship by theSchool of American Archaeology (Santa Fe),Morley traveled to Copan, Honduras in 1910.He returned six times over the next nine years

Introduction:owards an archaeoastronomy 2.0?

Gerardo Aldana y Villalobos


11/177

Gerardo Aldana y Villalobos2

(Fash 1991: 53), halfway through picking upthe backing of the Carnegie Institution ofWashington (Morley 1920: 27).

Troughout this early research, Morley wassteadfast in his motivation and objective:

limited to a consideration of the chronological datafound in the Copan inscriptions. In the present state

of knowledge it has appeared inadvisable to extendthe research beyond this point into the realm of theundeciphered glyphs, since too little is yet knownabout them even to approximate their meanings.(Morley 1920: 33)

At first blush, Morleys appears to be arational, if conservative, approach to work inthe field. Te basics of the calendar had beenworked out, so he focused on recovering morecalendric data. But there is more underlyinghis meaning of inadvisable, which we findin his further discussion of the content of theinscriptional material.

Unlike the inscriptions of every other people ofantiquity, the Maya records on stone do not appearto have been concerned at least primarily with theexploits of man, such as the achievements of rulers,priests, or warriors in short, with the purely personalphenomena of life; on the contrary, time in its manymanifestations was their chief content. (Morley 1920:33; emphasis added)

Frstemanns impressive astronomical recordshad been appropriated into a growing modelof Mayan civilization as being centered onastronomy.

Granted, Morley did find this anomalous,and he even provided contradictory materialfrom Aztec records, which did explicitlyrecord historical events. He thereforeconceded that it was reasonable to suspectthat some residuum of historical data mightbe found within Mayan inscriptions (Morley1920: 45). Nevertheless, he was confident inhis approach.

Te record of these three [calendric] counts, theInitial, Supplementary, and Secondary Series, thefirst and third solar, the second lunar, comprisesapproximately one-half of the Maya inscriptions,and enough has already been said concerning

them to show their intimate connection with, anddependence upon, the counting of time. o theultimate solution of these and other related problems,therefore, not only in this archaeological area, but alsoin the much broader field of contemporary ancient

America, an accurate knowledge of Maya chronologyis indispensable; and in the present volume thisparticular phase of the inscriptions at one of thelargest Maya cities has been exhaustively reviewed.(Morley 1920: 46)

Morleys approach, therefore, was not simplyintellectually conservative; it represented aclear conviction that the only material in theinscriptions worthy of scholarly attention wasthat related to chronology (cf.Fash 1991: 54;Coe 1999: 132).

In his history of the decipherment of Mayan

hieroglyphs, Breaking the Maya Code, MichaelCoe (1999) notes a specific impact of Morleysastronomical focus on his final reports on Copanand his subsequent forays into the Peten. Insome cases Morley photographed hieroglyphictexts (albeit with low quality); in other caseshe provided only sub-standard line drawings(Coe 1999: 129). Rather than include completerecords of the inscriptions he recovered, thatis in the style of Alfred Maudslay or eobertMaler Morley preserved only the portions ofthe inscriptions that contained dates (Coe 1999:129). Te point is that instead of providing arobust set of archaeological records, Morleyprioritized the recovery of just enough data tofurther the astronomical hypothesis.

During the first half of the twentieth century,astronomers, engineers, and enthusiasts joinedforces to comb through the dates that Morleyaccumulated along with the growing corpusof hieroglyphic inscriptions, finding withinthem what looked like even more celestialinformation. In the 1920s and 1930s Johneeple, a chemical engineer, tinkered with theinscriptions at Morleys urging (Coe 1999:

130). eeple was able to make a name forhimself as a Mayanist relatively quickly bydeciphering the Lunar Series (1925) withinwhat Morley had dubbed the SupplementarySeries (1916). For his magnum opusin 1931,eeple went so far as to find a solar purpose forthose dates that were not Period Ending dates.eeple proposed that these were attempts ataccurately measuring the length of the solar yearin what he called his Determinant Teory.

Te results of eeples Determinant Teorystill show up in modern discussions of Mayanastronomy (popular and some scholarly) as

a demonstration of their acumen. It is oftensuggested, for example, that the Mayan calendaris more accurate than the Julian or eventhe Gregorian year. Tis comes directly fromeeples 1931 monograph in which he includesthe following table (1931: 74):


12/177

3Introduction: Towards an archaeoastronomy 2.0?

Since his Copan Maya year differed fromhis present year by only 0.0002 days (or17 seconds), and the Gregorian by 0.0003days (or 26 seconds), eeple concluded thatancient Maya astronomers were more accuratein computing the length of the tropical year.

Te complication, of course, is that eeplederived this result following Morleys positionthat virtually all dates were astronomicallyinspired; eeple claimed accordingly thatdifferent cities emphasized certain dates tofacilitate solar computations. For Copan, anemphasized date during the Late Classic

was 9.16.12.5.17 6 Kaban 10 Mol. eeplesuggested that this 6 Kaban 10 Mol date servedas a shorthand for tropical year calculations:

Te priests selected a time 3876 years after 4 Ahau 8Cumhu to make the computation, this being exactly204 19 years, or 47940 moons. According to Copan47940 moons = 9.16.12-7-18. So 9.16.12-7-18,8 Eznab 11 Yax was the anniversary of 4 Ahau 8Cumhu and the year had traveled twice through thevague year plus the distance from 8 Cumhu to 11

Yax = 208 days. So in this thirteenth year of Katun17, 18 Cumhu, which was to end Katun 17, was theanniversary of a day 10 Mol in the calendar 3876 yearsbefore; 18 Cumhu 208 days = 10 Mol. Te vagueyear anniversary of this same date was 9.16.12-5-17,6 Caban 10 Mol. (eeple 1931: 72)

In other words, emphasized dates providedanchors in historical times for the discord thathad accumulated between the 365-Day Countand the tropical year. Priests could then usethese anchors to reconstruct the contemporaryposition of the tropical year events recorded inmythical times.

eeple, however, was unable to find thesame computation at other sites. He didfind what he considered to be a similar, lessaccurate, computation at Palenque, but was

forced to concede that there were so many datesavailable, it might not constitute confirmationfor his Determinant Teory (eeple 1931: 76).In fact, the Determinant Teory never did panout. Michael Coe said of it 60 years later: Alittle over thirty years were to elapse beforethe Determinant Teory went the way of theinter-galactic aether, and disappeared forever:eeple had wasted his time (Coe 1999: 135).

For some 3040 years, though, eeplehad provided a visual symbol to go alongwith his interpretation. He argued that itwould have taken considerable computationaleffort for Mayan astronomers to produce theDeterminant (or emphasized date) anundertaking that would have been required

every 5075 years (1931: 80). With so manyhands involved, he found both an accountingof the error creeping into the records that didntaccord very well with his theory and a causefor celebration (1931: 80).

Tat such a determination was not a one man jobis shown by the group photograph of the Copan

Academy of Sciences taken just after the sessions inwhich they decided that 6 Caban 10 Mol was thedeterminant for Katun 17. (1931: 80)

For eeple, the figures carved around theperimeter of Copan Altar Q were members

of an astronomical congress commemoratedin stone for their Determinant heoryaccomplishments.

Even though it did not pass the test oftime, the results of his Determinant Teoryand eeples reputation in the field pushedeven further Morleys contention that theinscriptions were predominantly concernedwith astronomy and calendrics. Not all suchinterpretations, however, fared so well.

In the early 1930s, for instance, the Germanastrophysicist, Hans Ludendorff, pooledtogether Long Count dates from several

sites in a now common approach to seekingastronomical patterns. He went on to findthat within fourteen dates at Copan, eightcorresponded to significant positions of Saturnand/or Jupiter in the night sky according tohis use of the Spinden correlation (Tompson1935: 84). Eric Tompson noted that thesefindings appear[ed] very convincing assupport for the Spinden correlation (1935:83). Tis represented something of a problem,however, since hompson was interestedin replacing that correlation with his owncorrelation between Christian and Mayancalendars what would become known asthe GM. So Tompson went back throughLudendorffs dates to find that several ofthe inscriptions in Ludendorffs study hadbeen misread. Tompsons reanalysis showedthat seven of Ludendorffs reconstructionswere in error, and that out of these seven,six corresponded to Ludendorffs planetaryevents. With the correct dates, the planetary

Present year length 365.2422 days

Length 600 AD 365.2423

Julian year 365.2500

Gregorian year 365.2425

Copan Maya year 365.2420


13/177


patterns went away, showing that the datesthat are wrong have a higher percentage of theastronomical phenomena than the dates thatare correctly read (Tompson 1935: 8385).

Tompson didnt stop there, though; healso issued a larger caveat to studies based solelyon numerical patterns.

It would seem, then, that Ludendorff has notestablished the correctness of the Spinden correlation,but, unwittingly, has shown that astronomicalphenomena are worthless as proofs of correlationsunless accompanied by glyphs indicating the natureof the phenomenon. Even with this last safeguard,the evidence is not certain, for, as has been pointedout on page 78, the Venus glyphs attached to datescan be used as supporting evidence for more thanone correlation. (Tompson 1975: 89)

While Ludendorffs and other interpretationswere thus discredited in the academic literature,by the latter half of the twentieth century the

overall impression on the field was one ofimpressive Mayan astronomical acumen. Atsome level, this was enabled by two factorsaside from pattern-seeking investigations in thefashion of eeple or Ludendorff. For one, theVenus able in the Dresden Codex remaineda solid interpretation, and further scholarshipon it only became more sophisticated as thecentury wore on (Tompson 1972; Lounsbury1983; 1992a; 1992b; cf. Bricker and Bricker2007). For the second, Morley and hisassociates working for the Carnegie Institutionof Washington augmented their inscriptional

studies with another form of data to strengthenthe case.

Alongside the compilation of hieroglyphicdates in his Inscriptions of Copan, Morleytook up a different kind of astronomicalinvestigation. wo of the inscriptions thathe recovered and mapped were carved intostelae that were raised on small cobblestoneplatforms in the foothills bordering the CopanValley (Morley 1920: 133, 143). Painted redand raised on hills of approximately the sameheight above the valley floor, Morley thoughtto explore the possibility that these suburbanstelae might have held some importantalignment relative to each other. Using thecoordinates he himself mapped, Morley turnedto his colleague of the Harvard AstronomicalDepartment, Robert Willson, who wrote:

[]he sun, as seen from Stela 12, would set behindStela 10, 20.3 days after the vernal equinox and 20.6days before the autumnal equinox (i.e., April 9 andSeptember 10 of the present year, 1916 (Gregorian

Calendar)). (Letter from Willson to Morley datedNovember 29, 1916, quoted in Morley 1920: 133)

While April 9 did not stand out immediatelyas an important date in the solar year, Morleydid find that local practice was to begin burningthe fields in early April. Tat is, in the swidden

agriculture Morley witnessed in the regionduring the early twentieth century, agriculturalfields were burned just prior to the rainy seasonto prepare them for planting. He suggestedthat the alignment might have been used as asignal for the beginning of the agricultural cycleduring Classic times (Aveni 1980: 240; Baudez1987: 65; Morley 1925).

Tere was, however, one key complicationto his hypothesis, as he quickly found outfirsthand. Te smoke from the burning of thefields (already begun before April 9) made itimpossible for him to visually verify the sunset

alignment.

[A]fter burning had once been started, no sunsetobservation on Stela 10 would have been possible fromStela 12. Such was the hazy smoke-laden condition ofthe atmosphere from April 9 to 14 of the present year atCopan, that even with a high-powered telescope it wasimpossible to see Stela 10 from Stela 12 at sunset.(Aveni 1980: 240241).

While the lack of observed veri ficationcomplicated his hypothesis, with this invest-igation, Morleys work on the Valley Stelae tookMayan astronomy out of pure science and/

or chronology; Morley was now contributinga mundane purpose for astronomy duringthe Classic period. Moreover, he was usingthe inscriptions to find astronomical patternsas we saw above, but he was also looking toarchaeological sites themselves to find evidenceof astronomical interest. Anachronistically,then given the scope of his work we mightbe inclined to consider Morley the father ofMesoamerican archaeoastronomy.

Perhaps as important, Morley impactedthe field via an extensive network of associatesfrom which he was able to recruit researchers

for Carnegie once he took on the directorship.Frans Blom, for example, had been workingfor an oil company in Chiapas and abasco(Mexico), where he found the opportunityto visit ruins (Byers 1966: 406). Accordingto Douglas Byers, Blom sent a drawing (withnotes) of El ortuguero Stela 1 to Morley, whowas so impressed, he brought him into the field(1966: 406). Oliver Ricketson who travelled


14/177


with Blom to Uaxactun under the direction ofHarvard University professor Alfred ozzer followed up on Bloms earlier work, in part topursue the growing hypothesis of astronomicalrepresentation. Blom and Ricketson noticedthat the equinoxes and solstices were capturedby a pair of architectural features.

o the east of the Group E plaza atUaxactun, Blom and Ricketson revealed along, low platform supporting three structures(Pyramids I, II, and III) equally spaced alongits length. Opposite this platform (to the west),a symmetrical pyramid (Pyramid VII) servedas a viewing station. In Bloms interpretation,an observer would sit on the steps of thesymmetrical structure and watch the sunriseover the course of the year.

Frans Blom, who visited Uaxactun for the CarnegieInstitution in 1924, noted that certain lines ofsight from Pyramid VII to Pyramids I, II andIII, respectively, corresponded very closely to theamplitudes of the sun at the solstices and theequinoxes. (Ricketson 1933: 77)

On the equinoxes, that is, the Sun wouldappear to rise out of the center of Pyramid II,whereas on the solstices, it would appear torise off the extreme edges of Pyramids I andIII. Ricketson called this the Group of theSolar Observatory, but the identification ofsimilar observatories at other sites resultedin them all being named after the Uaxactunprototype as E-Group complexes (Aveni

and Hartung 1989; Rice and Aimers 2006).With it , Ricketson, Blom, and Mor leybolstered interpretations of Mayan interestsin astronomy.

Ricketsons 1926 work at Uaxactun was nothis first in the field or his first investigationinto Mayan astronomy. Having been initiallydiscouraged by his travel across the YucatanPeninsula with Morley in 1921, Ricketsonfound new inspiration in 1924, going straightfrom Uaxactun with Blom to Baking Potin British Honduras (to conduct his ownexcavation), and then to work with Morley at

Chichen Itza (Lothrop 1953: 70). ogetherRicketson and Morley trained their attentionon the structure referred to as the Caracol orthe Observatory. Unfortunately for theirinterests, much of the upper levels of thestructure had already crumbled by the timethey began work there. Nevertheless, Ricketsontook compass data on the windows that werestill intact, complaining that his efforts to use

a theodolite were foiled by the cramped space(1928: 442). Noting that he was withouteven a rudimentary knowledge of astronomy,he sent his compass readings to Louis Bauer,director of the Carnegie Department oferrestrial Magnetism. Bauers computationsconfirmed Ricketsons 1924 direct observation

of the vernal equinox sunset sighted along theright innerjamb to left outerjamb of Window1 (1928: 442443). Likewise, the right innerjamb to left outerjamb of Window 3 pointeddue South (1928: 443). Bauer also informedRicketson that two sightlines from the windowsmarked the extreme declinations of the Moon,leaving him, Ricketson, to conclude that:

[t]hese two discoveries are of importance in that theyhave opened a new and more practical field for thestudy of Maya astronomy. It is sincerely to be hopedthat all investigators will take accurate andcopious bearings whenever the opportunity offersor the faintest suspicion arises that the arrangementof buildings or structural features may have beendesigned in accordance with astronomical directions.(Ricketson 1928: 444)

Between 1925 and 1931, then, eeple waspulling the Lunar Series from the Supple-mentary Series and pushing the comprehensionof the Dresden Codex Venus able. Meanwhile,from 1920 to 1933, Ricketson, Blom, andMorley were finding complements in thearchitecture. Te results presented a coherentimage of Classic Mayan urban planning and

intellectual culture as very concerned withastronomy. Te discrediting of Ludendorff,for example, or the questioning of otherspecific interpretations did not come togetherto form a fundamental challenge to thisstandard interpretation of Maya culture. Tecoherence of this representation along with itschampioning by Eric Tompson is what madeit possible to ward off attempts at decipheringthe hieroglyphic script well into the twentiethcentury (cf.Coe 1999: 143).

Given this backdrop, one might suspect thatthe overturning of Tompsons perspective and

the decipherment of the hieroglyphic script beginning concertedly in the 1970s mighthave derailed the importance of astronomywithin the basic interpretat ion of Mayancivilization. Indeed, atiana Proskouriakoff hadshown in 1960 that the very tools utilized topropose astronomical knowledge were muchmore convincing in demonstrating that thecontent of the inscriptions were historical, not


15/177


purely astronomical or calendrical. Tat is,Proskouriakoff started with a set of inscriptionssharing iconographic similarities at PiedrasNegras, and looked through the dates withinthem for patterns among the intervals (1960:455). She found that they easily fell into asequence of important events in the lives of

hypothetical historical rulers. She went on tofind that certain glyphs anchored the datescorresponding to birth and accession, andthat the accession events fit well with presumedlifespans for previous rulers (Proskouriakoff1960: 460). Proskouriakoffs hypothesiswas accepted universally even Tompsonconceded immediately after reading the paper(Coe 1999: 176). Te decipherment properblossomed through a combination of her workwith the linguistic hypotheses of Yuri Knorosovand Heinrich Berlin (Coe 1999: 176184).

Tis linguistic turn, however, did not provefatal to investigations of Mayan astronomy even though some work certainly did sufferdirectly. eeples interpretation of CopanAltar Q, for example, was questioned by JohnCarlson at the dawn of the decipherment(1977). Carlson showed that the source ofeeples astronomical congress could befound in Herbert Spindens efforts to establisha calendar correlation, which in turn was builton Morleys work. Tat the image on CopanAltar Q (as well as a similar one on the benchin Structure 10L-11) represented more or less

formalized pictures of an astronomical congressheld in 503 AD. (Spinden 1924: 140, quotedin Carlson 1977: 107) supported Spindenscorrelation, which relied principally on eeplesDeterminant Teory and a constellation ofastronomical evidence (Carlson 1977: 107).Carlson sided with the mounting supportfor Tompsons correlation against Spindensand so he challenged the evidence behind theastronomical interpretation of Copan AltarQ (1977: 107). His results were ambiguous.While he refused to deny the possibility ofastronomy somewhere on the monument,

Carlson also recorded David Kelleys rejectionof eeples Determinant Teory by the late1970s (1977: 107).

Regardless, over the next two decades, theastronomical interpretation of Altar Q fellcompletely to Joyce Marcus, Berthold Riese,and David Stuarts demonstration that thefigures around the perimeter of the monumentwere seated upon hieroglyphic representations

of their own names (Coe 1999: 253; Fash 1991:26). Te figures represented the 16 membersof the Copan dynasty, from the founder, YaxKuk Mo, to the sixteenth, Yax Pahsaj ChanYopat the patron of the inscription that eeplemisunderstood to have borne the Determinantdiscussed above.

So some astronomical interpretation didsuffer, but there would have been implicitbounds on the potential impact of thehieroglyphic decipherment; it would nothave been able to undo all astronomicalinterpretation. he Supplementary Series,for example, would still be understood ascentered on the Lunar Series, and the Eclipseand Venus ables in the Dresden Codex wouldnot be challenged. Yet astronomy remaineda prominent component of interpretation ofMaya culture through the 1970s, 80s, and90s (Aveni and Hotaling 1994; Dutting 1985;Closs 1994; Kelley 1980; Bricker et al. 2001;ate 1985; Sprajc 1996) even while the textswere deciphered as recording other mattersentirely. his preservation, it appears, wasmade possible by an independent intellectualdevelopment, transpiring across the Atlantic.

During the 1960s, the astrophysicist GeraldHawkins took an interest in the great monolithicruins of Stonehenge in England. Te idea ofexploring astronomical knowledge encodedwithin ancient architecture was not newwithin European scholarship; Stonehenge itself

had been considered astronomically relevantsince the Middle Ages, and was periodicallyre-assessed as such into the twentieth century(Fernie 1990: 103). When Hawkins took it up,proposals had already been debated concerningits use as a calendar and its alignment to solarphenomena (Fernie 1990: 104; Hawkins1964). What Hawkins introduced, though,through his training as an astrophysicistwas the exhaustive computational power ofan IBM computer. Hawkins employed thiscomputational power to check every possiblearchitectural alignment against as many rising

and setting positions of the Sun, Moon,planets, and bright stars as possible. Te resultwas a proposal that Stonehenge encoded morethan just solar alignments; it also encoded themotion of the Moon (Hawkins 1964; Aveni2003: 150151)

Hawkinss finds did not escape critique scholars challenged his statistical analysis aswell as his apparent disregard for archaeological


16/177


context (Fernie 1990: 104). But the workcame at an auspicious time, bringing togethertwo magically appealing subjects at least oneof which [the editors of Scientific American]invariably tried to include in every issue:archaeology and astronomy. Te romance ofspace and the mystery of the past! (Gingerich

1980: ix). Part of the appeal to Hawkinss work,then, may well have been its resonance withinEuro-American popular culture(s).

Te Space Age was launched with Sputnikon October 4, 1957. Te orbiting of the Earthby John Glenn in 1962, and the technologicalrace culminating in Neil Andersons steps onthe Moon on July 20, 1969 filled the mediain various forms. Very quickly, astronomy andouter space became ubiquitous in Americanpopular culture. In the thick of it, WalterWingo of the Science News-Letter referredto NASAs establishment of a public relationsprogram unrivaled in the history of the U.S.Government [intended] to sell the people onthe benefits of the space program (1963:341). Alton Frye of the Harvard UniversityCenter for International Affairs described theAmerican public as potentially saturatedinto apathy by news media seeking to keepup with the most visibly exciting area oftechnology (1966: 103).

Te public interest in space, of course,was not restricted to matters of internationalpolitics; by the 1970s, science fiction had

become an established part of popular culture(Consolmagno 1996: 129). Science fictiontitles, mixing fantasy and outer space, madeit onto national bestseller lists (ibid.). Tisintriguing interplay between astronomy, theSpace Race, science fiction, and ancient historywas in part captured by Michael Coes overviewof Native American Astronomyin 1977:

[t]he public on both sides of the Atlantic has beenled to believe in the existence of voyagers from outerspace, in sunken continents, in white culture gods,and in heaven knows what else, a state of affairsheavily exploited by book publishers and television

producers. (1977: ix)

And that the interest made it into academiccircles was anecdotally attested by John Eddyin his 1977 review for theJournal for the Historyof Astronomy:

Tis volume [Archaeoastronomy in Pre-ColumbianAmerica] compiles 18 of the 26papers presented ata joint Mexican-U.S. meeting on pre-Columbianarchaeoastronomy held in Mexico City in June 1973.

I am a little surprised at what a popular book it hasproven to be. Both of the copies in the University ofColorado libraries seem perennially checked out, I seea number of private copies around, and somebody isalways borrowing mine. (1977: 497)

It may well be that this public interest is whathelped archaeoastronomy survive the onslaught

of an advancing hieroglyphic decipherment.Years later, Anthony Aveni implied as much,referring to the publics role in the developmentof the field in the 1960s and 70s:

the flood of trade and popular works onarchaeoastronomy, though useful in bringing newideas to a wider audience, did little to contribute toits professional status. Although archaeoastronomyhas shed much of the burden of the sensationalistbaggage it once acquired in the aftermath of theStonehenge controversy, popular works that advocatean extraordinary and oft-difficult-to-document rolefor astronomy in shaping human culture still reachthe level of trade text publications (e.g., Bauval, 1995;

Sullivan, 1996; Ulansey, 1989). Many of these worksexhibit both millenarian and deterministic qualitiesin which seminal cosmic events drive the course ofcivilization. (Aveni 2003: 151)

Its popular aspect also may underlie HorstHartungs introductory remarks in 1975:

Contrary to the reluctance characteristic of theforties, fifties, and sixties, in the seventies scholarsof Mesoamerican cultures generally accept the ideathat there existed a consideration of astronomicalevents in pre-Columbian architecture and planning.(1975: 111)

Hartung, it turns out, was to play an important

role in the preservation of astronomicalinterpretation within Mesoamerican culturesinto the 1970s and beyond.

Hartung was born in Germany, immigratingto Mexico at the age of 32 to form part of thenew faculty of architecture at the University ofGuadalajara. Salvador Daz-Garca states thatwhile he did design some important buildingsin Jalisco, his greater contribution grewout of an interest in ancient Mesoamericanarchitecture (2006). Hartungs first publicationon the subject, Die Zeremonialzentren der Maya

(1971), took an architects consideration ofurban design back to Chichen Itza, addingto it investigations into the urban centers ofPiedras Negras, Yaxchilan and Uxmal. In hiswork, Hartung looked for celestial orientationsdefined by the alignment of architecturalfeatures to other monuments very much in thespirit of Ricketson and Bloms interpretation ofGroup E at Uaxactun, or Morleys Valley Stelaeat Copan.


17/177


Katherine Haramundanis, of the Smith-sonian Astrophysical Observatory and aspecialist in scientific measurement, however,responded to Hartungs book immediatelyand without much sympathy. She foundhis results unconvincing primarily becausehe worked from maps that Haramundanis

considered to be of insufficient accuracy fordrawing conclusions concerning astronomicalorientations (1973: 202). Tis concern was,in fact, the same one raised more generally byJonathan Reyman (1973), echoed in his reviewof the re-nascent field (1975: 210).

Haramundaniss critique would not besustainable for long. In 1969, Michael Coeconnected Hartung to a recently mintedPhD in Astronomy, Anthony Aveni (Aveni,personal communication, 2013). Avenis earlywork, in fact, had not escaped critique either.Anthropologist John Reyman wrote:

[t]he search for alignments, at times, seems toreflect a haphazard, almost random groping, andthe accompanying explanations have tended to beafter-the-fact (see Aveni and Linsley 1972). In short,archaeoastronomers have all too rarely used anythingapproaching the scientific method. (1975: 208)

Te new partnership turned out to be valuablein addressing both critiques.

Four years after they first met, Hartung andAveni collaborated on two fronts. For one,their task, sponsored by both the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science

and the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia yecnologia, consisted of the first organizedgathering of archaeoastronomers to considerWestern Hemisphere astronomies (Aveni1977: xii). Tey thus explicitly brought theproject inspired by Hawkins across the Atlanticfor the (re)new(ed) interest in Mesoamericanastronomy. Aveni makes this explicit, writingof his new NSF sponsored project that [i]n allcases the guidelines set up by Hawkins (1962)and Reyman (1973) have been followed (1975: 163). Aveni also found his

second calling here, editing the conferenceproceedings, and initiating a publishingtrajectory from the center of the field, whichcoalesced in the follow-up meeting, two yearslater at Colgate in 1975.

Te second collaboration spoke directly toHaramundis and Reymans concerns. In herreview of Hartungs work, Haramundanis hadthrown down a clear challenge:

It is unfortunate that to this date, although anenormous amount of work has been done and a vastliterature has grown up around the Maya, there existsno definitive work that can answer the question of

whether Maya buildings had astronomical orientationsor even if the Maya themselves made astronomicalobservations. (1973: 202)

During the winters of 1973 and 1974, Hartungand Aveni worked with Historian of ScienceSharon Gibbs a researcher at Colgatewhere Aveni was teaching to revisit themeasurements of the Caracol at Chichen Itza(1975: 977). Aveni seemed to be respondingdirectly to Haramundanis, describing hisresearch as an organized study of the possibleextent of astronomical orientations throughoutancient Mesoamerica, involving

direct measurement with a transit instrument ofparticular alignments at the archaeological sites andtheir subsequent matching with local astronomical

rise-set phenomena utilizing a set of computerizedtables (Aveni 1972) (Aveni 1975: 163).

Te challenge had been accepted.Trough their work at Chichen Itza, Aveni,

Gibbs and Hartung showed that the Caracolwas measurably skewed relative to otherbuildings at the site and it was this deviationthat pointed to the alignments with planetaryphenomena. Going beyond Ricketsons results,Aveni et al.also found a much more compellingcelestial referent in Venus, which seems to havebeen behind Haramundaniss closing remarks.

A recent analysis of the Dresden Codex (by J. EricTompson) suggests that it contains a Venus tablein addition to its astrological texts; and accurate sitesurveys which can determine if reasonable orientationsexist to astronomical objects are only now being made.(Haramundanis 1973: 202)

he results of Aveni et al.s accurate sitesurveys were that:

[t]he provisions for correction of the formal Venustables in the Dresden Codex suggest that observationsof Venus were indeed made. We may suppose that theCaracol windows were placed to aid such observationsand specifically to preserve the direction of the mostpredictable disappearances of Venus before heliacalrise. (1975: 983984)

Aveni, Hartung, and Gibbs had reached allthe way back to Frstemanns original insightsto combine them with the archaeologicalinvestigations of Morley and Ricketson, andre-vivify them with Hawkinss computationalmethods.

Hartung and Avenis efforts thus rescued


18/177


the study of astronomy from obsolescencebuilding on the foundation laid by Morley,Ricketson, eeple, Tompson, and others. AsCoe put it in his introduction to the collectionof essays produced for the Colgate sponsoredsymposium on Native American Astronomyin 1975:

[t]hey have revived a forgotten tradition of scholarship,for in the last century some outstanding Americanistslike Daniel G. Brinton and Zelia Nuttall wereinterested in like matters. (1977: ix)

Teir skills took them far and wide, withAveni carrying the torch when Hartungs agegot the better of him. With the close of thedecade, Aveni firmly established himself as theauthority in the field through a monographsynthesizing his own work with a review ofmuch of the material in his two edited volumes,combined with an extensive primer on naked-

eye astronomy. Te volume synthesizing itall: Skywatchers of Ancient Mexicoprovided alegitimacy to astronomical investigations (andacknowledged its popular appeal), comingfrom the pen of a trained astrophysicist, andstriving to:

introduce all readers to the basic components ofthe interdisciplinary field of archaeoastronomy. Itis offered as a bridge connecting the establisheddisciplines of astronomy, archaeology, culture history,and the history of astronomy and is intended toserve as a platform for the exchange of ideas amongstudents of these seemingly disparate fields. Sincethe synthesis is presented at an elementary level, the

text should benefit the interested lay person as wellas the informed visitor to the ruins. (Aveni 1980: 7)

But the movement did not go uncontested.In 1992, Keith Kintigh, an archaeologistdigging in the Southwestern U.S., pennedthe provocatively titled: I wasnt going tosay anything, but since you asked: Archaeo-astronomy and Archaeology for the QuarterlyBulletin of the Center for Archaeoastronomy.Kintigh shoots from the hip (1992: 1),provoking that by the early 1990s, mucharchaeoastronomy remains high-tech celestial

butterfly collecting (1992: 4). Acknowledgingthat there is a well-defined and rigorous methodbehind the pursuit, Kintigh suggests thatbutterfly collecting is an end in itself. He levelsprecisely this aspect of the metaphor againstarchaeoastronomy saying that in it and rockart, both research domains seem largely self-contained. Te practitioners propose and answertheir own questions and communicate largely

with one another (1992: 1). Kintigh extendsthis metaphor to argue that archaeoastronomersshould not imitate butterfly collectors. []hegeneration of facts, he writes

astronomical observation and identification ofalignments is easy (analogous to excavation,classification and dating). However, it is my suspicion

that it will be difficult to make rigorous and testablearguments linking archaeoastronomical observations

with serious anthropological questions. (1992: 4)

Kintigh suggests that archaeoastronomy woulddo better to see itself as a toolkit that shouldbe applied within anthropology. It should bebrought in to perform the task of generatingfacts, but the generation should be motivatedby archaeological investigation. o extendthe analogy, all of the tools of lepidopterycould be brought into ecological studies totake specimens, but their larger value wouldbe to include them in a census, which mightcontribute to a study of environmental changewithin a region.

Aveni wasted no time in responding.Kintighs comments came out in the AutumnalEquinox bulletin; Aveni responded in theWinter Solstice edition of the same year. Forthe most part, however, Aveni agreed with hisantagonist, writing that Kintigh is right, and

[a]rchaeologist Jim Judge once remarked that a lotof archaeoastronomy is concerned with the Anglopopulations rediscovery of how the sky works.Likewise, many amateur Mayanists are enthralledby their revelations about planetary conjunctionsacquired with their PCs. (1992: 4)

Aveni was careful, though, to point out thatKintigh may have been too influenced byarchaeoastronomy of the Southwest, and thata broader view of the Americas would turn upsome work in various areas that did engageresearch questions relevant to archaeology,anthropology, art history, ethnohistory, etc.(1992: 1). He therefore intends to distinguishquality archaeoastronomy from: the all tooproliferous reportage of what lines up withwhat or whether this or that standstill was being

observed (1992: 4).Avenis conclusion, however, appears in-

ternally conflicted. He writes that

Kintigh and his colleagues in all the disciplines thatborder on archaeoastronomy must, therefore, allowthe validity of contributions to archaeoastronomyto be decided by the quality of work that appears inrefereed publications, especially those in the standarddisciplines. (1992: 4)


19/177


his sentence begins by putting archaeo-astronomy at the center noting that theseother standard disciplines border it, andso seeming to give it a degree of intellectualautonomy. But then the sentence ends bydeferring the fields legitimacy to acceptance bystandard disciplines. So is archaeoastronomy

a specialized set of tools to be broughtinto established/standard fields and usedtherein as Kintigh would recommend?Or is it an interdiscipline requiring notjust data from different fields, but attendantepistemological accommodations, as Avenihints? Te latter would suggest that not onlydoes archaeoastronomy have to become moreanthropological, but also that anthropologymust make some space for science andespecially science in Other cultures (cf.Aldana 2007:197198).

wenty years later, archaeoas tronomystill cannot be said to have settled thesequestions. Te debacle of 2012 demonstratesat least a guilt by association that facilitatesthe marginalization of the field. But thesuccess of Skywatchers, and its revision in2002 speak to the endurance of the sub-discipline, encompassing a wide range of studyreaching back to Frstemann, passing througharchaeoastronomy proper, and includinggeographers and historians. Te chapters in thisbook speak to the consolidation and acceptancehard won by Aveni and the archaeoastronomers

of the late twentieth century. Appealing to thework of Aveni, Hartung, Floyd Lounsbury,Victoria and Harvey Bricker, and David Kelley,these chapters also reach out in new directions,seeking innovation that might lead to newcoherence and productivity.

In Chapter 1 Harold Green turns toGuatemalas southern coast to take up(Geographer) Vincent Malmstrms hypothesisconcerning the origin of the 260-Day Countat the Preclassic site of Izapa (Guatemala).During the 1980s, Malmstrm pursued thenotion, which was first proposed by Zelia

Nuttall in 1928, that the 260-Day Count hadbeen invented in order to capture a celestialphenomenon occurring only in a very specificregion of southern Mesoamerica (1997: 4).Along the latitude of 14.8 degrees north of theequator a geographic line that passes throughCopan, Honduras, and Izapa, Guatemala thezenith passage of the Sun calendrically dividesthe year into two parts. Zenith passage on

August 13 through winter solstice and back tozenith passage on April 29 at the site of Izapatakes a total of 260 days. Malmstrm suggestedthat the 260-Day Count was invented to capturethis observed interval at Izapa (1997). Sinceother cities throughout Preclassic and earlyClassic Mesoamerica also seemed to possess

architectural alignments to the 13 Augustsunrise, including eotihuacan, Malmstrmargued that they were all commemorating thebirth of the 260-Day Count (1997: 9).

In his study, Green considers Malmstrmshypothesis through Izapas neighbor andcontemporary, Chocol, located to theeast along the Pacific Coast piedmont. Inline with Aveni and Hartungs response toHaramundianss critique, Green goes beyondMalmstrms investigation; uncontent withmeasurements derived from maps of varioussites, Green observes and photographs thehorizon phenomena from Chocol itself. Inso doing, he finds that there is much to beinterpreted from these sunrise observations.For example, Green brings new data to bearon the question of the 360-day haab relativeto the 365-day solar year. He finds that at thesite of Chocol, there is a calendrical symmetrybetween zenith and nadir passages of the Sun.As at Izapa, the interval of time from zeniththrough winter solstice and back throughzenith produces an interval of 260 days; Greennotes further that nadir through summer

solstice, through nadir generates an intervalof 265 days. Except for five days, the celestialsymmetry between zenith and nadir would bevisible on the Chocol eastern horizon. Greensuggests that this observation was probablynot lost on observers at Chocol, and that itmay have provided the impetus for creating acalendric symmetry symbolized by the 360-dayhaab the 365-day tropical year minus theunsymmetrical five days Greens Chapter 1thus suggests a new hypothesis for the basis ofthe Long Count.

An observational device of the same family

is taken up by Ivan Sprajc in Chapter 2.Sprajcs work is made possible by a large-scale archaeological survey of southeasternCampeche. Trough an examination of 23structures at 11 sites, all with Preclassicoccupations, Sprajc comes across a patternwithin the layout of the largest structures. Hefinds, for example, that at Yaxnohcah (20 kmsoutheast of Calakmul) Structures C-1 and E-1


20/177


are aligned such that the Sun appears to riseout of Structure E-1 viewed from StructureC-1: on February 12 and October 30. Tesetwo dates, he notes, partition the year intointervals of 260 days (from 2/12 to 10/30) and105 days (from 10/31 to 2/11). Resonant withGreens work at Chocol, then, Sprajc reaches

back into the Preclassic to look for the originsof Mesoamerican calendrics and observablehorizon phenomena.

In his chapter, Sprajc identifies the samealignment at several sites in the region. In eachcase, it is built to inscribe sunrise phenomena,and in each case it involves two of the largeststructures at the site two structures that areintervisible above the floral canopy (cf. Aldana2005). Sprajc makes particular note of cross-site imitation in order to suggest that his resultscall into question contemporary consensusregarding the direction of the cultural influencethese alignments represent. Namely, thegenerally held opinion is that this family oforientations was developed in central Mexico,and introduced later in the Mayan region.Sprajc, however, shows that the constructs insoutheastern Campeche are earlier than thosein central Mexico, and may tie to even earlierversions at Kohunlich and El Mirador. WhileSprajcs methods are perfectly in line withAveni and Hartungs, his application of them toa concentrated region and time period providesnew interpretations.

In Chapter 3, Mendez, Barnhart, Powell,and Karasik, study an architectural instrumentthat is a distant descendent of the devicesinvestigated by Green and Sprajc. Mendez et al.explore the relationships between astronomicalevents and their observable effects in the CrossGroup at Palenque a set of three structurespatronized by the eleventh ruler of the dynasty,Kan Bahlam during the Late Classic some6700 years after the horizon calendars ofChocol and Yaxnohcah.

he astronomical device taken up byMendez et al. is generated by a complex

interaction of architectural walls, rays of thesun, and human observation. Tey reflect onthe symmetry, for one, within the floor planof the emple of the Sun, and its similarity indesign to the other two temples of the CrossGroup the emple of the Cross, and theemple of the Foliated Cross. But they go onto demonstrate that the walls of the empleof the Sun were intentionally modified to

break symmetry and that this violationof symmetry is precisely what creates theastronomical effect of interest. Namely, onthe summer solstice, a ray of light enters thebuilding at sunrise. With the movement of theSun over the course of the morning, this rayof light reaches toward the back of the temple,

shaped by the walls to form a thin dagger.1Mendez et al.interpret this as a hierophanyresonating with the recognized importance ofastronomy in the construction of the CrossGroup (Aldana 2007; Anderson et al. 1981;Carlson 1976).

While their work represents an importantrevision to earlier interpretations of astro-nomically oriented architecture at Palenque principally that of John Carlson and LindaSchele as well as an expansion of more recentinterpretations (Aldana 2007; Stuart 2005),this chapter goes further in reconstructing thePalenque astronomers work. Te authors gobeyond the argument for the recognition ofan astronomical instrument. Mendez et al.show that the construction of these templesrequires more than just the knowledge of howto physically assemble building materials in astructurally sound fashion. Tere is a geometryunderlying the wall positions that is critical tothe final structure as instrument. Tis geometrythey suggest, is not accidental, but can bederived from techniques available to the ancientarchitect. For this, Mendez et al. nucleate

their efforts with ethnographically describedmethods for constructing houses. Drawingcords and planting stakes provide the basemethod of design, and turn out to be sufficientto generate useful geometric configurations.Tey then fill out the construction methodswith as tronomical observations and sitelocations available to the elite. In the end,they provide a convincing argument for thework done by historical actors in the physicalconstruction of the emple of the Sun as anarchitectural instrument.

In a similar spirit of attempting to access

the astronomers daily work, Chapter 4 on theDresden Codex Venus able moves upstreamfrom the final product the table of datesitself to contextualize it within other knownMayan calendric practices. Tis chapter directlyaddresses one of Avenis principle caveats overthe years, which concerns the influence of howmodern scholars conceptualize science on theastronomy they recover from ancient cultures


21/177


(1980: 3). If we take for granted, for example,that they were most interested in the accuracyof their geometric predictions, then thatconditions the types of methods (mathematicaland observational) that we expect they wouldhave used, and the resulting picture begins tolook very much like a proto-Western science.

Chapter 4 starts by recognizing that whilethe Venus able has long been interpretedas an ephemeris for the planet (Aveni 1980;Bricker and Bricker 2007; Lounsbury 1983;1992a; 1992b; Tompson 1972), the rest ofthe document is predominantly concernedwith omens. Furthermore, these omens areintimately dependent on the functioning ofthe 260-Day Count and Mayan calendricsgenerally. Moreover, we have an extremelywell documented example of the use ofMayan calendrics for the generation of omensin Barbara edlocks ethnographic study ofKiche daykeepers. Chapter 4, therefore,finds a new coherence to the work of theancient astronomer/daykeeper by placing theoperation of the Venus able within a contextof the intellectual labor reflected in the restof the manuscript. In so doing, it turns tothe need to culturally translate intellectuallabor, and so constructs the conception ofan oracle within modern culture. Tis allowsus to reconsider the oracular context of theastronomers work, and so place it in dialoguewith the ontology of the indigenous Mayan

cosmos. By finally focusing on the linguisticanalysis of the titles taken by astronomers andrulers, an intellectual context is developed forthe arena in which omens, economics, andpolitics (for example) would be mediated bythe ruler of a given city. In other words, thisreconstruction of the astronomers labor makespossible a recognition of the interactionsastronomy may have had with other realmsof knowledge without implicitly invoking aromanticized image of Galileo confrontingthe Church (or some antithesis).

In Chapter 5, Mendez and Karasik follow

directly upon the investigation of Mendezetal. in Chapter 3 to suggest that various formsof astronomy have been woven togetherwithin the temples of the Cross Group atPalenque. As with the following two chapters,Mendez and Karasik follow a practice withinarchaeoastronomy initiated in the 1980swith the increased application of personalcomputers to academic work. All three

chapters take up the approach popularized byLinda Schele and David Freidel (1993), takingartistic images and hieroglyphic texts as maps ofcelestial events. Te upshot is that by invokinga calendar correlation, Mayan dates can beconverted into Julian dates, which can in turnbe looked up in planetarium software.2If the

correct calendar correlation is utilized and ifSchele and Freidels hypothesis3is invoked, thenthis type of investigation allows for the recoveryof a very rich astronomical dataset.4Not onlyare astronomical events recorded directly, butthe artistic context provides layers of furtherinformation on the nesting of astronomicalknowledge into other elite intellectual activities.Tis might provide one form of access intothe types of sociological, political, and/orreligious pressures impinging on astronomicalinvestigation and inscription.

Mendez and Karasik use this method toexplore zenith and nadir passages of the Sunwithin the artistic and architectural patronage ofKan Bahlam at Palenque. Tey begin with themythistory detailed in the emple of the Crossat Palenque, reading the events transpiring inthe narrative relative to events observable inthe night sky. As the Palenque patron deitydedicates a house in the North, Mendez andKarasik find that the event occurs on a nadirpassage of the Sun at Palenque. Trough ametaphoric link between the North and nadirpassage, they argue that the mythology becomes

a record of astronomical events.Te authors move on to the orientationsof the temples to argue that zenith and nadirpassages of the Sun are attested: zenith passage(May 7 and August 5 at Palenque) is marked bysunrise out of the center of the emple of theCross roof comb from the central doorway ofthe emple of the Sun, and by sunset behind theemple of Inscriptions from the emple of theCross. Nadir passage (January 29 and November9 at Palenque) is marked by sunset behind theemple of the Sun viewed from the emple ofthe Cross and sunrise behind the emple of the

Cross, viewed from the emple of Inscriptions.Mendez and Karasik turn to dynastic historyrecords along with the geometry of JanaabPakals sarcophagus lid to argue for a coherentmessage constructed out of mythology, history,geometry, artistic imagery, and astronomy adense astronomical inscription in the serviceof religion (King 1993).

In Chapter 6, Susan Milbrath takes a broad


22/177


look at the Venus Almanac in various formsof representation throughout Mesoamerica.Te key to Milbraths argument is the proposalthat the 584-day synodic period of Venus wasrecognized early in Mesoamerican history, andthen was iconologized via the Mexican yearsign, as well as the iconographic quincunx

pattern. he link between Venus and theYear Sign provocates a reconsideration of aspecific almanac within the Madrid Codex, onPages 12 through 18, which iconographicallyrepresents Chaak (the Rain God), rain,and serpents. Milbrath turns to the GM toprovide her with specific historical dates againstwhich she tests her hypothesis that the patternof 260-Day Count dates refer to an agriculturalapplication of Venus observations.

he recognition of a Venus inscriptionwithin the Madrid Codex inspires Milbrathto look for similar constructs in other Mayanas well as Central Mexican venues. Chapter6 goes on to unpack Venus applicationsin the almanacs of pages 4650 in theDresden Codex as well as Pages 2728 and2946 in the Codex Borgia. In turn, theseinspire the reconsideration of possible Venusrepresentations at Bilbao, Chichen Itza, andMayapan from the Classic well into the LatePostclassic.

Finally, in Chapter 7, Michael Grofereconsiders Glyphs F and G of the Supple-mentary Series. Not unlike the first two

chapters of this book, Grofe returns to aquestion of origins in order to investigatethe meaning of the introductory portion ofthe Supplementary Series. Glyphs G and F(constituting a hieroglyphic phrase) have longbeen understood in operation, though theirintent has eluded elaboration. Grofe followsup a lead provided by Martha Macri that theymay maintain a lunar function. Similar to ahypothesis proffered by David Kelley (1980)on the identities of the visible planets withinMayan calendrics, Grofe finds eclipse patternsin an originary sequence of G1 through G9.

Specifically, Grofe builds from eeplesrecognition that each subsequent repetitionof a 260-Day Count date corresponds to abackwards sequence through the Glyphs G1through G9. He suggests that a skywatcherkeeping track of this pattern would be able tocorrelate it with the fact that three draconicperiods are (very nearly) equivalent to two 260-Day rounds (3173.31 = 519.93 ~ 2260 =

520). Finding that any eclipse event will occurwithin four days of a Glyph G9, Grofe suggeststhat the reading of G9 asyih kin nal, which hetranslates as the place of the old sun, pointsto the origin of the cycle in eclipse tracking.Here again, we confront a sophisticatedapplication of computer software to verify the

association, but also an intriguing argumentfor an astronomical inscription (eclipse records)within a ubiquitous calendric device (the cycleof nine). In the end, Grofe is suggesting thatthe immediate hieroglyphic context of whathas been considered a rather opaque calendriccomponent may illuminate the astronomicalorigins buried within the utility of the nine-day cycle.

hese essays are not the final productestablishing a new field that is, they do notrepresent an Archaeoastronomy 2.0. Rather,they represent an array of the work currentlybeing conducted in the field. Any one ofthese chapters may establish the agenda forthe future, or it may be a combination ofthem drawn together, which establishes anew coherence. Te final chapter attemptsto provide one possibility one theoreticalparadigm for movement toward an establishedcoherence, but it is a first draft of one, andcertainly does not enjoy the complete supportof everyone contributing to this volume, letalone the field as a whole. Nonetheless, it isintended to spur the conversation and provide

further incentive for archaeoastronomers tofind allies in related fields in order to push thecollective work into a new space of relevance.Such alliances can only help to strengthen theresulting interpretations and value to MayaStudies more broadly.

Notes

1 Te resulting effect is strongly reminiscent of thesolar calendars found within rock formationsin Baja California, and the much later solarray effects within (currently United StatesSouthwest) Pueblo cultures. At some level, this

pattern begs for historical study to address therole that Mayan astronomy may have played inthe diffusion of culture throughout the WesternHemisphere.

2 wo notes of caution are worth mentioninghere. Te first is that we have to recall that anysuch reconstruction was only hypotheticallyvisible; even the most provocative celestialevents can be rendered inaccessible by cloudcover, or fog, or even smoke. Second, I note


23/177


the deep historical past since even the mostsophisticated planetary models contain someerror, which propagates the farther one departsfrom present observable data. Tese errors wereeven greater during the 1980s and 1990s whenless accurate algorithms were used to projectinto the past for the sake of computationalefficiency. Te increased speed of more recentmachines has allowed for the incorporation ofgreater accuracy even into free, open-sourceplanetaria software.

3 Schele and Freidel (1990: 87) in turn base theirinterpretations on assumptions similar to thosebehind Von Dechends Hamlets Mill.

4 wo notes are warranted regarding the accur-acy of the calendar correlation. he firstis simply that the GM family representsthree calendar correlation constants spanningthree days. While insignificant for manyastronomical events, a three-day tolerance canprove significant for certain cases. Second, new

evidence has arisen recently that challenges theaccuracy of the GM. If the GM is incorrectby more than a few days, then any workdependent on it will be called into question.

References

Aimers , James J. and Prudence M. Rice , 2006.Astronomy, Ritual, and the Interpretation of MayaE-Group Architectural Assemblages. Ancien t

Mesoamerica17, 7996.Aldana, Gerardo, 2007. Te Apotheosis of Janaab Pakal:

Science, History, and Religion at Classic Maya Palenque.University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Anderson, Neal, Alfonso Morales and Moises Morales,1981. A Solar Alignment of the Palace ower atPalenque.Archaeoastronomy: the Bulletin of the Center

for Archaeoastronomy, IV(3), 3436.Aveni, Anthony, 1975. Possible Astronomical Orientations

in Ancient Mesoamerica. Archaeoastronomy in Pre-Columbian America. University of exas Press, Austin,163190.

Aveni, Anthony, 1977. Concepts of positional astronomyemployed in ancient Mesoamerican architecture.Native American Astronomy.University of exas Press,

Austin, 319.Aveni, Anthony, 1980. Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico.

University of exas Press, Austin.Aveni, Anthony, 1992. Moon and the Venus table: an

example of commensuration in the Maya calendar.

Te Sky in Mayan Literature. Oxford University Press,New York, 87101.

Aveni, Anthony,1992. Nobody Asked, but I CouldntResist: a Response to Keith Kintigh on Archaeo-astronomy and Archaeology. Archaeoastronomy andEthnoastronomy News6, pp. 1, 4.

Aveni, Anthony, 2003. Archaeoastronomy in the AncientAmericas. Journal of Archaeological Research 11(2)June, 149191.

Aveni, Anthony, Anne S. Dowd and Benjamin Vining,2003. Maya Calendar Reform? Evidence from

Orientations of Specialized Architectural Assemblages.Latin American Antiquity 14(2) June, 159178

Aveni, Anthony and Horst Hartung, 1989. Uaxactun,Guatemala, Group E and similar assemblages: Anarchaeoastronomical reconsideration. In World

Archaeoastronomy, ed. A. Aveni. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge. 441460.

Aveni, Anthony and Lorren Hotaling 1994. Monumental

Inscriptions and the Observational Basis of MayaPlanetary Astronomy. Archaeoastronomy19/JHA25,S21S54.

Aveni, Anthony, Sharon Gibbs and Horst Hartung,1975. Te Caracol tower at Chichen Itza. an Ancient

Astronomical Observatory? Science188, 977985.Baudez, Claude, 1987. Archaeoastronomy at Copan: an

Appraisal. Indiana 11, 6371.Bricker, Harvey, Anthony Aveni and Victoria Bricker

2001. Ancient Maya Documents Concerning theMovements of Mars. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences98:4, 21072110.Bricker, Harvey and Victoria Bricker, 2007. When was

the Dresden Codex Efficaceous? In Skywatching in theAncient World: New Perspectives in Cultural AstronomyStudies in Honor of Anthony F. Aveni(C. Ruggles and G.Urton, eds). University of exas Press, Austin, 95120.

Byers, Douglas, 1966. Frans Blom, 18931963.AmericanAntiquity, 31.3(1) January, 406407.

Carlson, John, 1976. Astronomical Investigationsand Site Orientation Influences at Palenque. Art,Iconography and Dynastic History of Palenque Part 3.Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, Pebble Beach,CA, 107122.

Carlson, John B., 1977. Copan Altar Q: the MayaAstronomical Congress of A.D. 763? Native AmericanAstronomy.University of exas Press, Austin, 100109.

Closs, Michael, 1994. Glyph for Venus as Evening Star.Seventh Palenque Round able, 1989, edited by VirginiaM. Fields. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, SanFrancisco, 229236.

Closs, Michael, Anthony Aveni and Bruce Crowley, 1984.Te Planet Venus and emple 22 at Copn. Indiana9, 221247.

Coe, Michael D., 1975. Native astronomy in Meso-america.Archaeoastronomy in Pre-Columbian America.

A. F. Aveni, editor. Austin: University of exas Press,pp. 331.

Coe, Michael D. 1999. Foreward Native AmericanAstronomy. (A. Aveni ed.). University of exas Press,Austin, p. ix.

Coe, Michael, 1999. Breaking the Maya Code. Tames &Hudson, London.

Consolmagno, Guy J., 1966. Astronomy, Science Fictionand Popular Culture: 1277 to 2001 (and Beyond).Leonardo29(2), 127132.

Daz-Garca, Salvador, 2006. Monografas de ArquitectosSiglo XX, Horst G. Hartung Franz, Secretara de Culturadel Gobierno de Jalisco.

Dutting, Dieter, 1985. Lunar Periods and the Questfor Rebirth in the Mayan Hieroglyphic Inscriptions.Estudios de Cultura Maya16, 113147.

Eddy, John, 1977. Review of Archaeoastronomy in Pre-Columbian America. American Anthropologist 79,497498.

Fash, William L., 1991. Scribes, Warriors and Kings.Tames & Hudson, London.


24/177


Fernie, J. Donald, 1990. Marginalia: Stonehenge andthe Archaeoastronomers. American Scientist 78(2)MarchApril, 103105.

Freidel, David, Linda Schele and Joy Parker, 1993.MayaCosmos: Tree Tousand Years on the Shamans Path.

William Morrow and Co., New York.Frye, Alton, 1966. Politics Te First Dimension of

Space a review of Pride and Power: Te Rationale of

the Space Program by Vernon Van Dyke; Space andSociety by Howard J. aubenfeld; Te Moon-Doggle:Domestic and International Implications of the SpaceRace by Amitai Etzioni.Journal of Conflict Resolution10(1) March, 103112.

Frstemann, Ernst, 1894. Zur Entzifferiing derMayahandschriften, IV, Blatt 24 der DresdenerMayahandschrift. So, 17.Dresden. English translationin Bureau of Ethnology Bulletin 28, 1904, Washington,431443.

Frstemann, Ernst, 1895. Entzifferung der Mayahand-schriften, V, Zu Ilresd. 7173 und 5158. 8, 12,Dresden. English translation in Bureau of EthnologyBulletin 2Q, 1904,Washington,445453.

Gingerich, Owen, 1980. Forward. Skywatchers of AncientMexico. University of exas Press, Austin.

Hartung, Horst, 1971. Die Zeremonialzentren der Maya.Akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt, Graz.

Hartung, Horst, 1975. A Scheme of Probable Astronom-ical Projections in Mesoamerican Architecture. In

Archaeoastronomy in Pre-Columbian America. (A.Aveni ed.). University of exas Press, Austin, pp.191204.

Haramundanis, Katherine, 1973. Mayan Astro-archaeology: Review of Die Zeremonialzentren der

Maya.Journal for the History of Astronomy4, 201202Hawkins, Gerald S., 1965. Stonehenge Decoded.

Doubleday, Garden City, N.Y.Kelley, David H., 1980. Astronomical Identities of

Mesoamerican Gods. Journal for the History ofAstronomy 11 (Archaeoastronomy Supplement (2)),

S1S54.King, David A.,1993. Science in the Service of Religion:

Te Case of Islam. In Astronomy in the Service ofIslam (D.A. King ed.). Varorium Collected Studies,

Ashgate, Aldershot.Kintigh, Keith,1992. I Wasnt Going to Say Anything

but Since You Asked; Archaeoastronomy andArchaeology. Archaeoastronomy and EthnoastronomyNews5(1), pp. 1, 4.

Lothrop, S. K., 1953. Oliver Garrison Ricketson, Jr.18941952.American Antiquity19(1) July, 6972.

Lounsbury, Floyd, 1983. Te Base of the Venus ableof the Dresden Codex, and its Significance for theCalendarCorrelation Problem. In Calendars in

Mesoamerica and Peru: Native American Computations

of ime(A. F. Aveni and G. Brotherston eds). BARInternational Series 174, Archaeopress, Oxford, 126.

Lounsbury, Floyd, 1992a. Derivation of the Mayan-to-Julian Calendar Correlation from the Dresden CodexVenus Chronology. In Te Sky in Mayan Literature(A. Aveni ed.). Oxford University Press, New York,184206.

Lounsbury, Floyd, 1992b. A Solution for the Number1.5.5.0 of the Mayan Venus able. In Te Sky in MayanLiterature(A. F. Aveni ed.). Oxford University Press,New York, 207215.

Malmstrm, Vincent, 1997. Cycles of the Sun, Mysteries ofthe Moon: the Calendar in Mesoamerican Civilization.University of exas Press, Austin.

Morley, Sylvanus Griswold, 1916. Te Supplementary

Series in the Maya Inscriptions. Holmes AnniversaryVolume. Carnegie Institution of Washington, 366396.Morley, Sylvanus Griswold, 1920. Te Inscriptions at

Copan. Carnegie Institution of Washington.Morley, Sylvanus, 1925. Te Copan expedition. Carnegie

Institution of Washington Yearbook 25, 277286.Proskouriakoff, atiana, 1960. Historical Implications

of a Pattern of Dates at Piedras Negras, Guatemala.American AntiquityXXV,No. 4, pp. 454475.

Reyman, Jonathan, 1975. Te nature and nurture ofarchaeoastronomical studies. Archaeoastronomy inPre-Columbian America(A. Aveni ed.). University ofexas Press, Austin, 205215.

Ricketson, Oliver, 1928. Notes on wo Maya AstronomicObservatories. American Anthropologist New Series30(3) JulySeptember, 434444.

Ricketson, Oliver G., 1933. Excavations at Uaxactun.Scientific Monthly37(1) July, 7286.

Schele, Linda and David Freidel, 1990.A Forest of Kings:the Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. William andMorrow, New York.

Spinden, Herbert J., 1924. Te Reduction of Maya Dates.Pa