(26-09-2020, 08:34 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In both old and new scans, the edge of folio 8 throws shadow upon the underlying folio, which means they are not pressed to each other. If they were, there would have been no shadow.
There would have been no shadow, but the gap between the ink marks would not become smaller.
If anything, through the camera perspective, it could become marginally bigger.
I made some experiments creating my own bifolios and mimicking the process that I suggested. It appears that this is all a bit complicated.
Supposing that the quire marks are left after the quire binding (stitching) was done, three things lead to the shift of the written part in the upper folio in respect of the part in the lower folio:
1) The binding loosens (or the quire is rebound), leading to the inner bifolio shifting sidewards from the outer bifolio.
2) The binding loosens (or the quire is rebound), leading to the inner bifolio shifting downwards from the outer bifolio.
3) The upper folio gets excessively contorted (e.g. due to the aging)
If all three factors act at once, their effect is accumulating to the same direction.
Clause 2) will additionally leave an y-axis gap between the two parts (we observe the y-axis gap in Q1 and Q3 marks (but not in Q15)).
However, in all three cases the upper part will shift towards the binding. This is what we see in Q3 and Q15. In Q1 the shift is in the opposite direction - outwards from the binding. I was not able to explain this so far. Maybe there's a local downward curvature of f8 in this place.
At the bottom of the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. page are the remnants of a plant outline. I matched the fold at 37r with the fold at 38v and was surprised that the 38v cutoff coordinates of the flower matched the outline at 37r.
Could this be true?
[attachment=4845]
I don't think it's a good match between the two, but these marks on You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. are interesting. Note that they do not protrude to the edge of the folio.
I suppose it is possible to have lain the flower folio over the other one and gone over the top edge. Funny how the creases line up, but otherwise is a random place, if it is the same crease, the folios were not cut vertically in the same places. Maybe they caught on each other. Doesnt have to be the same crease for that to occur. So my guess is that it is two pieces from a larger skin, but they were already cut when that happened, and then there was further trimming, as the flower has even less of a top now. The bit to the right has a different opacity, does seem to extend nearer to the edge, but doesnt correspond with the flower, so not sure what is going on there, maybe it is from the bottom of another, laid directly on top?
By the way did anyone ever contact the biocodicology people that are working on the dna database for vellum from eraser crumbs? Seems to me this case would be interesting to test to see if it is the same skin. Plus if enough pages were tested i think we would gain other answers (possibly to questions not yet asked)