Venus and the Dresden Codex Eclipse Table

U.S. Naval Observatory, ‘Phenomena, planetary configurations’, The American ephemeris and nautical almanac (Washington, D.C., 1900–92); The astronomical almanac (Washington, D.C., 1981–92).

For details, see Martin F. L. , ‘A Dresden Codex eclipse sequence: Projections for the years 1970–1992’, Latin American antiquity, iv (1993), 74–93.

For details, see Aveni A. F. , ‘Possible astronomical orientations in ancient Mesoamerica’, in Archaeoastronomy in Pre-Columbian America, ed. by Aveni A. F. (Austin, 1975), 163–90; idem, ‘The real Venus-Kulkulkan in the Maya inscriptions and alignments’, in Sixth Palenque Round Table, 1986, ed. by Robertson M. G. (Norman, 1991), 309–21.

Aveni A. F. , ‘The Moon and the Venus Table in the Dresden Codex: An example of commensuration in the Maya calendar’, in The sky in Mayan literature, ed. by Aveni A. F. (Oxford, 1992), 87–101, p. 90.

Aveni , op. cit. (ref. 3, 1991), 320.

For a detailed discussion of the calendar see Thompson J. E. S. , Maya hieroglyphic writing (Norman, 1960), 66–128.

Martin , op. cit. (ref. 2), 87, 93.

Using the Maya system between 1970 and 1992, 89 of 102 lunar and solar eclipses are counted precisely on the day-names the Maya wrote in the Dresden Eclipse Table. Preliminary examination of the CR sequence extended back in time to 1900 maintains this same ratio of efficacy through two complete turns of the 11,960-day Eclipse Table. Prior base-days are 11 Manik 5 Zec on 27 Nov 1909 and 11 Manik 0 Pop on 26 Aug 1942. Eclipses which do not occur on days recorded in the table (13 out of 102 from 1970 to 1992) usually, but not always, occur on the same calendrical day-name in each subsequent use of the table.

Aveni , op. cit. (ref. 3, 1991), 320.

The specifics of this eclipse are significant from a theoretical standpoint since Venus was 56° north of the Moon and in conjunction with it less than one hour after the eclipse (new moon at 8 hours 52.6 minutes UT; conjunction at 9 hours 44 minutes UT). Hence, Venus became visible 10 hours after its superior conjunction with the Sun during the period of the Sun's total eclipse. The fact that an event of this kind is marked by the first day of the Maya CR and by a formal position in the Dresden Codex Eclipse Table at least implies that Maya astronomers, at some point during the Classic Period, became aware of Venus's relationship to the Sun during its periods of invisibility. This same circumstance occurs periodically at other Eclipse Table positions.

Clifford J. , The predicament of culture (Cambridge, 1988), 51.

Aveni , op. cit. (ref. 3, 1991), 321.

Kelley D. H. , ‘Maya astronomical tables and inscriptions’, in Native American astronomy, ed. by Aveni A. F. (Austin, 1977), 57–74, pp. 60–61.

Ibid., Table 5.1, p. 62.

This event actually occurs on 18 Jun 1976 but, due to its early hour of occurrence, it shifts forward one day when UT is converted to Central Standard Time.

Martin , op. cit. (ref. 2), 88.

Ibid..

Newton R. R. , Ancient planetary observations and the validity of ephemeris time (Baltimore, 1976), Table III.6, p. 80. Newton suggests an interval of 21.9 days for this period of invisibility in Venus's synodic motion. For reasons of calendrical symmetry (26 is a multiple of 13 in the almanac), I have increased the interval to allow for regional difficulties of observation in the Maya rain forest without, I hope, seriously compromising any scientific validity.

Since picture 10 can be said to precede position 2 in the text of the Eclipse Table, if one simply recognizes the continuation of the sequence as a circle moving through time without any interruption, the Venus glyphs in the text connected to the picture foreshadow the Venus positions at the second eclipse. I have argued previously [op. cit. (ref. 2), 88, 89] that the base-day position is at 69 (p. 58b, col. B) in the text.

Martin , op. cit. (ref. 2), 87.

Spinden H. J. , Maya dates and what they reveal (New York, 1930), 48.

Aveni , op. cit. (ref. 4).

Thompson J. E. S. , A catalog of Maya hieroglyphs (Norman, 1962), 174–81.

There is a series of Mercury synodic positions in 1915–16 that place inferior and superior conjunctions of that planet on, or near, positions 53–58 of the Eclipse Table's solar eclipse sequence. The Mercury events are not repetitious the way Venus positions are, so they are probably not reflected in the use of the ‘sky’ glyph at position 54. It is difficult, however, to rule out any possibility categorically.

Closs M. P. , ‘Cognitive aspects of ancient Maya eclipse theory’, in World archaeoastronomy, ed. by Aveni A. F. (Cambridge, 1989), 389–415, p. 398.

Ibid. 409.

Counting back in time from positions reported here (1975 and 1923), which show a relationship between the Dresden Eclipse Table and the first day of the Maya CR, suggests a connection between them also occurred in a.d. 1039/1091 and a.d. 416/468. A differential of 260 days exists between matching positions in both backward extensions, which may reflect the way the second 1 Imix 9 Pop differs from the first in the 260-day differential to the eclipse occurrence at position 2 in the Eclipse Table in 1975. Work in progress may eventually turn up a more precise correlation to pre-Columbian eclipse sequences. Clearly, a.d. 416 is too early for 9.16.4.10.8, but it may still reflect a prior Eclipse Table/Venus connection. The Maya would have had to see it at least once before they inscribed it into the structure of the Dresden Codex.