(14-10-2025, 07:20 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The thread definitely was not there when the paint was applied. Note that there is a broad paint stroke (E) that runs straight over one of the stitching holes (F), across the whole pond. Moreover, if the thread was still there, the greenpaint would have collected under it and left a "shadow" of the stitching.
This hole killed my theory
[
attachment=11708]
I claimed before
(15-10-2025, 08:05 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To make vellum, the skin was usually split into two layers.
I had read that somewhere the internet, and I tried to find a source. Surprisingly, is seems that it is still disputed whether such thing was ever done.
It seems that some Medieval Jewish scholars described that practice and even gave distinct names to unsplit vellum and to the two layers of split vellum.
However, the author who wrote the entry on vellum for the Diderot Ecyclopedia in the 1700s claimed that split vellum was just a Medieval Tiktok meme, and when he asked contemporary vellum makers they laughed at the idea.
So, what is the truth? Presumably only the thickest (calf?) skins can be split, and the process surely would require special tools and skills. Are there extant manuscripts which were definitely written on split skin?
All the best, --stolfi
Quote:Split parchment: Created by splitting a single skin into two layers, producing a thinner, more economical material
Sheep parchment: Generally thicker with a greasy texture, often showing hair follicle patterns.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Note: this website looks AI-generated, I don't know if it can be trusted.
Everything you need to know about parchment.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Unfortunately unavailable at present.
[
attachment=11834]
Production of parchment in the Middle Ages according to descriptions in various books. 1100-1500.
[
attachment=11833]
It is not split, it just looks that way.
(28-10-2025, 02:48 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Production of parchment in the Middle Ages according to descriptions in various books. 1100-1500. It is not split, it just looks that way.
Yeah, I have seen several videos of parchment making at companies that supply restorators and such and use traditional methods. They just don't say that split parchment is not a thing; they just don't mention it.
BUT it would seem that sheep and deer skins are too thin for splitting anyway.
BUT there are those Medieval Jewish sources that seem to speak about split vellum as a commonplace thing and give names for unsplit vellum and for each of the two layers of split vellum.
So I am still in doubt...
All the best,--stolfi
I have never heard of split parchment, nor have I ever seen it.
I would imagine that this is a translation error.
In the case of scrolls, I could imagine that the adhesive joints of the individual sheets were cut at the adhesive joint and inserted into each other to achieve greater stability.
Otherwise, I can't think of anything else.
(28-10-2025, 09:09 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have never heard of split parchment, nor have I ever seen it.
I would imagine that this is a translation error.
In the case of scrolls, I could imagine that the adhesive joints of the individual sheets were cut at the adhesive joint and inserted into each other to achieve greater stability.
Otherwise, I can't think of anything else.
This is one of my sources: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. Search for "split"
(Here is a better-formatted version, but of only one chapter: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. )
Here is another source: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. This one seems to imply that split parchment is as thin as unsplit deer skin, so the two can be mixed when creating a Torah scroll; whereas split and unsplit parchment cannot be mixed.
There is also this article You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. but I cannot access it from home.
All the best, --stolfi
I understand.
The split skin (Gevil) is the flesh side, the fur side (K'lav).
According to Jewish Torah law, texts may only be written on the flesh side.
Quote:
Maimonides issued further prescriptions for the use of each of the three types of processed skin. [13] Torah scrolls may only be written on the side where the hair grew, on G'vil, and never on Duchsustos (understood as the half-skin from the flesh side). [13] Phylacteries, when written on k'laf, must be written on the flesh side. [13] A mezuzah, when written on duchsustos, must be written on the hair side. [13] It is unacceptable to write on k'laf on the hair side or on the split skin (either g'vil or duchsustos) on the flesh side. [13]
It should be understood that split skin was not only dehaired, but the fur was mechanically scraped off so that both sides looked the same before scraping.
This dates back to when parchment was not yet treated with lime bleach.
Genuine untreated parchment.
[
attachment=11850]
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
(30-10-2025, 10:21 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is unacceptable to write on k'laf on the hair side or on the split skin (either g'vil or duchsustos) on the flesh side.
But this sentence implies that g'vil and duchsustos were
not merely the two sides of k'laf. It implies that each of the two halves of the split skin had two sides.
Split
cow leather is a thing: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
So the question is whether split
parchment (from some animal) was a thing too. Lamb skin and deer skin seem to be too thin for that. What about calf skin? One of the links I posted before suggests that what passed for "uterine" parchment, supposedly from unborn calf fetuses, was in fact split parchment...
All the best, --stolfi
Thank you so much for sharing the interesting pictures and your reflections about purifying waters and mystical marriage. I find them valuable for mapping picture traditions that may relate to the Voynich Illustrations. No artist lives in a vacuum. Even when an artist seems original- or consider their work unique, they still build upon earlier art and the world around them. Among practising artists, it is well known that true originality is impossible. Therefore, artistic or architectural reference from before the carbon dating of the manuscript is of interest.
I think you are getting close the theme, especially in one picture (attached here), and I agree that it could be used symbolically or metaphorically, possibly in a different story or tradition than that of St. Catherine.
I would also like to add an observation to the picture of the ring-bearer. image. The figure to the left of the ring-bearer is smaller and has a more masculine expression than the others in this green pool. The masculinity appears in the lack of red lips and blushed cheeks, as well as the smaller eyes. It could represent the infant Jesus, as seen in the pictures of St. Catherine, though it is also possible the artist simply have forgotten to add the colour. The smaller size too, might carry another meaning.
Finally, I would offer a small speculation. I find your associations of saints, purifying waters and mystical marriage interesting, as I read the first word beneath the two figures as "sa(n)tu(n)g", taking into account that it was not unusual to omit "n" in medieval spelling.
[
attachment=11857]