In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

 N o t e s o n M i d d l e A m e r i c a n A r c h a e o l o g y a n d E t h n o l o g y Carnegie Institution of Washington Division of Historical Research No. 6 October 1, 1941 the Prototype of the Mexican Codices telleriano-Remensis and Vaticanus a J. Eric S. Thompson the face and the rest of the body, where exposed, is covered with a kind of stippling which at first glance gives the appearance of a solid pinkish red. In the corresponding scene in Codex Vaticanus A face and body are very clearly striped, and portions of the anatomy, concealed in Codex Telleriano-Remensis, are here exposed, and also correctly striped. This is a very important detail for the identification of Tlauizcalpantecutli and the Mixcoatl group of gods. In Codex Telleriano-Remensis (17v) the unspun cotton appears detached from the spun cotton on the spindle at the back of Ixcuina’s headdress, and the band of unspun cotton around the head and the hank pendent from the earplug are not distinguishable . These details, of prime importance in recognizing Ixcuina, are clearly delineated is the corresponding page of Codex Vaticanus A. The figure of Xolotl in Codex Telleriano-Remensis (19v) is scarcely recognizable as that of a dog. The equivalent deity in Codex Vaticanus A is definitely canine. Other cases might be cited in which Codex Vaticanus A is more correct in presenting details than its supposed prototype, Codex Telleriano-Remensis. It is hardly credible that the very poor artist who painted the figures of the former codex, and who himself omitted important attributes (e.g. black marking around Ixcuina’s mouth, 29v), had the skill or the knowledge to correct in his version errors in the work he was copying. The conclusion is inescapable that Codex Vaticanus A was copied or recopied The identity of many of the illustrations and much of the text of Codex Telleriano-Remensis and Codex Vaticanus A (known also as Codex Rios or Codex Vaticanus 3738) has been explained by assuming that the latter was copied from the former. Dr. B. Reina (1925) has submitted cogent reasons for believing that Codex Vaticanus A was copied from an earlier , and now lost, codex with Italian text, which, he believed, in turn was a translation or amplification of Codex Telleriano-Remensis. There is, however, not inconsiderable evidence that Codex Vaticanus A is neither a direct nor an indirect reproduction of Codex Telleriano-Remensis, but that both derive independently from a prototype now missing. In four places the artist of Codex TellerianoRemensis only partially rounds or leaves pointed the ends of the fillets of the Quetzalcoatl headdress (pp. 8v, 10r, 13v, 15v), but the artist of Codex Vaticanus A correctly rounds these ends. Since this rounding was one of the chief sartorial attributes of Quetzalcoatl, Xolotl, and associated deities, one can be sure that the original manuscript clearly and correctly brought out this detail. The artist of Codex Telleriano-Remensis on page 13v depicts Nahui Eecatl with features more like those of Tlaloc than those of the required wind god. On the corresponding page of Codex Vaticanus A the figure, like all others in this codex, is crudely reproduced, but the face appears to carry the required snout of Eecatl. In Codex Telleriano-Renensis (14v) only one hand of Tlauizcalpantecutli is striped red and white; J. eric s. Thompson  from an original free of the errors found in Codex Telleriano-Remensis. Furthermore, small variations in position between the two codices are discernible. For example, in Codex Telleriano-Remensis (16r) the eagle-warrior carries his banner in one claw, and points it to the rear. The corresponding eagle-warrior of Codex Vaticanus A holds his banner pointing forward with both claws. The artist of Codex Vaticanus A clearly was not sufficiently master of his brush to be able to take liberties with his subject, and one cans accordingly , be sure that he was not copying from Codex Telleriano-Remensis. A comparative study of Codices TellerianoRemensis and Vaticanus A clearly reveals, as demonstrated above, that the latter is not a copy of the former; but, independent of such results, Codex Telleriano -Remensis bears internal evidence of being a copy. The patron of Week 9 was first labeled as Patecatl (patron of Week 11), but the correct title of Tlauizcalpantecutli was subsequently substituted for this. Week 11 was first...

Share