Talk:Maya codices

message: Maya codices is not the correct way of calling this in spanish. It should be Códices Mayas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.151.34.131 (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2007 
:This is the English wikipedia.·Maunus· tlahtōlli 18:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanish title

message: I Changed the Aztec word for paper Amatl, for the Mayan huun, and put the scietyfic name of the Wild Fig Tree.
Also added description of the burning of codex in Guatemala and mention other non legible codex and its source.
mayasautenticos 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Amatl

message: What the hell does that mean? 5th century? If so, say 5th century.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.106.28 (talk) 02:52, August 29, 2007 (UTC) 
:Portions of the article were written by someone whose first language is Spanish, where it's usual to write centuries in Roman numerals. It's changed now.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: V century AD

message: I removed the Coe quotation since it contained no relevant information which had not already been given in the article.77.162.130.139 14:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coe quotation 

message: There is much in this article that I think is unsourced or at least very suspect. Despite the reference to Burns, I don't think there is any evidence that the Maya developed paper in the 5th century. I don't think we know what the Maya called their paper in classic times.
Where is the evidence that Dresden was written just before the Spanish Conquest? The content is relating events from 8th through the 13th centuries. The dates in the Serpent Pages go from 779 CE to 1052 CE, and the Venus pages relate events from 934 CE to 1324 CE. It is possible that the Dresden copy was made late, but the content is from much before the Spanish Conquest.
What does it mean by the "The only exact replica, including the huun, made by a German artist is displayed at the Museo Nacional de Arqueología in Guatemala City, since October, 2007"? The best copy of Dresden is the Forstemann reproduction from the 1890s.
Who gives the provenance of the Madrid Codex to Tayasal? This is, at best, speculation. There is no tracking where it came to Europe from.
I think the number of people who think the Grolier is not authentic is very small at this point. The controversy belongs back here, not in the article. There is no doubt in my mind at all that the Grolier is authentically pre-Columbian Maya, although if we had 200 codices instead of four, it would be just a footnote as it is terribly badly rendered. The fact that John Carlson found that it relates information that matches the Venus pages in Dresden is particularly damning to anyone doubting its authenticity.
*Why should that be so, dear friend?77.162.130.139 (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that part definitely needs to be rewritten. First of all, parchment was invented in Pergamon in the 3rd or 2nd century BC and the codex format was already in use by the 1st century AD (mentioned by the Roman poet Martial). The page Codex furthermore mentions that parity between the scroll and the codex was achieved in the Roman Empire by AD 300. As for the 5th century AD and onwards in the Western Roman Empire, the codex was increasingly used with parchment (vellum to be precise), which is vastly superior to any other pre-modern non-synthetic writing material - including this Mayan paper made from the bark of trees.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abvgd (talk • contribs) 23:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced/Incorrect information 

message: In the intro, is "Mesoamerican bark cloth" the  same as "paper"/amati? -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical medium 

message: As the titles of books wouldn't the titles of the codices be italicized? Hyacinth (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Italics?

message: Does anybody know to which specific script this "(Zorita 1963, 271-2)" refers to? If you google the whole quote used in the article or parts of it most websites contain exactly the same passage as it is here on Wikipedia. I would like to read the whole text of Zorita and the context in which this sentence was used. When I was searching for books of Zorita I found the titles "Historia de la Nueva España" and "Brevíssima Relación" but I could not find them to read. What sense does it make to have a quotation like that in the text without giving the name of the used book? Bloche (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alonso de Zorita 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Maya codices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.globalgreyebooks.com/books/yucatan-before-and-after-the-conquest.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613162647/http://www.authenticmaya.com/maya_writing.htm to http://www.authenticmaya.com/maya_writing.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110914100729/http://www.asociaciontikal.com/pdf/67.98%20-%20Andres%20y%20Alfonso.pdf to http://www.asociaciontikal.com/pdf/67.98%20-%20Andres%20y%20Alfonso.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613162647/http://www.authenticmaya.com/maya_writing.htm to http://www.authenticmaya.com/maya_writing.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070606210812/http://www.authenticmaya.com/maya_astronomy.htm to http://www.authenticmaya.com/maya_astronomy.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified