http://www.famsi.org/spanish/mayawriting/codices/paris.html

ESCRITURA DE JEROGLÍFICOS MAYAS

Los Códices Antiguos Mayas

EL CÓDICE DE PARÍS

El Códice París fue adquirido por la Bibliothèque Impériale

(más tarde Bibliothèque Nationale) de París en 1832. Su

primera réplica fue como un dibujo Aglio hecho por Lord

Kingsborough en 1835. Éste ahora está perdido, pero una

copia, con algunas páginas coloridas, está preservados en las

hojas a prueba del Volumen X de "Antiquities of México"

de Kingsborough nunca publicado, ahora alojado en la

Biblioteca Newberry de Chicago. Aunque el Códice París

fue mencionado ocasionalmente durante los 24 años

siguientes, realmente no hizo su "debut" hasta 1859 cuando

Léon de Rosny dijo que lo había descubierto en la esquina

de una chiminea polvorienta de la Biblioteca Nacional de

París. Aunque algunas veces se ha referido al códice como

el "Códice Pérez" y el "Códice Maya-Tzental" los nombres

preferidos son "Códice Paris" y "Códice Peresianus":

1. En 1864, S. E. M. Duruy, Ministro de la Enseñanza Pública y Presidente de la Comisión

Científica de México, tenía las fotos en blanco y negro del Códice de París (en ese tiempo

descrito como un Manuscrit dit Mexicain No. 2 de la Bibliothèque Impériale) impreso (en

París). Se imprimieron pocas copias de esta edición (probablemente entre 10 a 50) ahora

son bastante raras realmente. Sin embargo, copias de estas fotos aparecen con la versión de

Gates 1909, y con la copia de Graz 1968 del París. Esto recopila los records de fotografías

más antiguos que tenemos del París.

2. Léon de Rosny, imprimió una versión cromolitográfica (de 45 o 85 copias) del Códice

París en 1887. Como esa es la versión que Graz usó en la publicación del facsimil en 1968

(con una introducción y un sumario por F. Anders), esta versión se ha convertido en una de

las más usadas de este códice (por lo menos indirectamente). La versión Graz a su vez se

usó como la base para la versión de Chiapas (Thomas A. Lee, Jr., "Los Códices Mayas",

1985).

Las versiones a color de los códices no son solamente agradable de mirarlas, sino que

también son importantes en el entendimiento acerca del Maya a través de su arte, y sus

cálculos matemáticos. Note que los números rojos y los negros generalmente tienen

diferentes significados: los rojos dan las fechas y los negros dan diferencias entre las

fechas. Casi todos los ceros son escritos en rojo. Desafortunadamente, el litógrafo dio un

toque en la versión del códice Rosny 1887, así es que la exactitud de esta edición (y por lo

tanto también la edición de Graz más tarde y de Chiapas) ha sido comprometida. Esto es

muy triste, porque esta es la única versión a color impresa de este frágil códice, con la

excepción de la versión estilizada de Gates. El códice mismo está ahora guardado en la

Sección Fonds Mexicain No. 386, en una caja de madera sellada, con una cubierta de vidrio

que sólo permite ver dos de sus páginas. Al parecer la biblioteca no tiene ninguna intención

de permitir abrir la caja, por miedo que el frágil códice se dañe. Afortunadamente, la

explicación que viene con la edición del Graz menciona algunas de las diferencias que han

sido encontradas entre la versión de color del Rosny y las versiones fotográficas.

3. En 1888, Rosny preparó una segunda impresión del París. Esta vez fue de fotografías en

blanco y negro, y se emitieron 100 copias. Esto tiene una reputación excelente; yo no la he

visto.

4. En 1909, William E. Gates publicó 57 copias de su versión facsímil del Códice París.

Como su versión del Dresde, el Códice París es muy agradable de mirarlo, y usa su propio

estilo de letra. Él lo ha reconstruido un poco, ej., algunos números y otros glifos han sido

colocados aunque fueron destruidos por 1909. (En mi opinión Gates ha conseguido a través

de los años una reputación mala. Dudo que él fuera agradable con la gente, y esto pudo

haber afectado nuestra opinión de él). Obviamente, si él creó su propio estilo de letra para

los glifos, e incluso sí sólo escasamente reconstruyó algunas porciones (sin marcas o lineas

de puntos). Así es que, sus versiones especiales con su estilo de letra no pueden usarse sin

verificar las fotografías primero, para lo cual, yo podría agregar, si las incluyó con el París.

Su copia de la figura de la esquina de arriba de la derecha de la página 3 está mejor que las

ediciones de Rosny de 1887 (y por consiguiente el Graz y el Chiapas posterior) donde la

mayoría de las figuras no están (aunque están presentes en fotografías).

5. Theodore A. Willard había publicado en 1933 un facsimile de fotografías en blanco y

negro en el "The Codex Perez: An ancient Mayan hieroglyphic book" (Arthur H. Clarke,

Glendale, California). Ésta es la versión que se usó en el "Códice Peresiano" de Luis Azcue

y Mancera (Editorial Orion, México, D. F. 1967). La versión Willard (y por consiguiente la

de Azcue también) se aumentó, así que aparece con una linea blanca y negra dibujada.

Algunas reconstrucciones, con lineas de puntos, y algunos toques están incluidos. En los

toques, por lo menos hay un error: por ejemplo en la orientación de (lo que era

originalmente) el verde o azul "12" en la página 24.

6. Ninguna discusión del Códice París está completa sin mencionar el trabajo de Bruce

Love, "The Paris Codex: Handbook for a Maya Priest" (Prensa de la Universidad de Texas,

Austin, 1994). En él hay excelentes fotografías en blanco y negro del Códice París.

(Sorprendentemente una está estropeada: la sección del medio de la página 24, alrededor de

la región de [3] K’an está imperfecta). Algunas de estas fotografías son de la Bibliothèque

Nationale ektachromes. No tengo una fecha exacta para estos ektachromes, pero como los

ektachromes no fueron producidos hasta 1942 o más tarde, las ektachromes de la

Bibliothèque Nationale no pudieron haber sido hecho antes de esa fecha, y problamente no

fueron hechos antes de 1950 o así. En cualquier caso, estas fotos del París en blanco y

negro han llegado a ser problamente las copias de más uso, especialmente para los que

estudian sus glifos.

NOTA: Hemos encontrado que es más rápido y fácil mirar estos documentos si usted

transmite estos archivos individuales a su computadora y los abre localmente. Para

transmitirlos y salvarlos, haga clic en el archivo con la derecha, y escoja "save as" del

menú, escoja una dirección (por ejemplo "My Documents") y haga clic en "Save".

Los archivos PDF requieren Adobe Acrobat Reader. Para transmitir la reciente versión,

haga clic en el botón de transmisión abajo.

Para ver fotografías del Códice de París de la Bibliothèque Nationale de France, haga clic

aquí.

7. Una obra incompleta del Códice de París por James B. Porter aparece en un sitio web

archivado en

http://web.archive.org/web/20030827025822/http://mayaglyphs.net/paris/paris.html. Aquí

el autor ha dibujado una reproducción, usando tanto la edición de Graz de 1968 como la

edición de Gates, con fotografías como guías. Porter ha intentado hacer una reconstrucción

bastante extensiva (frecuentemente se muestra con líneas achuradas), la cual —junto con la

reproducción de Gates— nos hace cuestionar algunos trabajos que han sido publicados

acerca del Códice de París, especialmente cuando han llegado a suposiciones divergentes

sobre las partes faltantes de las páginas. Este estímulo por sí mismo yo creo es una buena

contribución a nuestro estudio sobre los mayas antiguos.

Léon de Rosny's Peresianus de 1869

Randa Marhenke compartir las páginas fueron tomadas de las páginas del Codex Peresianus

que fueron incluidas en el "Atlas" de reproducciones de Léon de Rosny, que estaba en su

Archives paléographiques de l'Orient et de l'Amérique. Esta obra fue publicada en 1869 por

Maisonneuve (Paris). Las páginas del Peresianus se agruparon empezando con una marcada

como "Manuscrit yucatèque No. 2 de la Bibliothèque nationale (inédit.)". Las páginas 5-22

del Peresianus fueron mostradas en el Atlas (láminas 117-132), por lo que se incluyen aquí.

Las páginas 1-4 y 23-24 hacían falta en el Atlas, por lo que no aparecen en esta colección.

Haga clic aquí para leer más acerca de Léon de Rosny's Peresianus de 1869.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030827025822/http://mayaglyphs.net/paris/paris.html

THE PARIS SCREENFOLD

A MAYA GLYPHIC BOOK FROM MAYAPAN

LOCATION AUTHOR EDITIONS MATERIAL COLORS PHYSICAL

DESCRIPTION DATE AND PROVENANCE

PAGES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TEXT

1a b c d 2a b c d 3a b c d 4a b c d 5a b c d 6a b c d 7a b c d 8a b c d 9a b c d 10a b c d

11a b c d 12a b c d

DISCUSSION BIBLIOGRAPHY

LOCATION : Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, France.

CATALOG NUMBER: Fonds Mexicain, No.386 (Ancien No.2)

DISCOVERED: described in Landa XI. Aquired by Bibliotheque Imperiale 1832, possibly

among a lot of Mexican manuscripts from collector Baradra or Latour Allard in the same

year (Zimmermann 1954:62,n.4).

AUTHOR: According to Landa an ancestor of Don Juan Kokom.

EDITIONS:

The Paris screenfold has been reproduced a number of times since its discovery. A review

of editions of the Paris screenfold follows.

Aglio (1835) Drawn reproduction, one copy in Newberry library Chicago (Stuart in Love

1994)

Duruy (1864) Photographic reproduction, (B+W), 10 copies (Leclerc 1878), 50 copies

(Burbourg 1871:95). The 1864 edition 'and the edition of 1888 are to all general purposes

identical; but, notwithstanding that the photographs are steadily yellowing by age, the

chromatic values are so far superior that I have continually come to find them the court of

final decision in doubtful matters. In a very considerable number of instances a close

examination of the photographs has suggested the presence of faint lines of color on glyphs

or figures, which was entirely indistinguishable in both of the printed editions, and which

was yet in every case confirmed, although sometimes with difficulty, by the examination of

the original MS.' (Gates 1910:8-9).

1859 Jose Perez publishes two studies of the manuscript (Stuart in Love 1994).

1859 Professor Leon de Rosny 'finds' the manuscript 'in a basket among a lot of old papers,

black with dust and practically abandoned in a chimney corner. From a few words with the

name Perez, written on a torn scrap of paper then around it but since lost, it received its

name.' (Gates 1910:7). Thompson adds that the writing on the paper is 'claimed to be of the

seventeenth century' (Thompson 1950: 25). Most likely, Mr. Perez was still deciding

whether to liberate or reproduce the manuscript when Prof. Rozny espied its hiding place

and snatched it away for reproduction.

Rosny (1872: P. 117-142) Drawn reproduction, (B+W), x copies. 'Rosny published a

reproduction, drawn by hand, which, as stated by him later, may be disregarded for

practical purposes.' (Gates 1910:7).

Rosny (1887) lithographic reproduction, (color), 85 copies (Gates 1910: 8), 45 copies

(Anders 1968: 23). 'The colored edition of 1887, having been worked over by hand, in

lithography, is defective in various places, both as regards the black of the figures and

glyphs, and in the colors. Coloring exists on the original codex which was not reproduced

at all in the edition, and the colors given are in many cases not exact. Thus on pages 19 and

20 two different reds are used for the backgrounds, whereas but one is found in the original;

on pages 15, 16 the figures are a turquoise green, and on pages 17, 18 an olive green, the

correct color for all four being turquoise green.' (Gates 1910:8).

Rosny (1888) Photographic reproduction, (B+W), 100 copies. 'I have been able to find no

inaccuracy in the 1888 edition, which is indeed stated in the introduction to be entirely by

mechanical process, without hand intervention; but being reproduced by printers ink in

black only' (Gates 1910:8).

Gates (1909) Photographic and Typeset reproduction, (color), x copies. Thompson advises

'The[Paris screenfold] published by Gates should be avoided because of the casting of

glyphs in type, a treatment which greatly reduces their value for students. Gates also

restores glyphs, usually without any indication of the fact.' (Thompson 1950:26).

Thompson's critique is somewhat misleading, Gates reproduced his photographs of the

1864 edition along with his type set reproduction and a separate set of glyph cards. Most of

Gates' restorations were confined to these cards and do not appear in the text of the

reproduction proper. While it is possible to fault Gates' identification of individual glyphs it

is grossly unfair to assert he did not indicate his reconstructions.

Villacorta and Villacorta (1933) Drawn reproduction, (B+W), x copies. Villacorta and

Villacorta's edition is drawn freehand, possibly from the photographs in Gates (1909)

edition. Thompson observed that all editions of Maya codices are very rare and advised the

reader 'to use the accessible edition published by Villacorta and Villacorta' (Thompson

1950:26). This in spite of the generally low quality of the younger Villacorta's drawings.

Lounsbury was also overly generous when he observed that 'In minor details [Villacorta's]

drawings do not reproduce accurately the original of the codex' (Lounsbury 1973).

Thompson later observed that Villacorta's Dresden Screenfold shows 'some errors in

drawings of glyphs and occasionally in numbers; artistically it is far inferior to the original'

(Thompson 1972:17). These statements are equally true for his Paris screenfold. Indeed, it

is not impossible that overreliance on Villacorta's drawings has retarded progress in Maya

epigraphy.

Anders (1968) Photographic reproduction, (color), x copies. Anders edition reproduces

Gates copies of the 1864 edition. Unfortunately, the reproduction of the 1864 edition is

screened rather than being reproduced in continuous tone. Close inspection of this

reproduction therefore reveals only a field of small black dots.

Anders screenfold is essentially a reprint of Rosny's 1887 edition (Anders 1968:23).

However, Anders screenfold is marred by discrepancies between the black and white of the

1864 and 1887 editions. For example, the head of the figure on page 3 A 3 is clearly visible

in the 1864 edition and entirely absent in Anders reprint of the 1887 edition.

Knorosov (1982) Drawn reproduction, (B+W), x copies. Knorosov's edition reproduces

Villacorta and Villacorta's freehand drawing, which partially explains the resulting

problems of identification in the accompanying analysis.

Love (1994) Photographic reproduction, (B+W), x copies. Love's edition reproduces Gates

copies of the 1864 edition with the same printing technique and the same unfortunate

results as Anders' 1968 publication.

Porter Drawn reproduction, (color), x copies. The present edition of the screenfold was

traced from a projected image of Anders' 1968 edition. Each of the black lines was traced

on both sides to ensure accurate reproduction of the brush strokes on the original. This

tracing was then inked with Anders' edition as a guide and the inked copy was then checked

against Gates' photographs, typeset reproduction and glyph cards. There are several

instances where Gates' edition needed correction, but the present edition would be wrong in

several instances without his typeset edition. All restoration is indicated by hachured lines.

MATERIAL

Schwede has shown that all the Maya codices are made of the inner bark of the wild fig

(Schwede 1912). This inner bark was beaten into a kind of felted cloth which was then

coated with a thin lime sizing. This coat of lime sizing was then polished and the pages laid

out on the lime sizing.

COLORS

The raw materials for the colors in the screenfold are not known for certain. However,

ethnohistorical data make it possible to suggest likely sources for some of the colors in the

codex. Each page of the screenfold was laid out with Red lines. The text was then inked in

Black with rubrics in Red. The illustrations and some additional rubrics were finished in

Turquoise, Tawny, Blue and Pink. Backgrounds were then added in Red, Black and

Turquoise. The colors are as follows:

Red is employed in Figures, Text, Backgrounds, Borders and Layout. Red is most likely

powdered ferrous oxide or cinnabar. Cochineal, achiote and blood are other possible

ingredients.

Black is employed in Figures, Text, Backgrounds and Borders. Black is certainly carbon

ink and, more specifically, lampblack. The Cordemex gives za-bak, literally "powdered

bone" as 'tinto' and 'tinto hecho por humo' (Barrera Vasquez 1980). Roys suggested that the

za-bac che', which was burned to make black ink, must be Exostema sp. (Roys 1933: 106).

A Yucatec recording angel is named Zabac Chak 'lampblack lightning,'(Steggerda

19xx:xx). Men Zabak 'makes lampblack' is the Lacandon creator (Tozzer 193x:xx, Bruce

19xx:xx, Perera 19xx:xx). Also, the collection of lampblack is an important part of

traditional Quiche initiation ceremonies (Tedlock 1982:65-66).

Turquoise is employed in Figures, Text, Backgrounds and Borders. Turquoise is most

likely made from some fine yellow clay fired with indigo and ground to a powder.

Tawny is employed in Figures and Text. Tawny presents something of a problem.

Thompson observed in his introduction to the Dresden Screenfold that 'in minor details,

particularly crisscrossing of garments, goddesses' skirts and gods' mantles and short parallel

lines to denote hair...I think that Aglio's brown was once a faint black.' (Thompson

1972:18). However, Tawny was used in solid masses on several figures of the Paris

screenfold, particularly animal figures, as well as in fine lines on figures and text detailing.

Also, carbon inks do not fade to brown, only 'gall iron' inks fade to brown. The most likely

conclusion is that Tawny is a distinct color. Nonetheless, if our only testimony to the colors

on the original is a nineteenth century reproduction, it remains possible that a 'gall iron' ink

was employed to represent the original black text, and it is this representation which has

faded, leaving us all with a false impression of fine brown lines in the black text.

Blue is employed in Figures and Text. Blue is most likely made from a fine white kaolin

clay fired with indigo and ground to a powder.

Pink Figures. Pink is most likely made by diluting the Red with a fine white kaolin clay

powder.

SHAPE : rectangular screenfold

DIMENSIONS: Height 22 cm. Width 1.45 (total). 11 leaves. Though Thompson notes,

'this is probably only a piece from a considerably longer original' (Thompson 1972:15).

CONDITION: The Paris screenfold is in poor condition, about half of each remaining leaf

of the screenfold is lacking ink and sizing around the outer margins, as a result of careless

handling. At some point, the screenfold appears to have been folded while closed and the

ink and sizing of many leaves have subsequently fallen away along the folds.

DATE : 11.10.0.0.0 to 11.15.0.0.0.

PROVENANCE: Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico. Sylvanus Morley first observed the close

similarity between the figures of Side 1 of the screenfold and Stela 1 at Mayapan, (Morley's

Stela 9), (Morley 1920: 574-575, and Proskouriakoff 1962: 135, Figure 12a). It is

unfortunate that adequate reproductions of the stelae at Mayapan have not been published,

for they would surely shed further light on the relationships noted by Morley and

Proskouriakoff. Thompson suggests the Ak'bal set of yearbearers was employed in both

Paris and Dresden Screenfolds. Though he failed to note the resemblances between the

Screenfold and Mayapan Stela 1, he assigned the Paris to 'the Mayapan-East Coast period

and style' (Thompson 1972:16).

DISCUSSION

Because of its poor state of preservation, the true structure of the Paris screenfold has never

been accurately represented. This is most apparent on the so-called k'atun pages, 2-12,

where the entire left-hand column was effaced prior to the earliest extant photographs. The

former existence of this column, traces of which are still visible on pages 4b and 6b, affects

interpretation of Paris 2-12a, b, and c.

Paris 2-12a has been interpreted as a tun sequence (Knorosov 1982:175-78; Love 1994:33-

43). Yet, the existence of two columns of numerals in this section of each page would

interpolate another numeral between each tun coefficient. This sort of interpolation is not

an impossibility, but given the absence of corroborating examples, it seems only a remote

possibility.

Paris 2-12b and c, as reconstructed, is unified by three columns of text rather than one pair

of columns, a situation which profoundly affects the reading order of this section of the

screenfold. This section of the screenfold was clearly intended to be read in successive

rows of three compartments each, rather than as paired columns (Knorosov 1982:179-92;

Love 1994:17-31).

The proposed doubling of the initial glyph in as few as three and as many as six of the

introductory rows is supported by doubled initial glyphs in recently discovered

contemporaneous texts from Uxmal (Carrasco 1994). Indeed, this doubled initial glyph has

been both the most puzzling and ultimately the most enlightening feature of this text.

Puzzling because redundant glyphs are so rare in other Maya glyphic texts, enlightening

because poetry and especially song abound in redundancy! Here are the songs, 13 of them

originally, which were sung to, by, with or about the Itza successors as they start the new

fire, acced to office, draw blood, etc. Although the specific repeated phrase itza heuak is

not found in the books of Chilam Balam, the heuak formation occurs several times in in a

chapter on K'atun Buluk Ahau.

One detail of Paris 9b bridged the gulf between past and present with an immediacy that I

have not encountered in any other Precolumbian Maya work. While turning the brush to

negotiate a particularly difficult curve on glyph F2 of the caption directly above the seated

figure, the Paris scribe lost control of the ink-laden brush and dropped it on the page. This

scribal error is particularly valuable because it left an imprint of the brush, recording its tiny

size, the short length of its bristles, and the wrapped threads securing the bristles to the

handle.

The reverse of the Paris screenfold also bears interesting details that have not been

previously noted. Appellative glyphs on this screenfold do not correspond with figural

types as proposed by Paul Schellhas, based on his examinations of the Dresden and the

Madrid manuscripts (Schellhas 1904). The illumination of Paris 16c depicts a figure

wearing a bird mask, yet the text above bears the appellative glyph T668.

T668 is commonly identified as the name glyph of Figural Type B, Schellhas' 'God B, the

God with the Large Nose and Lolling Tongue,' actually a human figure wearing a mask

resembling T1030q. Schellhas believed that Type B represented the mythical K'u K'ul

Kan, though most modern savants follow Charles Etienne Brasseur de Bourbourg and

Eduard Seler in the belief that Type B represents a god called Chak.

Because Schellhas observed that 668:103 is commonly associated with Figural Type B and

Type B is believed to depict a god called Chak, most epigraphers read T668 as Chak, or

even as cha (Morley 1920;Thompson 1950, 1962, 1970, .1972; Kelley 1976; Schele 1982;

Houston 1989; Coe 1992; Sharer 1994; Mathews, Stewart, Riese, Lounsbury, and Schele

[in Justeson and Campbell 1984]; Taube 1992).

However, T667, T668, and T669 are also commonly associated with Figural Type B, T667

in particular on the reverse of the Parris screenfold. All three of these glyphs are composed

of T666 k'ab, 'hand,' and another glyph which is infixed.

T666 k'ab, 'hand'.

T667, a combination of T666 and T617 nen, is read nen k'ab,'priest' ('mirror/brilliant-

hand/world').

T668, a combination ofT666 and T503 ik', is read ik' k'ab, 'spirit hand', 'breath hand',

'active hand', 'hot hand', 'priest' ('spirit/breath-hand/world').

T669a, a combination of T666 and T25 ka, kay, kim, is read ka k'ab, 'second hand', kay

k'ab, 'singing hand', kim k'ab, 'cold hand', 'soothing hand', 'receptive hand'.

T669b, a combination of T666 and T586 pau, is read pau k'ab, 'planter' ('net-hand').3

None of these glyphs represent either the title or the ritual K'u K'ul Kan , 'Holy Seated

Serpent/Very Holy Seat, Most Holy Sky, squirrel around serpent, Squirrel Around

Procession' or the more protean Chak, 'Chop, Exceptional, Great, Red, Lightning/rain

Spirit.' Indeed, the most common and general referents of T667, T668, and T669 are to

priestly/shamanic offices.

In light of these associations it is not surprising that T668 might appear as the appellative of

a human figure wearing a bird mask. Indeed, Proskouriakoff's (1960) identification of

masked human figures in Maya monumental art as eminent Maya persons provides an

unrecognized confirmation for Jesse Fewkes' identifications of masked human figures in

Maya book art as masked priests (Fewkes 1893, 1895, 1906). Parallels between book arts

and monumental arts are particularly strongly indicated in this case by parallels between

Paris 1-12c, d, and the stelae of Mayapan (Morley1920:574-75; Proskouriakoff 1960:135;

Love 1994:8-13).

In combination with the earlier identification of glyphs bearing superfix T168 as shamanic

titles, it is apparent that this interpretation of T668 eliminates the most important remaining

members of Schellhas' list from consideration as gods. In light of these observations it

would be advisable to abandon European models of Maya leadership and religion in favor

of Native American models.

RETURN TO MAYA GLYPHS