Note 55 — Chapter III

The literature dealing with the Mexican calendar is voluminous. Summary treatments of the subject, based on recent studies, are to be found in Beuchat, II. i. 5; Joyce [b], iii.; Preuss, art. "Calendar (Mexican and Mayan)," in ERE. The primary sources for knowledge of the calendar are three: (1) writings of the early chroniclers, among whom the most noteworthy are Sahagun, books ii, iv, vii, and León y Gama, who derives in part from Cristobal del Castillo; (2) calendric codices, the more important being Codex Borgia, studied by Fábrega, in AnMM v, and by Seler [a], i, and [e]; Codex Borbonicus, studied by Hamy [a], and de Jonghe; Codex Vaticanus B (3773), studied by Seler [d]; Codex Ferjérváry-Mayer, studied by Seler [c]; Codex Bologna (or Cospianus), studied by Seler [a], i; Codex Nuttall, studied by Nuttall; and the Tonalamatl of the Aubin Collection, studied by Seler [b]; (3) monuments, especially calendar stones: León y Gama, Dos Piedras; Chavero [a]; MacCurdy [a]; and Róbelo [b] are studies of such monuments. Recent investigations of importance, in addition to papers by Seler ([a] and elsewhere), are Z. Nuttall, "The Periodical Adjustments of the Ancient Mexican Calendar," in AA, new series, vi (1904), and Preuss, "Kosmische Hieroglyphen der Mexikaner," in ZE xxxiii (1901). Studies of the Maya calendar (especially the important contributions of Förstemann, in 28 BBE) and of that of the Zapotec (Seler, "The Mexican Chronology, with Special Reference to the Zapotec Calendar," ib.) are, of course, intimately related to the Aztec system. For statement of current problems, see Lehmann [a], pp. 164-66.