THE PARIS SCREENFOLD

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, 'the successor of the Kokom, called Don Juan Kokom after he became a Christian, was a man of great reputation and very learned in matters and affairs of the country, very wise and well informed. He was on familiar terms with, Landa, recounting to him many ancient things, and showing him a book which had belonged to his grandfather, (Paris 9a, western script, in yum don...?, accompanied by a mature portrait glyph), the son of the Kokom whom they killed in Mayapan. In this book was painted a deer, and his grandfather had told him that when there should come into the land large deer (for so they called the cows), the worship of the old gods would cease. This has been fulfilled, because the Spaniards brought along large cows', (and horses, which were also identified as 'large deer' by many indigenous, eg. Madrid 39).

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 based on pattern recognition and is indicated by hachured lines.

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.

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.

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 in half while closed and the ink and sizing of many leaves have subsequently fallen away along this fold.

ANNOTATIONS: Six pages of the manuscript bear notations or comments in Spanish alphabetic script as follows

Page 9a bears two notations, 'In Yum don ...,' in Spanish alphabetic script and, 'Yum,' in Maya glyphic script.
Page 15b bears the three line notation, '...m ... y U ella ... c Hoom pa ...,' in Spanish script written over a 'Pa' glyph in the manuscript illumination.
Page 16b bears the two line notation, '... ... m...ob y u m...,' in Spanish script.
Page 19L bears two two line notations, 'Oxlahun Ak'bal,' and 'Kanil Ak'bal.' Both of these notations are inscribed over the correct day glyphs and coefficients on the Maya glyphic text.
Page 23b bears an illegible notation.

The most probable authors of these notes are Juan Kokom, who presented the book to Diego de Landa, and de Landa himself, (Landa XI). These notes are tantalizingly well preserved and provide a running commetary on the subject matter of certain pages and the meaning of certain glyphs. These Spanish alphabetic notations casually scrawled across the pages of the Paris screenfold constitute the most extensive treatise on Maya glyphs by a knowledgeable eyewitness surviving to the present day. I have no doubt whatsoever that careful and thorough ultraviolet and other non-visible spectrum photographs of the original Paris manuscript will reveal more of these Spanish alphabetic editorial notes.

CONSERVATION: I am convinced that the limits of visible-light records of the Paris manuscript have been reached. Nonetheless, a great deal of valuable information remains invisible and unrecorded. Ultraviolet and other non-visible spectrum photographs will improve the record of the Paris, as well as the Dresden and Madrid Maya manuscripts. Further, to preserve its written surface, the manuscript must be kept open, like the Dresden and Madrid manuscripts. The way the book is stored now, closed and sealed in a glass case, even the slightest condensation will cause the lime sizing of the pages to fuse together and destroy its unrecorded contents forever. The loss of this important cultural treasure in this manner will be a great tragedy for the entire human race because no other document has greater potential as a guide to the Maya portion of written human history. Indeed, it is profoundly frustrating to know that the European governments, which hold in trust all of the extant Maya glyphic books, have taken no action to recover the contents of these unique books, while at the same time spending millions to preserve European texts which, although beautifull in their own right, contribute nothing to the collective knowledge of mankind!

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

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.