+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Physical material (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-42.html)
+--- Thread: What's the evidence that the colors were added later? (/thread-4955.html)
RE: What's the evidence that the colors were added later? - Koen G - 07-12-2025
(07-12-2025, 01:30 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But several people who have looked at the folio number with a microscope (not just Rene and others at the workshoop, but, now I see, even the McCrone guys) all agree that the paint is over the ink.
Do you have any exact quotes on this? It's important in this discussion, since so far the most important arguments are:
* The choice of colors looks weird (Does it though? And if it does, is that a problem?)
* Traces of paint material are found on top of a later folio number. On the same spot where we know water washed over the whole area...
RE: What's the evidence that the colors were added later? - Jorge_Stolfi - 07-12-2025
(07-12-2025, 01:49 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(07-12-2025, 01:30 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But several people who have looked at the folio number with a microscope (not just Rene and others at the workshoop, but, now I see, even the McCrone guys) all agree that the paint is over the ink.Do you have any exact quotes on this?
For the observations by Rene and others at the Folgers workshop, there is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
For McCrone's claim, there is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. by Rene. There is another one somewhere, but I cannot find it...
All the best, --stolfi
RE: What's the evidence that the colors were added later? - Koen G - 07-12-2025
Right, but Rene (source) says that this is yet to be "addressed and resolved using the right expertise". It is not against the possibility that I argue, but rather against the certainty with which you proclaim it.
RE: What's the evidence that the colors were added later? - Jorge_Stolfi - 07-12-2025
(07-12-2025, 01:49 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.the most important arguments are: ... Traces of paint material are found on top of a later folio number. On the same spot where we know water washed over the whole area...
Indeed the spill that created that stain seems to have covered the folio number too.
But the spill apparently was mopped up right away, because the green pigment that was washed away from the leaf was not deposited back onto the washed area, or along its edges (as seems to have happened in some other stains).
So I think it is unlikely that enough of that pigment would have been deposited on top of the folio number to trick McCrone, Rene, and the conservator.
AFAIK there is no good evidence against the Late Painting theory; namely, evidence that the paints were applied in the early 1400s, by the original Author/Scribe or under their supervision. Is there?
All the best, --stolfi
PS. Besides the paint, there are also overlaps between the ink of the drawing and both the green paint and the folio number. It would be very useful if we had high-resolution (and in-focus!) microscope images of those spots.
RE: What's the evidence that the colors were added later? - oshfdk - 07-12-2025
(07-12-2025, 01:30 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.On vellum, neither ink nor paint can get into the material to any significant amount. There, iron-gall is not just better than lampblack, it is necessary in order to get writing that does not rub or wash off at the first challenge. It works by binding chemically to the proteins in the vellum, and then becoming an insoluble 3D polymer of tannin and iron. Other color pigments need a good binder that can glue them to the vellum; but all common binders decay, or are not water-resistant.
I'm not a chemist, but I can't understand it just from the common sense perspective. As it was said elsewhere the ink reacts chemically with the vellum. Obviously even if the ink is applied over the (water soluble) paint, it will seep through to the vellum and react with the vellum, creating a dark patch under the paint. So, the fact that the green paint appears over the charred vellum doesn't necessarily mean that it was applied later than the ink.
What is wrong with this reasoning and why do people use "over" the ink and "under" the paint here to infer the order of events?
RE: What's the evidence that the colors were added later? - Jorge_Stolfi - 07-12-2025
(07-12-2025, 01:49 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.so far the most important arguments [for "the painting was much later than the drawing"] are:
* The choice of colors looks weird (Does it though? And if it does, is that a problem?)
* Traces of paint material are found on top of a later folio number. On the same spot where we know water washed over the whole area...
Another bit of evidence for "the painting was much later than the drawing" is the three cases in the Zodiac where the original Artist apparently skipped a star (and, in two cases, also the nymph's arm that was supposed to hold it), and the Painter then provided one -- with paint only, no outline.
- f72r2 Gemini outer band at 09:30 (Miss otolam)
- f72r2 Gemini inner band at 01:45 (Miss otalShy)
- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Scorpio inner band at 05:00 (Miss Chefy)
Maybe the omission of those outlines by the original Artist was intentional, maybe not. But anyway the Painter assumed that they were mistakes, and "fixed" them with his yellow paint. I consider these instances evidence that the Painter did not have a quill and/or brown ink suitable to draw the missing outlines. And, therefore, that he was not the original Artist, and could not get him to fix his mistake.
All the best, --stolfi.
RE: What's the evidence that the colors were added later? - oshfdk - 07-12-2025
(07-12-2025, 03:33 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Maybe the omission of those outlines by the original Artist was intentional, maybe not. But anyway the Painter assumed that they were mistakes, and "fixed" them with his yellow paint. I consider these instances evidence that the Painter did not have a quill and/or brown ink suitable to draw the missing outlines. And, therefore, that he was not the original Artist, and could not get him to fix his mistake.
What if there were still visible star outlines made by the original author when the painter was doing the paint job, but since then the outlines faded into oblivion? I'd definitely invoke MRT here if I was pro-MRT.
RE: What's the evidence that the colors were added later? - Jorge_Stolfi - 07-12-2025
(07-12-2025, 02:56 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.even if the ink is applied over the (water soluble) paint, it will seep through to the vellum and react with the vellum, creating a dark patch under the paint.
To properly answer this question we would need those microscope images. To see how much pigment there is, how the particles are deposited or embedded into it, etc.
But, until then:
- The green paint is not just the solid pigment particles; it is particles embedded in some binder, that prevents them from falling off the vellum. Thus, in the scenario above, the ink would have to get through this binder, too.
- The dried ink is not just a molecule-thick layer. It has some thickness, which I expect to be more than the diameter of the green pigment particles. Thus, if the ink was applied over the paint, the pigment particles would be seen to be embedded into it, not resting on top of it.
- To write the folio number, the quill had to rub against the vellum with a minimum of pressure. If the paint was there already, the pigment particles should have been pushed aside or dragged along, at least in part. This effect should be visible under the microscope.
All the best, --stolfi
RE: What's the evidence that the colors were added later? - LisaFaginDavis - 07-12-2025
I'm not at all convinced that the observation that there appear to be crystals on top of the foliation absolutely means that the pigment is later than the foliation. People seem to have very strong opinions about this question, and about the order of writing vs. pigment in general. I have to say - I don't see the point of this debate. Why do you (that is, anyone) think this matters? What does it tell us, really, that we didn't know before? Many manuscripts have color added or replaced later in life. It's not unusual or suspicious at all. It would be consistent with the manuscript having lived a long and complicated life, like most manuscripts, which is something we already knew.
RE: What's the evidence that the colors were added later? - Koen G - 07-12-2025
Lisa: it matters if we want to be able to use color information to uncover the original makers' intent. Obviously the colors are worth studying either way: someone wanted the MS to look this way. But for us, it makes a difference whether that person was informed or not.
If something in the manuscript is red, is that because the makers intended it to be red, or because some later ignoramus used the MS as a coloring book?