Teaching about blogs

 Teaching how to make a blog is harder than it looks.

Image used with permission from Computer Clipart-teenage female student in computer class clipart (classroomclipart.com)

Five Corners Computer Class

I had the most boring time at the class...

Maya Gods, Goddesses and Animal Representations

James B. Porter's interpretation of Maya Gods

TYPE A: Depictions of Type A most likely represent performers in the theatrical role of Death or of the dead going about their business in the land of the dead. Glyphs 15:736a:140 and 24:1047a in the Dresden and 15:736:24 and 24:669a in the Madrid screenfolds are commonly associated with Type A.

TYPE B: Modern theists believe that Type B represents a "god" called Cak. The character 668:103 is commonly associated with Type B. Based on this observation, coupled with the belief that Type B depicts a "god" called Cak, most epigraphers "read" T668 as Cak. Other 'closed hand' glyphs are also associated with Type B.

 

The general referent of T667, T668 and T669 is to priestly office. A more likely possibility is that depictions of Type B represent performers in the theatrical role of Priest or of the priests and their assistants going about their business in the work of Maya ritual.

TYPE C: Type C is associated with the north star or other celestial phenomena. Type C also represent performers in the theatrical role of office holders or other prominent citizens, their aids and families as the butts of social japes or in the work of Maya ritual. Glyphs 39:1016, 40:1016, 24:1016 and 1:1016 are commonly associated with Type C.

TYPE G:  Type G accompanied by 168:544 represent performers in the theatrical role of calendar priests and their assistants going about their business in the work of Maya ritual.

TYPE F: Depictions of Type F represent performers in the theatrical role of warrior or 'spear carrier' going about their business, or participating in the work of Maya ritual. T1050 is commonly associated with Type F.

TYPE M: Type M frequently carries objects in a net, on his back, and is himself blackened. Again, recall that the Maya anointed themselves with black soot during periods of religious activity (Tozzer 1941:153, 161). This suggests that Type M is also likely to represent the theatrical roles of penitent, pilgrim or office holder. T680 is commonly associated with Type M. Arguments could be made for interpretations of T680 as Ich Pa, "In the Net", Pa(I)ch, "Back" and Ek' Cuah, "Blackened Vessel".

TYPE N: "The God of The End of The Year" is an old man with T528 or T548 (Tun, "drum, year") in his headdress. Type N was believed to be "the god of the five Uay Ah Haab days. Type N, an elderly type, may indeed represent the theatrical role of the Old Year or of some associated year numen. The glyphs 64:548 and 64:528, Pa Tun, "Net Drum/Year" and "Net Stone/Year", are commonly associated with Type N. Interestingly, de Landa wrote the glyph of the sixteenth month, Pax, as 64:548, Pa u Tun, (Tozzer 1941:164). Also the glyph of the five days of Uay Ah Haab is commonly written 769:548, Uay Tun, "bed/chamber/sign of the year", without any mention of "Net" (Thompson 1950:Fig. 19; 17-20).

Codex Peresianus, Paris Codex, Codex Perez and the Newark Public Library

FAMSI 

Northwestern University Digital Library - Paris

Bruce Love 

James B. Porter Paris Screenfold 

Editions of the Paris Codex (taken from James B. Porter's site) 

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.

Chamomile

Camomile - Anthemis Nobilis (Apple of the Earth)

Thyme (Thymus Vulgaris)

Thyme (Thymus Vulgaris)

 So it turns out my source books differ in reference to Oberon's botanical musings. The first reference (Act iii, scene 2) is incorrect. The correct attribution is MND Act ii, Scene 1. I'll include the link to the No Fear Shakespeare Midsummer Night's Dream edition here.

Bard's Garden - A Shopping List

We're getting ready for some fall planting in our Shakespearean Garden,
 and pulled some screenshots from the book for easy reference.

Shakespeare's Garden: With Reference to Over a Hundred Plants

By Leonard Holmesworthe

 Ruling out the trees and what we've already planted, while focusing on the perennials (buy once, enjoy forever) here's a wish list for the garden going forward...

Aconitium

Buttercup

Hyssop

Lady-smock (Cuckoo flower

Larkspur

Long Purples

Savory