+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich Talk (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings (/thread-4740.html)
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings - oshfdk - 19-12-2025
(19-12-2025, 01:49 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The retracing inside the stain used broad strokes and dark ink similar to that of the retouching pass Rt2 on other pages. However, the person who tried to fix this damage (RtX) may have been a separate Retracer distinct from the retracings of other pages.
Unlike the general restorer Rt1, RtX retraced the glyphs that had been less affected by the spill. Note that he refrained from fixing some glyphs that are still quite legible, like © and (D), and incorrectly restored others, like (E) and (F). This indicates that RtX did not know the Voynichese alphabet.
BTW, I think here I agree with your analysis. Looking at (E) it appears likely that this scribe was not familiar with the script or had little experience writing it. This happened to me all the time when I tried writing Voynichese, I would write aii as something like Latin all/aii. Also of note is that the retracer didn't touch up individual strokes, but redrew the whole glyphs, this is what I would expect from any person retracing damaged text.
But by now I'm so much accustomed to challenging your statements, so this would feel incomplete without some nitpicking. Here goes:
(19-12-2025, 01:49 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Note that he refrained from fixing some glyphs that are still quite legible
The fact that they are legible now doesn't mean they were legible when the stain was fresh. I don't think whatever stew this was, it was designed for visual stability over the centuries. It could be initially much more saturated in color and blended with the ink much better. Maybe it's only now that it's completely dry and aged, we can finally see these traces of ink again.
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings - Jorge_Stolfi - 22-12-2025
Page f70v1 (Aries) to a Superior Pareidologist is LSD to a schizophrenic:
This image shows the whole diagram on page f70v1, assumed to be the first (Dark) half of the Aries sign.
This false-color RGB image was derived from the Lazarus Team 2016 multi-spectral scans by using the 870 nm infrared (011), 700 nm infrared (008), and 365 nm ultraviolet (007) as the red, green, and blue channels, respectively. The samples in each channel were linearly scaled with factors chosen to make the vellum nearly light gray. No other processing was applied.
This page shows at least four and maybe six layers of ink writing and drawing, not counting the month name at the center. They can be distinguished by the hue of the ink in these images. Basically, ink that looks yellow here absorbs UV but is mostly transparent in both IR wavelengths; ink that looks red absorbs UV and 700 nm IR but is mostly transparent for 870 nm IR. Ink that looks brown or black absorbs all wavelengths to significant amounts.
The original traces (Rt0) are few and very faint yellow. They include the thinnest and smoothest parts of the circles, that were drawn with a compass, and some "ghost" traces on the nymph outlines. The general restoration pass (Rt1) has wider traces of a stronger yellow. Then there were maybe two distinct passes that retraced most of the text: Rt2 with orange-brown ink, and Rt3 with slightly darker ink. A single word in the inner text, at 12:00, seems to be in an even darker ink (Rt4). And finally there are the interventions of the so-called Boobs Retracer (Rt5), with a reddish orange color. (All these color specs refer to this false-color image, not to the actual colors of the physical book.) Besides the characteristic focus on certain details of the nymphs' anatomy, Rt5 also added details to the dresses, such as collars and cuffs.
As usual, the assignment of each detail to one of these passes is uncertain because the thickness of the ink in the trace can affect its apparent hue. In fact, layers Rt3 and Rt4 may well be a single pass. The ink of the month's name here looks similar to the Rt2 ink, but may be yet another separate layer (RtX). Beware that traces change color when they are covered by paint, including the light yellow one used on the hair of some nymphs and in the star cores.
Some parts of the circles were retraced freehand by Rt2, who also seems to have retraced the goat's outline. The ground under the goat, however, seem to be Rt1. The nymphs in the outer band between 06:30 and 09:30 are in Rt1 ink with Rt5 touches. The other nymphs are Rt2 with Rt5 touches. All five layers Rt0-Rt4 occur on the text rings and labels.
More detailed annotations of a few individual nymphs will be posted later.
All the best, --stolfi
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings - Jorge_Stolfi - 23-12-2025
I SEE DEAD NYMPHS!
Actually, only dead legs. Specifically, on f70v1, inner band, nymph at 12:00:
About this page
Page f70v1, "Aries I" is the first of the two Zodiac diagrams ostensibly associated with the "Aries" sign and the month of April. It was formerly nicknamed the "Aries Dark", because of the goat's appearance on older B&W scans. The diagram is framed by six concentric circles, here named C1 to C6 from outside in.
The tracing and retracing history of this page seems quite complex. I can see at least four and maybe six passes or layers of ink writing and drawing, not counting the month name at the center. For the sake of discussion I will assume six layers, Rt0 (original) to Rt5 (the "Boobs Retracer"), plus the month name, RtX.
In theory, the layers can be distinguished by the width of the traces and by the hue of the ink, both on the BL 2014 scans and/or on false-color images like the one above. As usual, the assignment of each detail to one of these passes is uncertain because the thickness of the ink in the trace can affect its apparent hue. In fact, layers Rt3 and Rt4 may be the same, and possibly they are also the same as Rt2. Beware that traces change color when they are covered by paint, including the light yellow one used on the hair of some nymphs and in the star cores and the red applied to the cheeks and lips of the nymphs. The order of application of layers Rt4 and Rt5 is also uncertain.
On this page, some parts of the circles were retraced freehand by Rt2. The outlines of the nymphs included here seem to be mostly Rt2 with some later touches. All five layers Rt0-Rt4 occur on the text rings and labels.
More specifically, on this page, as on many other pages, the original traces (Rt0) are few and very faint. They include the thinnest and smoothest parts of the circles, that were drawn with a compass; some "ghost" traces on the nymph outlines; and some bits on the text and labels. The general restoration pass (Rt1) used wider traces and a more visible ink, and presumably retraced most of the text and an unknown fraction of the figure outlines. Passes Rt2 and Rt3, with darker ink, retraced again large parts of the text. A single word in the inner text right seems to be in an even darker ink (Rt4). And finally there are the interventions of the so-called Boobs Retracer (Rt5), with the darkes ink overall. Besides the characteristic focus on certain details of the nymphs' anatomy, Rt5 also added some details to the dresses, such as collars and cuffs, and to the tubs.
About this clip
This clip from page f70v1 covers the nymph at 12:00 in the inner band of the diagram, between circles C4 and C5 (Miss okoly), as well as some bits of text.
This false-color RGB image was derived from the multispectral scans by using the 870 nm infrared (011), 700 nm infrared (008),and 365 nm ultraviolet (007) as the red, green, and blue channels, respectively. The original TIFF images apparently used a linear encoding of physical brightness with between 10 and 12 usable bits per pixel. For this image, the samples in each channel were linearly scaled with factors chosen to yield a nearly light gray color on the blank vellum. No other processing was applied.
With these choices, ink that looks yellow here absorbs UV but is mostly transparent in both IR wavelengths; ink that looks red absorbs UV and 700 nm IR but is mostly transparent for 870 nm IR. Ink that looks brown or black absorbs all these wavelengths to significant amounts.
On this image, the original traces (Rt0) are few and very faint, with a canary yellow hue. The general restoration pass (Rt1) used wider traces, with ink that here are a more intense shade of golden yellow. The re-retracing passe Rt2 used an orange-brown ink, and the next pass Rt3 used slightly darker ink. The ink of the Boobs Retracer (Rt5) here has a dark reddish orange color. (All these color specs refer to this false-color image, not to the actual colors of the physical book.)
The white circles are displaced by 1mm inwards or outwards from the exact circles that best fit the actual circles C3, C4, and C5. Note that the actual C3 deviates noticeably outwards from the ideal circle, and C5 is double-traced.
(0a) Parts of the original (Rt0) mechanical circles. (0b) This bit of the diagonal band is probably Rt0; the rest has been retraced on multiple passes. (0c) Tiny bit of Rt0 in a gap of Rt1 retracing. (0d) Bits of Rt0 and Rt1 traces are seen in the top part of the hair outline,below the Rt2-Rt4 retraces. (0e) The original mechanical circle C5 has a double trace here, possibly due to less than solid compass or blunt central point.
(1a) This side of the tub is Rt1 below this point, and Rt2 above it. (1b) The outer rim and the right side of the tub are Rt1. (1c) The right arm of the nymph is Rt1, with a bit of Rt5. (1d) The breast and armpit(?) of this nymph are probably Rt1, maybe some Rt2 on the left side. (1e) The edges of the diagonal band are Rt1 retraces of Rt0 originals. Some of the dots are Rt1, while other dots and the rungs are Rt2 or later. There is at least one bit of the lower edge of the band that seems to be original (Rt0).
(2a) This a seems to be Rt2, while the rest of this word is Rt4. (2b) These two glyphs are Rt2 or Rt3. (2c) The outlines of the right arm and hair of the nymph are Rt2. (2d,2e) These vertical sides of the tub, that make it look like it is made of transparent glass, may have been added by Rt2. No Rt0 or Rt1 under-tracing of these lines is clearly visible. (2f) The star and its tail are mostly Rt2 (or Rt1?), except for a few Rt3 rays.
(3a) part of circle C2 retraced free-hand by Rt2 or Rt3, and deviates noticeably from the ideal circle. (3b) Parts of the star's outline retraced by Rt3. (3c) This part of the inner branch of C5 was retraced freehand by Rt3. (3d,3e) The lower parts of the inner walls of the tub were retraced by Rt3. Note that the CCW wall stops at the inner branch of C5, while the CW wall stops at the outer branch.
(4a) This word, here assigned to layer Rt4, used an ink similar to that of Rt5, but conspicuous dark particles. It may be Rt5 ink, with the particles included by stirring.
(5a) These details were added or retraced by Rt5.
(Xa,Xb,Xc,Xd) These designs on the tub may have been the legs and feet of this nymph. See the Discussion setion below.
Discussion
The style of the nymphs strongly suggests that this was one of the first Zodiac pages to be created; possibly the very first one, preceding even the Pisces page. Moreover, the nymph at 12:00 is probably the first one that was drawn on this page, and the first on this 15-nymph layout.
While the designs on the tubs of other nymphs look like normal decoration, those on the 12:00 tub are quite strange. Here is a possible explanation for them.
It is proposed that the Scribe initially did not intend to add any tubs, and his first drawing of this nymph had very sketchy legs and feet, short and squarish, which survive as two of the three reverse-L shapes -- (Xa,Xb), or perhaps (Xa,Xc) -- in the tub's decoration. Note that the horz lines of (Xc) extend across the diagonal band: the top one becomes the bottom of (Xb), and the bottom one becomes a dashed line (Xd). The figure may have looked like the inset.
Then the Scribe realized that it was just too ugly to have that figure standing in mid-air, so he "invented" the tub as a way to hide the blunder of the legs and to have the nymph solidly supported by the "floor" (the inner circle C5). The legs and feet then were turned into decoration on the tub's outer wall, and the bits that crossed the tub's outline were erased. Then the Scribe himself, or later retracers, added the diagonal band and an additional L-shape, (Xc) or (Xb).
main()
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings - Jorge_Stolfi - 23-12-2025
Presenting THE NYMPH version 2.0!
See the preceding post for general comments about this page.
About this clip
This clip of f70v1 ("Aries I" or "Aries Dark") covers the nymph in the inner band of the diagram, between circles C[4] and C[5], at 10:30 (Miss okoly), as well as some labels and circular text words.
This false-color RGB image was derived from the multi-spectral scans by using the 870 nm infrared (011), 700 nm infrared (008),and 365 nm ultraviolet (007) as the red, green, and blue channels, respectively. The original TIFF images apparently used a linear encoding of physical brightness with between 10 and 12 usable bits per pixel. For this image, the samples in each channel were linearly scaled with factors chosen to yield light gray color on the blank vellum areas. No other processing was applied.
With these choices, ink that looks yellow here absorbs UV but is mostly transparent in both IR wavelengths; ink that looks red absorbs UV and 700 nm IR but is mostly transparent for 870 nm IR. Ink that looks brown or black absorbs all wavelengths to significant amounts.
On this image, the original traces (Rt0) are few and very faint, with a canary yellow hue. The general restoration pass (Rt1) used wider traces, with ink that here are a more intense shade of golden yellow. The re-retracing passe Rt2 used an orange-brown ink, and the next pass Rt3 used slightly darker ink. The ink of the Boobs Retracer (Rt5) here has a dark reddish orange color. (All these color specs refer to this false-color image, not to the actual colors of the physical book.)
The white circles are displaced by 1mm inwards or outwards from the exact circles that best fit the actual circles C3, C4, and C5. Note that the actual C3 deviates noticeably outwards from the ideal circle.
(0a) This part of a mechanical circle is probably original (Rt0). (0b) The original inner outline of the nymph's arm, still Rt0. (0c) Abrupt transition along side of tub, between Rt0 above this point and Rt1 below. (0d) Rt0 bit on hairline of nymph. (0e) Abrupt transition from Rt2 to Rt0 along the tail. (0f) Orignal outer outline of the nymph's left arm, still Rt0. (0g) Rt0 bit along the outer outline of the nymph's right arm.
(1a) The tip of the left leg is Rt0 or Rt1, the rest is Rt3. (1b) This Ch has Rt1 ligature and Rt3 e strokes. (1c) This glyph was originally e and the Rt0 or Rt1 ghost of the upper half can still be seen. The glyph was turned into an i by Rt2 or Rt3. (1d) This side of the tub is Rt2 below this point, and Rt1 above it.
(2a) This s glyph has an Rt3 body and an Rt2 plume. (2b) abrupt transition from Rt2 (below this point) to Rt3 (above) on the CCW side of the tub. (2c) abrupt transition from Rt3 to Rt2 along tail.
(3a) This o glyph seems to be Rt3, while the following t is Rt2. (3b) This word is Rt3, except the tip of the l that is Rt1, and the tip of its tail, which may be Rt0 or Rt1. (3d) This word is Rt3 except for the tip of the left leg of the k which is Rt1. (3e,3f) "internal walls" added by Rt3 on both sides of tub, as if it was transparent. (3g,3h) The "robot tentacle" outline is Rt3, possibly retraced over Rt1. See the Discussion below. (3i) Inner outline of the left arm, retraced by Rt1-Rt3 as if it was the outline of belly and left leg. (3j) The star is mostly Rt3, except for a few Rt5 touches.
(4a) These two glyphs seem to be Rt4.
(5a) Rt5 touches on the star outline. (5b) Rt5 retrace of the tail of the star. (5c) a "cuff" added to the tentacle by Rt5. (5d) These details were added or retraced by Rt5.
Discussion
This nymph is probably the second one that was drawn on this page, after the inner 12:00 of the preceding post. See the discussion in that post for a proposed explanation of the origin of the tubs.
According to that theory, by the time the Scribe got to this nymph, he had already decided to have each nymph coming out from a tub, planted on circle C4.
In the original version, the stars probably did not have tails; these were probably added by some Retracer, to uniformize this diagram with those of other signs. However, on this page most nymphs, including this one, have both hands inside the tub. Possibly one of the Retracers misunderstood the drawing, mistaking the nymph's (quite non-anatomical) left arm for her shoulder and torso. Anyway it seems that he decided to "fix" this nymph by adding a tentacle-like "arm" that sprouted from her neck, followed the curve of her left arm for a while, then bent up to hold the star. That Retracer, or subsequent ones, then added stripes across the tentacle, turning it into a "robot tentacle" These "rungs" on the tentacle are Rt5 retraces, but a few bits of Rt2 layer survive.
The first version of the tentacle may have been a single line, like the tails of other stars; it does not make sense otherwise. Note that this primeval tail starts at (5b) as the lower edge of the "tentacle", but crosses it under the dark Rt5 "cuff" (5c), and continues as the upper edge of the tentacle.
All the best, --stolfi
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings - Jorge_Stolfi - 27-12-2025
Hallucinating in the water park!
On page f75r, the "Water Slide"
This clip spans an area near the top center of page f75r, including some of the nymphs on the "water slide" (2 to 5 from top to bottom) and the text in the "island" at left, possibly containing nymph labels.
The evidence of retracing on the text is limited to incomplete retracing of a few tails and plumes, plumes retraced in the wrong direction, and sudden dark-light ink transitions between glyphs or strokes. On the drawings there is more evidence, including more bits of probable original (Rt0) traces, now very faint, and garbled retracings or additions, especially of the details characteristic of the "Boobs Retracer". We assume here two rounds of retracing: the general restoration Rt1, and a second retouching pass Rt2.
(A1) abrupt transition from Rt1 glyph to Rt0 tail. (A2) incomplete retracing of q's tail. (A3) Lower half of plume may be original; the top half is slowly retraced (Rt1 or Rt2). (A4) Incomplete retracing of Rt0 glyph - lower half of plume, bit of ligature, lower end of second e.
(B1) Probably original (Rt0) trace of the outline. Note the abrupt transitions to darker traces at both ends. (B2) Original Rt0 traces on face and arm of nymph. (B3) Rt0 eye, redrawn or complemented by Rt1 with another dash a bit lower down. (B4) imperfect retracing of Rt0 lower edge of left arm, and surviving Rt0 traces of armpit and torso outline. (B5) possibly original pond outline, apparently erased. Perhaps because it was not compatible with the Rt1 vertical hatching on the adjacent pond wall? (B6) The lower row of hatch lines may be Rt0. The upper tier by have been added by Rt1 or Rt2.
(J1) Example of Rt1 traces.
(K1) Eye augmented or re-positioned by Rt1 or Rt2.
(Q1) Example of Rt2 traces.
(R1) Imperfect retrace of RT0/Rt1 by Rt2. (R2) Foot of nymph turned into hand by Rt2. (R3) The "shower-caps" (scalloped headbands or tiaras) were probably added by Rt2. (R4) "Transparent" right breast added by Rt2. (R5) Nonsensical Rt2 retracing of the far side of the channel's edge, that connects tho the pool outline below the channel's mouth, instead of above it. (R6) Impossible "ribbon" arm probably mangled (or entirely added) by Rt2. (R7) "Claw" hand probably added by Rt1.
(X1,X2) There may have been original traces in this area (flow lines or ripples?), erased by the painting. (X3) There seem to be faint ink traces here, obliterated by the paint. (X4) The brown edge of painted area suggests that ink was loosened by liquid paint and carried away by it to the edges of the paint puddle.
The inset shows my guess at what the drawing originally looked like, before the paint and the Retracer in(ter)ventions. Every part of it (like the ladle) is just one of infinitely many possibilities; and there may have been several other things in the pond, now lost. The "spartan" style of the nymphs is based on that of those Zodiac nymphs that were not "improved" by the Retracers.
Needless to say, all statements above should be implicitly prefixed with "I think that" etc.
All the best, --stolfi
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings - Jorge_Stolfi - 29-12-2025
Did you know that brussels sprouts are hallucinogenic?
Neither did I.
From page f35v, the newly named "Brussels Sprouts" plant:
This clip covers most of the stem of the plant on page f35v. (The image is rotated 90 degrees clockwise so that it will fit on my screen.)
On this clip I can discern at least three layers of ink tracing/retracing: the original traces (Rt0), quite faint now; one pass of retracing (Rt1) that redid many parts of the original outlines; and a second pass (Rt2) that retouched a few spots.
(A0,B0) Examples of original traces (Rt0).
(A1) Example of first retracing pass (Rt1).
(A2) Example of seconds retracing pass (Rt2).
© abrupt transition between Rt0 and Rt1 traces. (D) abrupt transition between Rt0 and Rt2 traces. (E) Abrupt transition from Rt1 to Rt2.
(F0,G0) Original Rt0 traces of the two branches, or maybe pencil sketches. (H0) Imperfect Rt1 retracing of Rt0 trace. (I0) Rt0 trace showing intended depth order of the branches.
(J1,K1) Impossible insertion of branch into stem by Rt1. (L1,M1,N1) Misaligned parts of a branch. (P1,Q1) Impossible crossings of Rt1 outline.
(Q2) Example of second retracing pass (Rt2) trace.
Discussion
There are several illogical details in this drawing that might be explained, at least in part, by misunderstanding of the Retracers.
First, in the current version of this drawing, two of the branches seem to pierce through the stem at (J1) and (K1). However, faint traces (A3,A4) that extend the outlines of the branches beyond their insertion points, as if the stem was transparent. One possible explanation is that, on the original drawing, the projections of the branches just crossed in front of the stem, without them really crossing in three dimensions. But when Rt1 retraced the outlines, he made some mistakes that were incompatible with the original arrangement. To disguise his mistake, he added the insertion cuts (J1,K1) and made the branches went through the stem.
Another incongruous detail is the misalignment between the two parts of the branch at (L1,M1,N1) that is supposed to cross the stem from behind. Either the original Scribe or the Rt1 retracer mistakenly drew (L1) aligned, leaving (M1) and (N1) off. That the branch (L1,M1,N1) was supposed to cross behind the stem is indicated by the Rt0 line (I0). It is possible that Rt1 misunderstood the spatial arrangement of the branches and retraced them as if they joined at (I0), forming a biologically impossible loop..
Finally, at the points (P1) and (Q1), the Rt1 traces of the branches and leaves cross as if either was transparent. Presumably the Rt0 version had the branches in front of the leaves, but Rt1 carelessly retraced the leaves without caring for the branches.
All the best, --stolfi
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings - Jorge_Stolfi - 31-12-2025
The 4 x 17 hallucinations!
From f57v:
This image is a mosaic of clips from page f57v, notable for the sequence 17 signs repeated 4 times in text ring R2 (second from outside in). Some of these signs look like normal Voynichese glyphs, including the v and the "picnic table" x, which are rare elsewhere. Some occur only here, in R2 and possibly in other text rings.
At least three layers of tracing and retracing are visible on this page. The original traces (Rt0) are extremely faint, and may have entirely vanished from some places. See (A1,B1,B2,B3,B4,B5,B6) below. The general restoration pass Rt1 retraced practically all the text and good part of the figure outlines,with light grayish ink. See (J1,J2) below. Another pass, Rt2, retouched only some strokes and bits of outline, with significantly darker ink. See (Q1,Q2,Q3) below.
It has long been observed that the repetition of the 17 signs in R2 is not exact: some copies of some signs differ from one set of 17 to the next one. See (B3,S1,S2,S3,K1,K2) Those differences could all be explained by mistakes of the Retracers.
In the image, rows 1-4 are the four sets of 17 signs in ring R2, copied clockwise from the o immediately after the wide gap and double radial line at ~10:30. The last row has some glyphs from other rings, mainly R3 and R4, and a bit of the arm of the S "angel" (clip 79). The signs were all rotated so that the radial direction on the page is vertical on the image.
(A1) Typical Rt0 trace.
(B1) Incomplete retracing of Rt0 tail by Rt1/Rt2. (B2) This mini-y is Rt1, except the distal part of the tail which is Rt0. (B3) This "claw" weirdo is Rt1 except for a very faint Rt0 line between the "wrist" and the "thumbnail", which is invisible in the other four copies (29,46,64,81). (B4) This d is Rt2, except for the NW part of the lowr loop which is Rt0. (B5) This y is Rt1, except the distal part of the tail which is Rt0. (B6) The Rt0 lower part of the weirdo's leg, practically invisible, was missed by Rt1 and Rt2.
(J1) Example of Rt1 retrace. (J2) Rt1 retraces, themselves quite faded.
(K1) This I is partly Rt1 (the @i stroke) and partly Rt2 (ligature). It is not clear whether it was I or C in Rt0. (K2) The Rt0 of this glyph may have been either I or C, but was mangled by Rt1 into "neither". (K3) Unidentifiable glyph mangled by Rt1. (K4) An a mangled by Rt1.
(Q1,Q2) Examples of Rt2 traces. (Q3) The whole glyph was retraced by Rt2, slowly, probably clockwise on the plume.
(P1) This o is half Rt1, half Rt2. (P2) This o is Rt1 with a small bit of Rt2 at SSE. (P3) Each of these x is Rt1 except for the W leg that is Rt2.
(R1,R2) Each of these r was Rt1 but then the distal half of the plume was retraced (clockwise) by Rt2. (R3) This r was Rt1 but then the lower half of the body (imperfectly) and the distal half of the plume (clockwise) were retraced by Rt2. (R4) The r was retraced by Rt1, probably with only half the plume, looking like an I. Then Rt2 supplied a silly stub (clockwise) for the missing half of the plume.
(S1) This d was turned into a j by Rt2 (and maybe Rt1). (S2) These two loops are Rt2, and may not have existed in Rt0. (S3) Rt2 mangled this weirdo by inserting an extra loop where there was a sharp 90° corner and turning the last loop into a separate closed curve.
As usual, assume "I think that" or "My best guess is that" before each claim above.
All the best, --stolfi
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings - Bluetoes101 - 31-12-2025
Retracing to one side, seeing the last symbol like this makes me wonder if we have a symbol between r and n
There's a fair few r in the manuscript transliterations that the modifications start in the middle rather than the top (though much more rare)
A while back I noted a French document that seemed to have many repeating daiin it was a legal document listing all of someone's possessions to be taken into account. It was identified as dautre, though the d also showed some uncertain spacing like daiin because I believe it is technically d'autre. - Post - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
We would be missing the flick, but I wonder if modification placement is relevant to the glyphs in a similar way, like if we have r n then maybe the middle is t (or just "different to") and not a poorly placed r modifier.
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings - Jorge_Stolfi - 31-12-2025
(31-12-2025, 10:56 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.makes me wonder if we have a symbol between r and n ... There's a fair few r in the manuscript transliterations that the modifications start in the middle rather than the top (though much more rare)
I believe that the Author conceived the r glyph as consisting of two separate pen strokes, one for the i body (from top to bottom) and another for the plume (from the top of the i, starting towards NE and going counterclockwise, with gradually reducing pressure). (I believe that s was supposed to be the same, only with an e body instead of i.)
And I believe that the n was conceived by the Author as two separate pen strokes too, drawn the same way; only with the plume starting at the bottom of the i rather than at the top. That would result in a sharp ~90 degree corner at the bottom. However, there is no need to lift the pen between the two strokes. So in practice the n got drawn as a single stroke, resulting in a rounded corner at the bottom. When drawn with little care, the i stroke further morphed into an e, and thus the n became a b.
So my criterion for distinguishing the two glyphs is whether they were originally drawn in one stroke (which I read as n) or two strokes (which I read as r). If the latter, I don't care whether the the plume starts at the top of the i, of somewhat lower than that; I accept that as normal handwriting variation. And I tend to view b not as a distinct glyph, but only as a variant of n in sloppy handwriting.
All the best, --stolfi
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings - Jorge_Stolfi - 01-01-2026
Hallucinating about queens (2-5)!
From f80r, the "Bathing Queens" page of Bio:
This clip from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (nicknamed "Bathing Queens") comprises nymphs 2-5 of the group at the top of the page (Misses olchdy, okaly, okolo, and okary), as well as the left half of lines 1-6 of the text.
This page seems to have had a rather complex history. Only a few bits of the original (Rt0) traces can be seen, and they are very faint, almost invisible; see (a1,A2,A3,A4,B1) below.
Then there seems to have been at least one, but possibly two later restoration passes where almost all of the texts and a good deal of the figure outlines were carefully retraced. I will assume two passes, Rt1 and Rt2, as a working hypothesis, but they may have been just one pass. On the BL 201 scans, the Rt1 traces are light grayish brown, while the Rt2 traces are medium to dark brown. The latter vary in darkness as expected from the normal ink flow dynamics (suddenly dark after recharging the pen, then progressively lighter for a line or two). Then there was a third pass, Rt3, with nearly black ink, that acted mostly outside this clip, but did make a couple of interventions here; see (X1,X2) below.
The Rt1 and/or Rt2 retraces may have "improved" the nymphs by adding breasts, nipples, belly buttons, and probably even arms that were missing originally. The inset image shows my guess at what those nymphs looked like originally, based on the visible remains of Rt0 traces and the appearance of the most "pristine" nymphs in the Zodiac pages. It is quite possible that they were more elaborate than that, say with the crowns/diadems, and the pool's edge; however, there are no definite Rt0 traces of those details.
(A1,A3) Original (Rt0) armpit, incorrectly retraced by Rt1. (A2) Rt0 outline of face. Rt1 and Rt2 mistook a hair curl as the face outline and retraced it as such. (A4) Rt0 outline of the nymph's buttocks and thigh, incorrectly retraced by Rt2; see (S5).
(B1) The bottom half of this plume is Rt0. (B2) This part of the f loop may be Rt0.
(J1,J2,J3,J4) Incongruent Rt1/Rt2 traces.
(K1) There doesn't seem to be any visible Rt0 trace on this arm or on the spinning whorl. They may have been added by Rt1. (K2,K3,K4) There seem to be no visible Rt0 trace on these arms. They may have been added by Rt1.
(L1) The original eyes of all four nymphs on this clip were probably simple dashes, as seen in the "pristine" Zodiac nymphs. These eyes were turned into C- or o- like eyes by Rt1, and then Rt2 retraced the left half (e).(L2) This pond edge seems to be Rt0, retraced in part by Rt1. (L3,L4) These headgear may be Rt0 or may have been added by Rt1.
(M1) the e strokes of this She are Rt1. (M2) Imperfect and incomplete retracing of Rt1 by Rt2. (M3) This CTh was retraced by Rt1, then the two e strokes and the bottom of both legs were retraced by Rt2.
(Q1,Q3,Q4) Breast added by Rt2, but maybe retraced over Rt0. (Q2) Breast added by Rt2.
(R1) Rt2 added nipples and belly-button to all four nymphs.. (R2) Incorrect Rt2 retracing of the Rt0 outline of the nymph's buttocks and thigh.
(S1) This t is Rt2. (S2) Unidentifiable glyph, possibly original Scribal error repeated by Rt1 and Rt2. (S3) This o was back-traced by Rt2. (S4) Pen recharging bt Rt2
(X1,X2) Details added by Rt3.
As usual, assume "I think that" or "My best guess is that" before each claim above.
All the best, --stolfi