The Voynich Ninja

(26-04-2026, 05:53 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I suppose you will never agree -- but the stain is transparent and not that dark, and the writing outside the stain not that faint.   By adding an absorbing layer on top of the ink and darkening the vellum under it, the staining stuff should have made the writing darker,  not fainter.  

I think I will happily agree once I see some good evidence.

I've tried to simulate the effect of adding a layer of semitransparent material of this color on top of the text. I took a square of the stain and overlaid it on top of the page reducing the opacity with 5% increments and compensating with brightness to achieve the same overall intensity. I think this would mimic a layer of somewhat transparent material on top of the text.

As far as I can see, the underlying text is practically invisible at 95% opacity including the high contrast characters, at 90% opacity only some of the characters are visible, faint ink is only visible at 80%. So a layer of some material with roughly 85-90% opacity may cause a similar effect of only some of the characters visible.

[attachment=15327]

Quote:the underlying text is practically invisible at 95% opacity

Sure, the text would have become practically  if it had been covered by anything with 95% opacity...

But  that is not paint, it is a sauce!  Tomato, red peppers, whatever -- not lead red or whatever.  It would not have 95% opacity even if it was as thick as the vellum.  I am sure that the guy who was enjoying it still could clearly see his teeth after the meal...

It seems that the clod who spilled it closed the book without cleaning the mess.  Then later he or someone else mopped up the sauce.  No chance that what remained had 95% opacity.

And then that person retraced what he could still see of the text.  If the text was illegible because it was covered by the sauce, why didn't he just clean it harder?  Like with a wet napkin?  If the ink was IGI, there would be no risk of damaging it...

Quote:I think I will happily agree once I see some good evidence.

Well, let me turn that around: I will happily agree once I see some good evidence that the ink is IGI.  

You have the full McCrone report You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., with all the spectra and high-resolution images.  Can you find the evidence that shows it is IGI, not watercolor?


All the best, --stolfi

(27-04-2026, 02:21 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Sure, the text would have become practically  if it had been covered by anything with 95% opacity...

But  that is not paint, it is a sauce!  Tomato, red peppers, whatever -- not lead red or whatever.  It would not have 95% opacity even if it was as thick as the vellum.  I am sure that the guy who was enjoying it still could clearly see his teeth after the meal...

It seems that the clod who spilled it closed the book without cleaning the mess.  Then later he or someone else mopped up the sauce.  No chance that what remained had 95% opacity.

And then that person retraced what he could still see of the text.  If the text was illegible because it was covered by the sauce, why didn't he just clean it harder?  Like with a wet napkin?  If the ink was IGI, there would be no risk of damaging it...

I feel that this is getting unsubstantiated.

We don't know what substance this is exactly. It looks like some foodstuff, but could be some wax, sealant, lamp oil, glue, pigment. You said in your previous comment that you can crudely estimate the composition as watery+oily stuff by the way the substance seeped through the vellum (or parchment, if vellum has its Pluto moment now), but I'm not sure I can see any difference other than the amount in the stains from f103r, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f104r.

What we do know is that this substance could penetrate the vellum in significant volume to leave stains on the next folio (not only the verso of this folio) and it wouldn't easily dry up and come off even after a few centuries. So: 1) it forms highly resistant and durable film when dry; 2) it can enter the pores of the vellum, so it is physically attached to the body of the vellum.

It's likely that it spent quite some time on the vellum before its removal was attempted, otherwise I'm not sure it would have seeped through so well. It's quite possible there was no way to clean it at all without destroying the vellum itself.

Looking at the stain I actually remember red candles we used to have when I was a kid, we would occasionally use them when there was no electricity. No idea what they were made of, but if you dripped the melted candle on your clothes, it would leave a nontransparent red stain that was impossible to remove without damaging the clothes.

As a sidenote, I'm not sure why you invoke teeth, which have been optimized by the evolution specifically to stay clean of foodstuff, when a lot of food stains are extremely hard to clean from clothes, sometimes impossible without strong chemicals, and would easily mask prints on clothes.

(27-04-2026, 02:21 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:I think I will happily agree once I see some good evidence.

Well, let me turn that around: I will happily agree once I see some good evidence that the ink is IGI.  

As a wise man said a few posts back,

Quote:AFAIK there is no non-destructive test that would positively identify iron-gall ink on a manuscript.

I can ask Yale if they have any spare pages they won't need anymore, but I expect to run into problems.

But I think the actual question is whether the ink is overwhelmingly original or massively retraced. MRT requires non iron-gall ink, because this would explain how it could fade over and over again to allow for serial retracing. For people that deny the existence of MRT in the text and see the ink as original and mostly legible after 600 years, the most likely explanation is that the ink is iron gall based.

(27-04-2026, 09:25 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We don't know what substance this is exactly. It looks like some foodstuff, but could be some wax, sealant, lamp oil, glue, pigment.

We can see some small darker specks that look like some vegetable skin, especially on f102v.  These specks occur only within the two main drops: the big one between You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f103r, and a smaller one between You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f104r.  

So it is not lamp oil or glue.

What do you mean by "sealant"?  And pigments are dry powders; do you mean "paint"?

Quote:1) it forms highly resistant and durable film when dry

There is no film.  The texture of the vellum is clearly visible and unbroken across all those stains.  Some of  the stuff may have remained trapped at the bottom of the pores of of the vellum, but the orangish color of the stains is mainly due to stuff that soaked into it while liquid.

Quote:It's likely that it spent quite some time on the vellum before its removal was attempted, otherwise I'm not sure it would have seeped through so well.

I agree with that.  The book was closed without cleaning the stains, and it was some time before someone attempted to clean them.  

But would not take long for an oil to seep through the vellum and stain the adjacent folios.   A day or two would be enough; maybe only a few hours 

Quote:it wouldn't easily dry up and come off even after a few centuries

It obviously was dry and gone when the owner decided to retrace the lost text.

Quote:I'm not sure I can see any difference [between the alleged "watery" and "oily" cmponents] other than the amount in the stains from f103r, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f104r.

The difference is how the two components interact with the vellum.  Everywhere in the manuscript, ink traces and painted areas have sharp borders, meaning that that the water-based ink and paint stays put where it is laid down.  It does not soak into the vellum. Not even when there is so much paint that it forms a pool that leaves characteristic darker edges as it dries out.  

The only exception I can remember is the bad spot near the NE corner of f112r, which the Scribe avoided when he saw the ink flare out (line 1).  

And in fact vellum is lightly coated with powdered resin to ensure that it behaves like that. 

And, indeed, it seems that one component of that stuff that spilled onto f102v-f104r did stay put, creating the darker part of the stains, with smooth sharp edges (especially the smaller stain on f103v-f104r.  Which is also where the darker specks are seen.  Whereas another component easily soaked into the vellum and spread out creating the lighter fuzzy halos.

A small amount of the watery component may have seeped trough f103, creating the smaller irregular slightly darker area above the center of the big stain on f103v.  Maybe it was forced through by the pressure of the closed book. The ink in that area looks like it was partly erased too.  But even within that smaller area the texture of the vellum is clearly visible, so what remains of the stuff is mostly the "oily" component soaked into the vellum -- not a film sitting on top of it. 

Quote:it can enter the pores of the vellum

The oily component, yes.  

Quote:so it is physically attached to the body of the vellum

Again, I see no sign of any film sitting on the surface of the vellum.  Only the "oily" component soaked into the vellum.

Quote:I'm not sure it would have seeped through so well. It's quite possible there was no way to clean it at all without destroying the vellum itself.

What was still left on the surface of the vellum seems to have been carefully and completely removed by mopping it up, possibly after moistening it.  I see no sign of wiping; presumably the person was aware that the writing was water-sensitive and would be destroyed by wiping. (Which is what I believe happened on f116v.)  

The vellum itself, however, does not seem to have been affected.  It should resist even energetic rubbing, even when wet.  And the ink would have resisted too, if it was IGI...

Quote:Looking at the stain I actually remember red candles we used to have when I was a kid, we would occasionally use them when there was no electricity. No idea what they were made of, but if you dripped the melted candle on your clothes, it would leave a nontransparent red stain that was impossible to remove without damaging the clothes.

The red stuff in those candles was either a oil-soluble dye mixed with some white pigment to bring out its color, or some red insoluble pigment.  Either way, the melted paraffin would have carried the coloring substance into the cloth, in the spaces between the fibers.  

Paraffin stains, colored or not, are notoriously hard to remove because paraffin is not emulsified by laundry detergents, like oils and soft greases are.  To remove them one must dissolve the paraffin with a suitable solvent like gasoline, then wick the stuff out by covering the stain with flour or starch until dry.   At some point there were products on sale for that purpose, basically a paste of starch and solvent.

Quote:a lot of food stains are extremely hard to clean from clothes, sometimes impossible without strong chemicals, and would easily mask prints on clothes.

The main culprit there are usually the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., that give tomatoes and bell peppers their color. They are soluble in oil but insoluble in water.  They are probably what  gives those VMS stains their orange color, too.  They won't come off easily because they seem to bind chemically with some stuff, even plastics; so they stain fibers of clothing a bit like cloth dyes do -- but not that strongly.   However, their stains are almost one molecule thick, not opaque films.  I don't recall whether they are sensitive to bleach.  

Quote:As a wise man said a few posts back,

Quote:AFAIK there is no non-destructive test that would positively identify iron-gall ink on a manuscript.

So you admit that there is no evidence in the McCrone report that justifies the claim that the VMS ink is IGI?

Quote:vellum (or parchment, if vellum has its Pluto moment now),

Until the early 1900s, the definitions were very clear: parchment was sheep/goat skin, vellum was calf skin.  But determining the material of old documents could be done only by experts who could distinguish the two by their look and feel.

But after chemical methods became available, it was found that many of those previous identifications were incorrect.  

By a totally unrelated coincidence, the experts now agree that "parchment" and "vellum" are synonymous terms for writing material made from any animal skin.

The little devil on my left shoulder predicts that, in a few years, the experts will agree that "iron-gall ink" means any black or dark brown ink on old manuscripts, whatever its composition...   

All the best, --stolfi

(27-04-2026, 02:02 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So you admit that there is no evidence in the McCrone report that justifies the claim that the VMS ink is IGI?

I admit that I have absolutely no idea how to interpret evidence presented in McCrone report. I have absolutely no idea how to determine if some writing is in iron gall ink or not. I have very primitive understanding of spectroscopy (or spectrography, I don't even know which it is). So, for me the only safe way is to rely on their conclusions, unless someone else with relevant experience runs some tests and challenges these conclusions.

I also do not really take second-hand analysis for granted when it comes to material objects, so pulling the numbers from McCrone report and reinterpreting them or analysis of the ink based on MSI images will never be conclusive to me by themselves, unless we know for sure what exactly was done. Who knows what combination of lighting, filters and processing was employed in producing these "940nm" images and how it could affect the contrast of the ink.

It is possible to say that the folio numbers ink behaves differently in IR compared to the text ink and does remain very visible in 940nm images, while the marginalia ink behaves the same as the text ink. Also for the retraced daiin on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. the retraced part remains quite visible in 940nm, so maybe this is a later retracing. Or maybe two layers of ink produce just enough contrast to become visible in 940nm.

(27-04-2026, 10:36 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But I think the actual question is whether the ink is overwhelmingly original or massively retraced. MRT requires non iron-gall ink, because this would explain how it could fade over and over again to allow for serial retracing. For people that deny the existence of MRT in the text and see the ink as original and mostly legible after 600 years, the most likely explanation is that the ink is iron gall based.

Ah, so that is why you are so keen on the ink being IGI.

MRT does not require the ink to have any particular composition.  It assumes only that the ink had faded substantially by ~1630, to a point that threatened to make the text illegible.  

And the ink obviously has faded in many places, to the point of invisibility.  That is not a deduction from some theory about the ink's composition: it is just an objective observation.

And, actually, it was that observation that led me to wonder whether the ink was indeed IGI.  Not the other way around.

All the best, --stolfi

(27-04-2026, 02:02 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What do you mean by "sealant"?  And pigments are dry powders; do you mean "paint"?

By sealant I mean any kind of material that can be used to make things water tight, any kind of tar or sealing wax. By pigments I meant paints, yes.

Quote:There is no film.  The texture of the vellum is clearly visible and unbroken across all those stains.  Some of  the stuff may have remained trapped at the bottom of the pores of of the vellum, but the orangish color of the stains is mainly due to stuff that soaked into it while liquid.

This is not the way I see it. To me it looks like the vellum is covered in something. I don't think we can tell without a macro image.

(27-04-2026, 02:54 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Ah, so that is why you are so keen on the ink being IGI.

I think you believe for some reason that I'm on a mission to fight MRT. I'm not on a mission, but my hobby is about sorting what we know from what we don't know. Here I insist that we don't know that "the ink is NOT iron gall". You have a lot of weight in the Voynich MS community, so when you state something as a fact, but which appears to me very dubious, I would likely try to understand why.

Quote:MRT does not require the ink to have any particular composition.  It assumes only that the ink had faded substantially by ~1630, to a point that threatened to make the text illegible.  

And the ink obviously has faded in many places, to the point of invisibility.  That is not a deduction from some theory about the ink's composition: it is just an objective observation.

We know that it's faint, we don't know exactly when and how it became faint. If there was some flaw to the ink from the beginning it's quite possible that some parts just didn't react with the vellum well enough and never got to darken. I'd say this just looks like very poorly mixed ink and/or poorly prepared surface of the vellum.

There are many different factors to consider.
I’m currently working on it.
There are two different types of iron gall ink. It takes at least two weeks to make; if it’s not left to age long enough, it will appear paler.
When is gum arabic needed, and when isn’t it?
Starting with Greek and Egyptian inks.

Jorge, when do you assume such a tomato / bell pepper spill happened? Both vegetables were uncommon as food in middle Europe until the late 18th to early 19th century. They were somewhat earlier adopted in Spain and Southern Italy, but not by much. The earliest tomato sauce recipe is from Italy around 1700. I would call the hypothesis that a tomato / bell pepper spill happened before the VM got to Rome in 1665 - exotic. And before 1800 - unlikely. In 16th - 17th century Bohemia, while the VM was there, those were exotic curiosities and ornamentals at best, but no crop. I assume the fruit would not have ripened reliably during the Little Ice Age 16th-19th century. Even nowadays cultivation in the open without a greenhouse is a gamble in Middle Europe. As for a pre-bohemian 15th century spill - no way. If it happened earlier, it was something else. Pumpkin perhaps?