¹ The subtitle for this tutorial (“Tomorrow, the Day After Tomorrow”)is a translation of the sixteenth-century Nahuatl metaphor in moztla in huiptla meaning “the time to come” (Montes de Oca Vega 2004, 194).

² Villela and Miller 2010; Umberger 1988.

³ Sieck Flandes 1942; Solís Olguín 2000.

⁴ For more information on the Mesoamerican calendar, see Lipp 1991, 61-69; Tedlock 1992; Boone 2007, 14-18; as well as the “Keeping Time” Ñudzavui tutorial.

⁵ The 260-day tonalpohualli cycles did not receive their own name, and the days of the xiuhpohualli cycle were named according to the tonalpohualli count.

⁶ Umberger 1988, 348.

⁷ Vila Llonch 2009.

⁸ Molina 1555, 123r.

⁹ For more on Central Mexican markets, see Smith 2003, 106-112.

¹⁰ On the calendrical structure of Aztec tribute demands, see Gutiérrez et al. 2009, 61-62. Betty Brown, in a 1977 dissertation, argues that the system of “months“ was a colonial creation. Elizabeth Hill Boone, citing Brown, is also wary (2007, 254-255). Part of the evidence Brown uses for her colonial invention theory, apart from conflicting colonial accounts, is that “there is no known evidence for the use of the Mexica monthly calendar before European Contact” (Brown 1977: vi). However, if the Matrí­cula de Tributos is a prehispanic document, then it does provide prehispanic evidence for this system of months (and for the symbols associated with each). Conflicting colonial accounts of the system of months may also be due to the existence of different, local calendar systems. Brown does provide a useful overview of sixteenth-century sources on the “months“of the xiuhpohualli (Brown 1977, 99-164).

¹¹ The date correlations are those provided by Durán 1971, 467-68.

¹² Chavero 1892, 37.

¹³ Klein 2001, 219-228.

¹⁴ Umberger 1988, 352-354.

¹⁵ Elson and Smith 2001; Hamann 2008.

¹⁶ Technically, the new 52-year cycle began in the Year 1 Rabbit; the Year 2 Reed was the second date in the cycle. However, the Mexica seem to have regarded both dates as years of ‘“beginning,“ even showing a preference for holding the New Fire Ceremony on the Year 2 Reed; Umberger 1987, 442-444.

¹⁷ Vila Llonch 2009.

¹⁸ Taube 2000, 319-322.

¹⁹ Carrasco 1987, 143-147; Tedlock 1996, 32, 43-45; Hamann 2002. See also the “Sacred Time,“ “The Fifth Age,“ and “Creating the Sun,“ sections of Davíd Carrasco’s Lecture.

²⁰ Michel Graulich (1997) argues that earlier Mesoamerican models of four cosmic ages were expanded by the Aztecs of Tenochtitlan to include five cosmic ages.

²¹ Garibay 1965, 29-31.

²² Smith 2003, 216-217.

²³ Gibson 1952, 158-162.

²⁴ Umberger 1987, 424-427; Christenson 2007: 228.

²⁵ Furst 1995, 76-81; Monaghan 1998.

²⁶ Furst 1995, 81.

²⁷ Umberger 1988, 350-352.

²⁸ Umberger 1988, 356-358.

²⁹ Berdan and Anawalt 1992, 233, 235.

³⁰ Chavero 1892, 30.

³¹ Chavero 1892, 41.

³² Smith 2003, 187.

³³ This reading is based on suggestions made by Alfredo Chavero in 1892 (Chavero 1892, 30). He, following Aubin, assumed these signs were based on a use of rebus principles. Recent work by Alonso Lacadena, however, has shown that all of these signs were part of a standardized syllabic system (Lacadena 2008). Significantly, the syllabic value of the lobed ‘“lump of clay“ sign as tzo is not included in Lacadena’s 2008 syllabary chart. This value was suggested by Chavero in 1892, and is confirmed by the use of the clay sign as tzo in the place sign for Tzoquitzinco in the Matrícula (f. 7r) and Codex Mendoza (f. 33r). See Berdan and Anawalt 1992, 186.

³⁴ Berdan 1992, 95.

³⁵ Berdan 1992, 102.