16-12-2025, 07:38 AM
(This post was last modified: 16-12-2025, 07:40 AM by Jorge_Stolfi.)
More retracing hallucinations over f86v3, aka "T-O Map [not!] and Garden of Eden [?!]" or "The Four Winds [?]" (BL2014 image).
This clip spans the right (actually south) end of the paragraph of f86v3 that is adjacent to the E edge of the panel. The clip above is rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise relative to the BL 2014 image.
At least two and probably three levels of retracing are visible here: the original traces (Rt0), quite faint, surviving mostly as the tips of tails and plumes; the general restoration pass (Rt1) which here seems to be darker than the Rt1 of other pages, possibly because of imaging conditions or post-processing; and a scattered retouching (Rt2) in even darker ink.
(A) The body and proximal half of the tail of this glyph are Rt1. The Rt0 trace is visible in the distal half of the tail and as a ghost parallel to the Rt1 trace. (B,C,D,E,F) The proximal half of the tail is Rt1, the distal half is Rt0. (G) The proximal half of each plume is Rt1, the distal half is Rt0. (H) This part of the p is Rt0, the rest is Rt1. (I) A bit of Rt0 visible below the bottom of the i. (J,K) Bits of Rt0 visible inside the upper loop of the glyph. (L) There is a bit of Rt0 trace at the top of the leg, above the start of the arm. This f may have been a p, but the left loop was not restored except for bits near the top of the leg, and now has faded away completely. Alternatively, the original was indeed a f but Rt1 drew the arm incorrectly as crossing the leg instead of starting at the top of it. (M) This ligature is probably Rt0.
(N) This glyph, which is half Rt1 and half Rt2, is now ambiguous -- a or o.
(R ) This glyph has the distal half of the plume in Rt1, the rest Rt2. (S) Isolated dark d assumed to be Rt2.
All the best, --stolfi
This clip spans the right (actually south) end of the paragraph of f86v3 that is adjacent to the E edge of the panel. The clip above is rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise relative to the BL 2014 image.
At least two and probably three levels of retracing are visible here: the original traces (Rt0), quite faint, surviving mostly as the tips of tails and plumes; the general restoration pass (Rt1) which here seems to be darker than the Rt1 of other pages, possibly because of imaging conditions or post-processing; and a scattered retouching (Rt2) in even darker ink.
(A) The body and proximal half of the tail of this glyph are Rt1. The Rt0 trace is visible in the distal half of the tail and as a ghost parallel to the Rt1 trace. (B,C,D,E,F) The proximal half of the tail is Rt1, the distal half is Rt0. (G) The proximal half of each plume is Rt1, the distal half is Rt0. (H) This part of the p is Rt0, the rest is Rt1. (I) A bit of Rt0 visible below the bottom of the i. (J,K) Bits of Rt0 visible inside the upper loop of the glyph. (L) There is a bit of Rt0 trace at the top of the leg, above the start of the arm. This f may have been a p, but the left loop was not restored except for bits near the top of the leg, and now has faded away completely. Alternatively, the original was indeed a f but Rt1 drew the arm incorrectly as crossing the leg instead of starting at the top of it. (M) This ligature is probably Rt0.
(N) This glyph, which is half Rt1 and half Rt2, is now ambiguous -- a or o.
(R ) This glyph has the distal half of the plume in Rt1, the rest Rt2. (S) Isolated dark d assumed to be Rt2.
All the best, --stolfi