Editing Madrid Codex (Maya) (section)

==Origin==
According to the codex content it was created in the northwestern part of Yucatán since the document presents the same year-bearers of the Mayapán calendar (''K'an'', ''Muluk'', ''Ix'' and ''Kawak'') and the same symbology used in the region as well as the same New Year rituals and cemonies that were recorded and described by Bishop [[Diego de Landa]] in 1566 performed by the Maya of northwestern Yucatán.<ref name="SharerTraxler06p127"/>

Some scholars, such as [[Michael Coe]] and Justin Kerr,<ref>Miller 1999, p. 187.</ref> have suggested that the Madrid Codex dates to after the [[Spanish conquest of Yucatán|Spanish conquest]], but the evidence overwhelmingly favors a pre-conquest date for the document. The language used in the document is the hieroglyphic writing of [[Yucatec Maya language|Yucatec Maya]] which is part of the [[Yucatecan languages|Yucatecan]] group of [[Mayan languages]] that includes [[Yucatec Maya language|Yucatec]], [[Itzaʼ language|Itza]], [[Lacandon language|Lacandon]], and [[Mopan Maya language|Mopan]]; these languages are distributed across the [[Yucatán Peninsula]], including [[Chiapas]], [[Belize]], and the [[Guatemala]]n department of [[Petén Department|Petén]].<ref name="Noguez&c09p20" /> [[J. Eric S. Thompson|J.&nbsp;Eric Thompson]] was of the opinion that the Madrid Codex came from western Yucatán and dated to between 1250 and 1450 AD. Scholars also suggest that the codex may have originated from the [[Petén Department|Petén]] region of Guatemala as a colonial writing.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Vail |first1=Gabrielle |last2=Bricker |first2=Victoria R. |last3=Aveni |first3=Anthony F. |last4=Bricker |first4=Harvey M. |last5=Chuchiack |first5=John F. |last6=Hernandez |first6=Christine L. |last7=Just |first7=Bryan R. |last8=Macri |first8=Martha J. |last9=Paxton |first9=Merideth |date=2003 |title=New Perspectives on the Madrid Codex |url= |journal=Current Anthropology |volume=44 |issue=S5 |pages=S105–S112 |doi=10.1086/379270 |s2cid=160017024 |via=University of Chicago Press Journals}}</ref> Other scholars have expressed a differing opinion, noting that the codex is similar in style to murals found at [[Chichen Itza]], [[Mayapan]], and sites on the east coast such as Santa Rita, [[Tankah]], and [[Tulum]].<ref name="SharerTraxler06p129" /> Two paper fragments incorporated into the front and last pages of the codex contain Spanish writing, which led Thompson to early suggest that a Spanish priest acquired the document at [[Nojpetén|Tayasal]] in Petén meaning that the codex was not Pre-Columbian but instead it was a colonial writing,<ref>Coe 1999, p. 200. Ciudad et al. 1999, p. 880.</ref> this theory has been debunked and discarded due to the fact that the pages were pasted years later after the creation of the codex and they don't have any actual proof or context related to the site but it led to other hypothesis since the content of the text could have been a [[Crusade bull|Crusade Bull]], this would indicate that the codex was most likely acquired by Spanish priests as part of the Maya codices confiscated in 1607 by the commissioner of the Holy Crusade in Yucatan, Pedro Sánchez de Aguilar, in Chancenote, eastern Yucatan, where in addition to clay figures, he also recorded that two codices were confiscated.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Presencia y distribución de la lengua maya yucateca en la península de Yucatán del clásico al posclásico tardío |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323519704_Presencia_y_distribucion_de_la_lengua_maya_yucateka_en_la_peninsula_de_Yucatan_del_clasico_al_posclasico_tardio}}</ref>