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

html

ESCRITURA DE JEROGLFICOS MAYAS

Los Cdices Antiguos Mayas
EL CDICE DE PARS
El Cdice Pars fue adquirido por la Bibliothque Impriale
(ms tarde Bibliothque Nationale) de Pars en 1832. Su
primera rplica fue como un dibujo Aglio hecho por Lord
Kingsborough en 1835. ste ahora est perdido, pero una
copia, con algunas pginas coloridas, est preservados en las
hojas a prueba del Volumen X de "Antiquities of Mxico"
de Kingsborough nunca publicado, ahora alojado en la
Biblioteca Newberry de Chicago. Aunque el Cdice Pars
fue mencionado ocasionalmente durante los 24 aos
siguientes, realmente no hizo su "debut" hasta 1859 cuando
Lon de Rosny dijo que lo haba descubierto en la esquina
de una chiminea polvorienta de la Biblioteca Nacional de
Pars. Aunque algunas veces se ha referido al cdice como
el "Cdice Prez" y el "Cdice Maya-Tzental" los nombres
preferidos son "Cdice Paris" y "Cdice Peresianus":
1. En 1864, S. E. M. Duruy, Ministro de la Enseanza Pblica y Presidente de la Comisin
Cientfica de Mxico, tena las fotos en blanco y negro del Cdice de Pars (en ese tiempo
descrito como un Manuscrit dit Mexicain No. 2 de la Bibliothque Impriale) impreso (en
Pars). Se imprimieron pocas copias de esta edicin (probablemente entre 10 a 50) ahora
son bastante raras realmente. Sin embargo, copias de estas fotos aparecen con la versin de
Gates 1909, y con la copia de Graz 1968 del Pars. Esto recopila los records de fotografas
ms antiguos que tenemos del Pars.
2. Lon de Rosny, imprimi una versin cromolitogrfica (de 45 o 85 copias) del Cdice
Pars en 1887. Como esa es la versin que Graz us en la publicacin del facsimil en 1968
(con una introduccin y un sumario por F. Anders), esta versin se ha convertido en una de
las ms usadas de este cdice (por lo menos indirectamente). La versin Graz a su vez se
us como la base para la versin de Chiapas (Thomas A. Lee, Jr., "Los Cdices Mayas",
1985).
Las versiones a color de los cdices no son solamente agradable de mirarlas, sino que
tambin son importantes en el entendimiento acerca del Maya a travs de su arte, y sus
clculos matemticos. Note que los nmeros 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 litgrafo dio un
toque en la versin del cdice Rosny 1887, as es que la exactitud de esta edicin (y por lo
tanto tambin la edicin de Graz ms tarde y de Chiapas) ha sido comprometida. Esto es

muy triste, porque esta es la nica versin a color impresa de este frgil cdice, con la
excepcin de la versin estilizada de Gates. El cdice mismo est ahora guardado en la
Seccin Fonds Mexicain No. 386, en una caja de madera sellada, con una cubierta de vidrio
que slo permite ver dos de sus pginas. Al parecer la biblioteca no tiene ninguna intencin
de permitir abrir la caja, por miedo que el frgil cdice se dae. Afortunadamente, la
explicacin que viene con la edicin del Graz menciona algunas de las diferencias que han
sido encontradas entre la versin de color del Rosny y las versiones fotogrficas.
3. En 1888, Rosny prepar una segunda impresin del Pars. Esta vez fue de fotografas en
blanco y negro, y se emitieron 100 copias. Esto tiene una reputacin excelente; yo no la he
visto.
4. En 1909, William E. Gates public 57 copias de su versin facsmil del Cdice Pars.
Como su versin del Dresde, el Cdice Pars es muy agradable de mirarlo, y usa su propio
estilo de letra. l lo ha reconstruido un poco, ej., algunos nmeros y otros glifos han sido
colocados aunque fueron destruidos por 1909. (En mi opinin Gates ha conseguido a travs
de los aos una reputacin mala. Dudo que l fuera agradable con la gente, y esto pudo
haber afectado nuestra opinin de l). Obviamente, si l cre su propio estilo de letra para
los glifos, e incluso s slo escasamente reconstruy algunas porciones (sin marcas o lineas
de puntos). As es que, sus versiones especiales con su estilo de letra no pueden usarse sin
verificar las fotografas primero, para lo cual, yo podra agregar, si las incluy con el Pars.
Su copia de la figura de la esquina de arriba de la derecha de la pgina 3 est mejor que las
ediciones de Rosny de 1887 (y por consiguiente el Graz y el Chiapas posterior) donde la
mayora de las figuras no estn (aunque estn presentes en fotografas).
5. Theodore A. Willard haba publicado en 1933 un facsimile de fotografas en blanco y
negro en el "The Codex Perez: An ancient Mayan hieroglyphic book" (Arthur H. Clarke,
Glendale, California). sta es la versin que se us en el "Cdice Peresiano" de Luis Azcue
y Mancera (Editorial Orion, Mxico, D. F. 1967). La versin Willard (y por consiguiente la
de Azcue tambin) se aument, as que aparece con una linea blanca y negra dibujada.
Algunas reconstrucciones, con lineas de puntos, y algunos toques estn incluidos. En los
toques, por lo menos hay un error: por ejemplo en la orientacin de (lo que era
originalmente) el verde o azul "12" en la pgina 24.
6. Ninguna discusin del Cdice Pars est 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 l hay excelentes fotografas en blanco y negro del Cdice Pars.
(Sorprendentemente una est estropeada: la seccin del medio de la pgina 24, alrededor de
la regin de [3] Kan est imperfecta). Algunas de estas fotografas son de la Bibliothque
Nationale ektachromes. No tengo una fecha exacta para estos ektachromes, pero como los
ektachromes no fueron producidos hasta 1942 o ms tarde, las ektachromes de la
Bibliothque Nationale no pudieron haber sido hecho antes de esa fecha, y problamente no
fueron hechos antes de 1950 o as. En cualquier caso, estas fotos del Pars en blanco y
negro han llegado a ser problamente las copias de ms uso, especialmente para los que

estudian sus glifos.

NOTA: Hemos encontrado que es ms rpido y fcil 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
men, escoja una direccin (por ejemplo "My Documents") y haga clic en "Save".
Los archivos PDF requieren Adobe Acrobat Reader. Para transmitir la reciente versin,
haga clic en el botn de transmisin abajo.

Para ver fotografas del Cdice de Pars de la Bibliothque Nationale de France, haga clic
aqu.
7. Una obra incompleta del Cdice de Pars por James B. Porter aparece en un sitio web
archivado en
http://web.archive.org/web/20030827025822/http://mayaglyphs.net/paris/paris.html. Aqu
el autor ha dibujado una reproduccin, usando tanto la edicin de Graz de 1968 como la
edicin de Gates, con fotografas como guas. Porter ha intentado hacer una reconstruccin
bastante extensiva (frecuentemente se muestra con lneas achuradas), la cual junto con la
reproduccin de Gates nos hace cuestionar algunos trabajos que han sido publicados
acerca del Cdice de Pars, especialmente cuando han llegado a suposiciones divergentes
sobre las partes faltantes de las pginas. Este estmulo por s mismo yo creo es una buena
contribucin a nuestro estudio sobre los mayas antiguos.

Lon de Rosny's Peresianus de 1869

Randa Marhenke compartir las pginas fueron tomadas de las pginas del Codex Peresianus
que fueron incluidas en el "Atlas" de reproducciones de Lon de Rosny, que estaba en su
Archives palographiques de l'Orient et de l'Amrique. Esta obra fue publicada en 1869 por
Maisonneuve (Paris). Las pginas del Peresianus se agruparon empezando con una marcada
como "Manuscrit yucatque No. 2 de la Bibliothque nationale (indit.)". Las pginas 5-22
del Peresianus fueron mostradas en el Atlas (lminas 117-132), por lo que se incluyen aqu.
Las pginas 1-4 y 23-24 hacan falta en el Atlas, por lo que no aparecen en esta coleccin.
Haga clic aqu para leer ms acerca de Lon 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 1994:3343). 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/brillianthand/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