What to make of the big stain on f116v

[Jorge_Stolfi]

I am curious about people's interpretation of the feature (A) on this UV image of f116v, and of its implications:

   

Let "original text" mean text that was written on blank vellum.  Do you think that 
[1] the (A) line it is not the edge of a water spill.
[2] the (A) line is the edge of a water spill, but it does not matter because:
[2.1] it happened before any text was written on this page.
[2.2] it happened after some text was written on this page, and
[2.2.1] it did not affect the text, so what we see is exactly the original text.
[2.2.2] it erased some of the original text, but 
[2.2.2.1] what was not erased by the spill is exactly what we see.
[2.2.2.2] the text we see is the result of a restoration attempt, and
[2.2.2.2.1] the whole original text was accurately restored.
[2.2.2.2.2] some original text was lost, 
[2.2.2.2.2.1] but what survived was accurately restored.
[2.2.2.2.2.2] and the restorer made some errors.
[2.2.2.2.2.3] and the restoration is mostly wrong.
[9] Other.

All the best, --stolfi

[oshfdk]

[2] the (A) line is the edge of a water spill, but it does not matter because:
[2.1] it happened before any text was written on this page.
[2.2] it happened after some text was written on this page, and
[2.2.1] it did not affect the text, so what we see is exactly the original text.

With the correction that I can't reliably determine if it was water or any other clear liquid.

We have MSIs of f116v, from them personally to me it's absolutely clear that no massive retracing happened on this page whatsoever. There is only one very clear layer of text and no clear outline of any other text is visible anywhere (if we don't count the see-through from the recto of the same folio).

[Zauriek]

(A)
By the spread and finish of the border of the split, is like the manuscript was placed over a leveled surface and a soft layer of water(maybe a rainy day) started to spread and being absorbed by the paper gradually until it reached a "limit of absortion", then the remained water or liquid was tiny and  was cleand up way later or just evaporated or dissapeared with the pass of time. By the time the owner realized it was wet the affected page was already dry on its own merit. (there is no horizontal or vertical drag of the spread indicating cleaning)

(B)
The horizontal line, could mean there was something like a rectangular sheet of paper(or fabric or like a fazzoletto from a lady) under the manuscript when this happened and probably got the most affected. The square shape that start over the B shape looks less afected by the water than the bottom part of the page. (protected the page from the water unintentionally.)
-
[is just observation i do not have credencials of any kind on this matter.]

[Jorge_Stolfi]

(A) By the spread and finish of the border of the split, is like the manuscript was placed over a leveled surface and a soft layer of water (maybe a rainy day) started to spread

That is one possibility, although the surface may have been slanted (like an old-style writing desk).  But it seems also possible that the book was upright and the water flowed into the spaces between the last page (which is not flat) and the back cover.

being absorbed by the paper gradually until it reached a "limit of absorption"

Since the material is vellum (or parchment) rather than paper, the absorption would have been minimal.  Check the spill on f93r.   AFAIK vellum was lightly rubbed with rosin to make it slightly water-repellent, so that the ink would not spread out (as t would on a water-loving surface).

The vellum may have been permeable to oily ("non-polar") liquids.  Compare the "ketchup" stains on f103r,  f103v, and f104r.  

• The spill on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. softened the ink so much that when the stuff was wiped off the ink was all but completely erased too (and then was partly retraced).  
  
• Some of the "ketchup" managed to flow through the vellum and created a large stain on f103v.  But this stain has a fuzzy boundary and does not seem to have affected the ink -- except perhaps in a small region in the middle, darker and with a sharp border.  
  

My interpretation is that the larger fuzzy stain on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. consisted mostly of the oily component of the "ketchup", while the smaller stain in the middle consisted of a bit of the watery component that managed to get through.

[quoe]there is no horizontal or vertical drag of the spread indicating cleaning[/quote] 

No sign of wiping below the line (B), agreed.  But what above it? 

The square shape that start over the B shape looks less affected by the water than the bottom part of the page.

 

... or the area above (B) was wiped ...

[is just observation i do not have credentials of any kind on this matter.]

We are all amateurs when it comes to the VMS...

All the best, --stolfi

[Zauriek]

But it seems also possible that the book was upright and the water flowed into the spaces between the last page (which is not flat) and the back cover.

Well i think the weight of the book was pressing down the last page against the "fazzoletto" or some squarish fabric due the push upward effect on the rectangle,  the cleaner square imprit looks like a mountain emerging over the page.
   

The vellum may have been permeable to oily ("non-polar") liquids. 

Oh, that is beyond my understanding, i would take it as you say until i learn something new. Is interesting.

No sign of wiping below the line (B), agreed.  But what above it? 

yea, visually it not so clear as the bottom part. It could be wiped. But is weird that it wiped up only upwards in a certain angle. The fold*1 and this border 2* indicates no wiping to me, but i am not expert.
   

We are all amateurs when it comes to the VMS...

Thanks; i know there are some harcore researchers on the forum so it is somewhat intimidating. (But it is a cool feeling, like there is serious research beeing done and stuff.)