Chapter 11 By the Keepers’ Hands: Comparing the Inks of Endowment Statements, Mottos and Seals

In: The Library of Aḥmad Pasha al-Jazzār
Authors:
Claudia Colini Universität Hamburg

Search for other papers by Claudia Colini in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
Kyle Ann Huskin Universität Hamburg

Search for other papers by Kyle Ann Huskin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open Access

The library of Aḥmad Pasha al-Jazzār (d. 1219/1804) contained over 1,800 volumes, according to the library inventory copied in 1221/1806.1 In order to protect the collection and assure its permanence after his death, he included the library in the Nūr al-Aḥmadī complex, established in Acre in 1196/1781. The salary for a librarian is recorded in the endowment deed dating 1200/1786, but the list of the volumes is not provided; thus, other strategies to identify the books as part of the collection and prevent their loss and active removal needed to be set in place.

Some of them can be encountered directly in the pages of the manuscripts belonging to this collection: al-Jazzār’s seal was stamped with black ink at the beginning of the volumes; the handwritten endowment statement can often be found in the same place; short versions of the endowment statement—from now on referred to as mottos—were, instead, annotated throughout the pages, with varying frequency. Seals and annotations are not present in all the surviving books of the library; often only some can be found on a single volume. Additionally, there are two matrices of al-Jazzār’s seal, and the writing styles and hands of the annotations—particularly of the mottos—are clearly different. We believe that the books were annotated on different occasions by multiple writers, perhaps depending on the acquisition date of the volumes or based on periodic checking of the collection’s content.

Different occasions may result in changes to the inks and tools employed to mark the books, changes that can be identified through the application of scientific analytical methods. If the same material features are shared by groups of writing, we can conclude that those writings were made during the same instance or period of time. In order to verify this hypothesis, a small corpus of al-Jazzār’s manuscripts was selected as a pilot project for analysis: it consists of seven manuscripts preserved at the Chester Beatty Library (CBL), sporting various combinations of seals, endowment statements and mottos, from various and recurring matrices, hands, and dates.2 The CBL’s collection has two crucial advantages for this study: firstly, it houses the largest collection of al-Jazzār manuscripts in the European Union, which is logistically important for transporting equipment with X-ray components and an infrared (IR) camera, and secondly, the manuscripts have a wide range of features.

The comparison of the inks was conducted according to the standard protocol for the characterisation of writing materials in use at the Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures (CSMC) in Hamburg, including ultra-violet (UV) visible (VIS) near-infrared (NIR) microscopy, short wave IR reflectography (IRR) and X-ray fluorescence (XRF).3 These methods allow us to differentiate between ink classes and compare inks that belong to the same class but have a different elemental composition.

1 Corpus

The seventy-eight manuscripts that currently comprise the Jazzār corpus are scattered around the world but are identifiable by three means of library annotation: endowment statements, endowment seals and short endowment mottos (on these elements, see the Introduction to this volume). The first chronologically datable activity in the Jazzār corpus was the annotation of the endowment statement at the beginning of the volumes. The statements are dated between 1196/1782 and 1205/1791, with a striking majority written in the years 1196/1782–1197/1783 by the same hand. While the layout and number of lines can vary, the wording is standardised, although a few variants have been noticed. The second datable marking method consists of seal impressions. They can be found at the beginning of the volumes, either on the first folios or on the recto (corresponding to side a) prior to the beginning of the text. The black-inked impressions were left by one of two different matrices, one circular and one oval, both dated 1205/1790–1791, as can be seen in the lower margin of the impression.4 It is possible, however, that the seals were used beyond this date.5 The third method, the annotation of mottos, is not dated. This extremely short version of the endowment statement can be found on the margins of several pages throughout the book. If there are only two textual variants for the mottos—A) ‮وقف الله تعالى‬‎, which is the most frequent, and B) ‮وقف لله تعالى‬‎—everything else differs greatly: the location in the page and their frequency throughout the book, the writing implements and inks used, and, even more surprisingly, the writing hands and styles. Multiple series of mottos by different hands were observed in the same volume (Ar. 3272, for instance), but they can also be completely omitted (as in Ar. 3316). Said Aljoumani’s preliminary palaeographic assessment identifies around twenty-five distinct hands and subtypes of hands that penned mottos and endowment statements in the manuscripts identified so far.6 Additionally, in this case, one hand—from now on referred to as Hand no. 1—is found more frequently and corresponds to the same one that wrote most of the endowment statements from 1196/1782 to 1197/1783, suggesting that it might belong to the first librarian. Finally, single occurrences of mottos were also found: they are often incomplete, shorter versions of the usual formula and are sometimes written by unskilled hands. For this reason, they might be errors, pen trials or writing exercises.

A subset of nine al-Jazzār manuscripts are preserved at the CBL, all identifiable from the library inventory written in 1221/1806.7 As has been mentioned previously, seven manuscripts were analysed for this paper because the other two were unknown to us at the time. The most important characteristics of the manuscripts, particularly referring to the three marking methods, are summarised in table 11.1.

Table 11.1

The Jazzār manuscripts preserved at the Chester Beatty Library

Shelf-mark

Title

Author

Al-Jazzār Library inventory nr.

Seal

Endowment statement

Mottos

Ar. 3236

تذكرة الإعداد ليوم المعاد‬‎

Tadhkirat al-iʿdād li-yawm al-miʿād

الصنهاجي‬‎

al-Ṣinhājī

718

Oval, fol. 1a

Absent

Mottos A (Hand no. 7) and Mottos B (Hands no. 6 and U1)

Ar. 3268

معالم التنزيل‬‎

Maʿālim al-tanzīl

البغوي‬‎

al-Baghawī

44

Absent

Absent

Motto A (Hands no. 1 and 10) Motto B (Hand no. 12)

Ar. 3272

الفتوح‬‎

al-Futūḥ

ابن أعثم الكوفي‬‎

Ibn Aʿtham al-Kūfī

1366

Circular, fol. 1a

25 Ṣafar 1197 / 30 January 1783, fol. 1a, Hand no. 1, triangular shape

Motto A (Hands no. 1 and 5)

Motto B (Hand no. 4)

Incomplete: U2 and U3

Ar. 3294

الروض الأنف الباسم‬‎

al-Rawḍ al-unuf al-bāsim

عبد الرحمن السهيلي‬‎

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Suhaylī

276

Circular, fol. 2a

Absent

Absent

Ar. 3310

أهنى المنائح في أسنى المدائح‬‎

Ahnā ‘l-Manāʾiḥ fī asnā al-Madāʾiḥ

ابن فهد‬‎

Ibn Fahd

1148

Circular, fol. 1a

Absent

Motto A (Hand no. 11)

Ar. 3315

الفهرست‬‎

al-Fihrist

النديم‬‎

al-Nadīm

998

Circular, fol. 1a

Undated, fol. 1a, Hand no. 3, rectangular shape

Motto A (Hands no. 3 and 8)

Ar. 3316

شرح الجامع الصغير‬‎

Sharḥ al-jāmiʿ al-ṣaghīr

علي بن مكي الرازي‬‎

ʿAlī b. Makī al-Rāzī

438

Circular, fol. 2a

Absent

Absent

Ar. 3334

الوجوه والنظائر‬‎

al-Wujūh wa-al-naẓāʾir

هارون بن موسى الأزدي الأعور‬‎

Hārūn b. Mūsā al-Azdī al-Aʿwar

492

Circular, fol. 1a

1197/1783, fol. 1a, Hand no. 2, rectangular shape, shorter version of text

Motto B (Hand no. 9)

Ar. 3342

التذييل والتكميل في شرح كتاب التسهيل‬‎

Manaj al-al-Tadhyīl wa-al-takmīl fī sharḥ

kitāb al-tashīl

أبو حيان الأندلسي‬‎

Abu Ḥayyān

750

Oval, fol. 1a

5 Dhū al-Ḥijja 1196 / 11 November 1782, fol. 1a, Hand no. 1, rectangular shape

Motto A (Hand no. 10)

Two manuscripts of the CBL corpus—Ar. 3342 and Ar. 3272—present the standard endowment statement, written by the most frequent hand (Hand no. 1) and dated 1196/1782 and 1197/1783, respectively. During the year 1197/1783, a different hand (Hand no. 2) penned a shorter version of the endowment statement on Ar. 3334. A third, different hand (Hand no. 3) wrote the standard version of the endowment statement on Ar. 3315; the annotation is undated, but it overlaps the seal impressions, suggesting it was written after the seal was stamped. Five of the manuscripts do not present any endowment statements.

The seal impression is visible on eight of the CBL manuscripts, although in one case (Ar. 3310), it was partially erased in an attempt to mask the provenance of the book. The circular matrix was mostly used to mark these manuscripts, with the oval seal appearing in only two of them (Ar. 3236 and Ar. 3342).

Several hands penned the mottos in the CBL manuscripts. Hand no. 1 appears in two manuscripts, showing slightly different writing styles on the upper margins of Ar. 3268 and on the upper and fore margins of Ar. 3272. In both cases the variant A of the motto is repeated on several folios throughout the books, at almost regular intervals (on average, every 20 and 30 folios, respectively). Both books, however, also show mottos written by other hands. In addition to two incomplete mottos (U2 and U3), two sets of mottos were left by Hand no. 4 (motto B) and Hand no. 5 (motto A) in Ar. 3272. They occur at more irregular intervals than Hand no. 1, but with a certain frequency. On the contrary, Hands no. 10 and 12 only added two (motto A) and one annotation, respectively, to Ar. 3268. Hand no. 10, which shares some palaeographical characteristics with Hand no. 1, wrote variant A mottos on the upper margins of fols 1b–2a in Ar. 3342. The person (Hand no. 3) who wrote the endowment statement on fol. 1a of Ar. 3315 also added a motto (variant A) on the same folio, between the decorative cartouche and the statement. Another hand (no. 8) added mottos on the upper margins of several pages of the same volume, at irregular intervals. Hand no. 7 penned mottos (variant A) on the upper margins on the verso (side b) of several folios of Ar. 3236, also at irregular intervals, while the motto (variant B) left by Hand no. 6 and an incomplete one (U1) are visible on the fore margin of fol. 1a. Ar. 3334 sports only a series of mottos on the upper margin made by Hand no. 9, while Hand no. 11 wrote two mottos (variant A) on the upper margin of fol. 30b and lower margin of fol. 31a in Ar. 3310.

We provide a summary of the writing hands encountered in the CBL corpus with examples of their writings in table 11.2.

2 Ink Classes and Scientific Analysis

Black inks can be grouped into four main classes: carbon, plant, iron-gall and mixed inks.8 Carbon inks are obtained by mixing charcoal or soot with a water-soluble binder in a water-based solvent. Several precursors were used to obtain the carbonaceous material in the Islamic world: lamp oils were the most appreciated, due to the fine particles of the soot obtained, although the burnt material collected from ovens and pots was also used because of its abundance and convenience, despite being of a lower quality. Gum arabic is normally used as a binder dissolved in simple fresh water or enriched with some perfumes, such as rosewater. Carbon inks can sometimes contain metallic impurities, such as traces of iron, copper or lead, probably contaminants from the tools used to prepare or store the ink (such as bronze or lead inkwells) or from the water. Such elements are present in a more consistent amount in rare cases, suggesting an intentional addition rather than an occasional contamination. We refer to the latter as carbon-based inks with metallic admixtures, and they are sometimes included in the class of mixed inks.9

It is possible to obtain tannins, which are the main components of plant inks, by cooking or macerating various vegetal materials, such as bark, fruits or flowers. There are only a few Arabic recipes for plant inks, and they were rarely employed, probably because the final product is not black but rather light to dark brown. Tannins, particularly hydrolysable ones, are also among the main components of iron-gall inks. The latter are obtained by the reaction between iron ions (Fe2+) and gallic acid in a water-based solvent, with the addition of a binder (gum arabic).10 Arabic recipes mention gall nuts as the best source for gallic acid, but a variety of plant parts (for example, tree bark, leaves and fruit) can be used as substitutes. The most common and appreciated source of iron is vitriol (a mixture of hydrated metallic sulphates, often including copper and zinc). Filings, slag, nails and pieces of iron were used in a small number of Arabic recipes, resulting in inks without metallic impurities, although the extraction of iron ions and the consequent reaction are more difficult to obtain.11

Table 11.2

Examples of the various hands writing the mottos and endowment statements in the manuscripts of the Chester Beatty Library

Hand no.

Shelf mark

Writing

Location

Example

1

Ar. 3272

Endowment statement

fol. 1a

1

Ar. 3342

Endowment statement

fol. 1a

1

Ar. 3272

Motto A

fol. 1a, above and below the endowment statement; fols 11b–12a; 38b–39a; 72b–73a, 104b–105a, 142b–143a, 169b–170a, 209b–210a, 239b–240a, 270b–271a, 303b–304a, 360b–361a, in pairs, upper margin on the verso (b), fore margin on the recto (a)

fol. 210a

fol. 361a

1

Ar. 3268

Motto A

fols 10b–11a, 20b–21a, 35b–36a, 50b–51a, 70b–71a, 93b–94a, 114b–115a, 133b–134a, 152b–153a, 175b–176a, 179b–180a; in pairs, upper margins

fol. 11a

2

Ar. 3334

Endowment statement

fol. 1a

3

Ar. 3315

Endowment statement

fol. 1a

3

Ar. 3315

Motto A

fol. 1a, above the endowment statement

4

Ar. 3272

Motto B

fols 30b–31a, 68b–69a, 107b–108a, 122b–123a, 186b–187a, 228b–229a, 258b–259a, 287b–288a, in pairs, upper margins

fol. 186b

5

Ar. 3272

Motto A

fols 14b, 49b, 90b, 118b, 154b, 180b, 222b, 247b, 273b, 297b, 329b, upper margin

fol. 90b

6

Ar. 3236

Motto B

fol. 2a, lower fore margin

7

Ar. 3236

Motto A

fols 1b, 4b, 17b, 37b, 52b, 92b, 126b, 170b; upper margin

fol. 52b

8

Ar. 3315

Motto A

fols 2a, 91a, 94a, 99b, upper margin;

fols 16b–17a, 17b–18a, 30b–31a, 42b–43a, 62b–63a, 76b–77a, 101b–102a, in pairs, upper margins

fol. 2a

fol. 43a

9

Ar. 3334

Motto B

fols 4b–5a, 9b–(10a), 15b–16a, 23b–24a, 28b–29a, 42b–43a, in pairs, upper margin

fol. 42b

10

Ar. 3342

Motto A

fols 1b–2a; in pairs, upper margins

fol. 2a

10

Ar. 3268

Motto A

fols 57a, 100a; upper margin

fol. 57a

11

Ar. 3310

Motto A

fols 30b–31a; in pairs, upper margin on the verso (b), lower margin on the recto (a)

fol. 30b

12

Ar. 3268

fol. 29b, upper margin

U1

Ar. 3236

Motto B

fol. 2a, upper fore margin

U2

Ar. 3272

Motto B (short)

fol. 315b, upper margin

U3

Ar. 3272

Motto (short)

fol. 1a, lower margin

The class of mixed inks comprises the inks resulting from blending together inks or ingredients from the previous classes. Several mentions of these preparations can be found in Arabic treatises. This class consists of two subtypes: mixed carbon-plant inks, when tannins are added to carbon inks, and mixed carbon-iron-gall inks. The latter include inks with different ratios of carbon to iron because they can be formulated by either adding small amounts of carbonaceous material to an iron-gall ink or including some vitriol and tannins in a carbon ink. Such inks are attested for the first time in Arabic recipes dating between the ninth and thirteenth centuries and have continued to be used until recent times.

In order to differentiate the inks, we exploit the distinct optical properties that their ingredients have in IR light: carbonaceous materials remain opaque throughout the IR regions, unbound tannins appear transparent at around 940 nm, while the iron-gallotannic complex, characteristic of iron-gall inks, loses opacity more slowly and become completely transparent between 1200 and 1500 nm.12 We can observe the presence of tannins in UV light, as they have the ability to quench the fluorescence from the writing material, thus, enhancing the contrast between the ink strokes and the background. This behaviour is readily apparent in pure plant and iron-gall inks. In mixed ink, however, it can be difficult to notice because the carbonaceous materials are opaque in UV light and can, therefore, mask the enhancement of the tannins unless the amount of carbon particles is negligible, the writing is damaged or the tannins spread into the writing support around the stroke.

The XRF spectrometry is used to identify the elemental composition of the inks. Semi-quantitative measurements can also be used to differentiate inks, especially of the iron-gall type, based on the various ratios of the vitriolic impurities (copper, zinc and the like) to iron (the main component).13 This method was successfully applied to discriminate mediaeval European iron-gall inks,14 but it can also be effectively employed to differentiate mixed carbon-iron-gall inks when vitriol was used. It is also possible with XRF to carry out a qualitative evaluation of the impurities or the addition of metallic admixture in carbon-based inks.15

3 Analytical Protocol and Equipment

The inks have been studied according to the standard protocol for the characterisation of writing materials in use at the CSMC at Universität Hamburg.16 This protocol consists of a visual examination of the writing substances with a microscope in visible light, followed by a primary screening performed with NIR and UV reflectography at two specific wavelengths. IR reflectography is then used to capture images in the short wave IR region (900–1700 nm), while the elemental composition of the inks is determined with XRF. Additional in-depth analysis conducted with various spectroscopic methods can be added to the protocol but were not applied in this case.

The visual examination of the inks and the primary screening is conducted with a miniature, handheld Dino-Lite USB microscope. The microscope has built-in LED illumination at 395 nm (UV) and 940 nm (NIR), and a customised external white light (VIS) source functioning as a stand. In VIS light we observe the feature of the inks—that is, the distribution of the writing matter and the presence of particles, halos, cracks, bleeding or of other alterations of the writing due to damage, loss or retouching. By comparing the change of opacity of the writing between the visible and the IR micrograph, it is possible to differentiate the pure classes of black inks. Additionally, the presence of tannins can be detected in many cases by examining the micrograph captured under UV light: tannins have the ability to quench fluorescence, thus enhancing the contrast between inks with tannins and a fluorescent background under UV light. In the case of tannins spreading in the writing support beyond the limits of the ink stroke, it is even possible to observe that its dimensions appear larger in the UV micrograph compared to the VIS image.

OPUS Instruments APOLLO Infrared Reflectography Imaging System is used to ascertain the presence of carbon in the inks and allow for the discrimination of pure iron-gall inks and mixed inks. The regular short-wave IR sensing range (900–1700 nm) of the 128 × 128 pixel scanning InGaAs sensor can be reduced by the following filters: short wave pass filter (SWP1250, range 900–1250 nm), band pass filter (BPF1250–1510, range 1250–1510 nm) and long wave pass filter (LWP1510, range 1510–1700 nm). Each filter is mounted in front of the IR lens (150 mm, f/5.6–45). The working distance between the sensor and the object for this analysis was set to 74 cm with an aperture of f/11 and exposure time of 50 ms per tile. Two 20 W halogen lamps provide broadband illumination. In order to carry out this study, we used the long wave pass filter to limit the range of IR light to the portion of the spectrum where iron-gall inks become completely transparent.

Elio Bruker Nano GmbH (formerly XG Lab) is used for the identification of the elemental composition of the inks and was obtained through this compact X-ray spectrometer. It features a 4 W low-power rhodium tube and adjustable excitation parameters. It has a 17 mm2 silicon drift detector (SDD) with energy resolution < 140 eV for Mn Κα. The beam size is roughly 1 mm, compatible with the size of the ink strokes we selected for the analysis. The measurements were performed on single spots at 40 kV and 80 μA, with an acquisition time of 2 min. At least three spectra for each different writing were acquired. Bruker’s SPEKTRA software was used for the peak fitting and the semi-quantitative data evaluation.

4 Results and Discussion

The results of the analysis on endowment statements and mottos are summarised in table 11.3.

As shown in this table, different classes of inks were identified, although the majority of them belong to those of pure carbon inks and mixed carbon-iron-gall inks with a prevalence of the carbonaceous component. We observed a pure iron-gall ink only in the endowment statement and motto written by Hand no. 3 on the first folio of Ar. 3315. We tentatively assigned the inks to the classes of mixed carbon-plant ink in two cases and to the subclass of carbon-based ink with metallic admixture in one case. The dubious identifications are marked with a question mark in table 11.3. Such uncertainty arises from the impossibility of detecting the organic component of the ink with the methods applied.17 Additionally, the manuscripts were subjected to heavy restorations in the past. The application of aqueous treatments, splitting and lamination, and pigment retouching have caused the migration of ions (including iron ions) from the original inks to the paper and the introduction of external materials and elements. This made the evaluation of XRF data particularly complicated, especially when dealing with elements detected as traces in carbon-based and mixed inks, because the high amount and heterogeneity of the same elements in the writing support makes it hard to discern whether they are impurities in the inks or a contribution of the writing support.

Table 11.3

Identification of the ink types according to the protocol. The manuscripts Ar. 3268 and Ar. 3310 were identified as belonging to the Jazzār library months after the analysis were completed, therefore, their inks were not analysed.

Shelf-mark

Writing

Hand no.

Ink type

Visual examination (microscopy)

NIR/UV Reflectography

XRF Qualitative analysis

Ar. 3236

Motto A

7

Carbon with metallic admixture? Mixed?

Dark brown, surface characterised by the presence of black/grey crystals or salts (like a crust)

Little opacity changes in IR, little enhancement in UV

Traces of metallic elements, including Hg and Pb

Ar. 3236

Motto B

6

Mixed carbon-iron-gall

Dark brown, coffee-ring effect

Opacity changes in IR, enhancement in UV

Presence of Fe, Cu, Zn

Ar. 3236

Motto B

U1

Mixed carbon-iron-gall

Dark brown, coffee-ring effect

Opacity changes in IR, enhancement in UV

Presence of Fe, Cu, Zn

Ar. 3272

Endowment statement

1

Carbon

Dark black, thick, glossy surface with cracks

No opacity changes in IR, no enhancement in UV

Traces of Fe and Pb

Ar. 3272

Motto A

1

Carbon

Dark black, thick, glossy surface with cracks

No opacity changes in IR, no enhancement in UV

Traces of Fe and Pb

Ar. 3272

Motto (short)

U3

Mixed carbon-plant? Carbon?

Dark brown, thin ink

No opacity changes in IR, little enhancement in UV?

Traces of Fe

Ar. 3272

Motto A

5

Carbon? Mixed carbon-plant?

Black with brown hue, coffee-ring effect, black particles on the surface

No opacity changes in IR, no enhancement in UV

Traces of Fe

Ar. 3272

Motto B

4

Mixed carbon-iron-gall

Dark brown, coffee-ring effect on occasions

Little opacity changes in IR, enhancement in UV

Presence of Fe, Cu and Zn

Ar. 3272

Motto B (short)

U2 = 4

Mixed carbon-iron-gall

Dark brown

Little opacity changes in IR, enhancement in UV

Traces of Fe, Cu and Zn

Ar. 3315

Endowment statement

3

Iron-gall

Severely damaged: loss of material especially in the centre of the stokes; retouched with carbon ink

Clear opacity changes in IR, clear enhancement in UV

Presence of Fe and Cu

Ar. 3315

Motto A

3

Iron-gall

Severely damaged: loss of material especially in the centre of the stokes; retouched with carbon ink

Clear opacity changes in IR, clear enhancement in UV

Presence of Fe and Cu

Ar. 3315

Motto A

8

Carbon (watered down)

Brown grey with grey particles, thin

No opacity changes in IR, no enhancement in UV

No additional elements

Ar. 3334

Endowment statement

2

Mixed carbon-iron-gall

Black with brown hue, thick surfaces with some gaps and losses

Clear opacity changes in IR, enhancement in UV

Presence of Fe, Cu and Zn

Ar. 3334

Motto B

9

Mixed carbon-iron-gall

Grey with brown hue, grey particles, coffee ring effect

Opacity changes in IR, enhancement in UV

Presence of Fe, Cu and Zn

Ar. 3342

Endowment statement

1

Carbon

Dark black, thick, glossy surface with cracks

No opacity changes in IR, no enhancement in UV

Traces of Fe and Pb

Ar. 3342

Motto A

10

Mixed carbon-iron-gall

Dark black with brown hue, think, glossy surface

Opacity changes in IR, clear enhancement in UV

Presence of Fe, Cu, Zn, Pb

Despite these difficulties in analysis, we can, nevertheless, observe that inks belonging to the same class are also very different due to their optical properties, elemental composition and, for mixed inks, the ratio of carbon to iron-gall. The latter can only be qualitatively appreciated in the VIS and IR images. The distribution of mixed carbon-iron-gall and pure iron-gall inks depending on their elemental composition is shown in fig. 11.1. The graph displays the percentage of iron, copper and zinc detected in the strokes normalised to their total.18 It is possible to observe three subgroups, which suggests the use of different vitriols for the ink preparation. The first subgroup is characterised by a high amount of iron (65–90 %) and a low amount of copper (10–35 %) with no or just traces of zinc (0–12 %), corresponding to the inks used by Hand no. 2 to write the endowment statement on Ar. 3334 and by Hand no. 3 for both the endowment statements and motto on Ar. 3315 (highlighted by the light blue circle in fig. 11.1). The second subgroup is characterised by a high amount of iron (60–75 %), a low amount of copper (25–40 %) and zinc (13–25 %), corresponding to the inks used by Hand no. 9 to write the mottos on Ar. 3334 (highlighted by the light green hexagon with a dashed line in fig. 11.1). Finally, the third subgroup is characterised by a medium amount of iron (35–60 %) and copper (25–45 %) and a low amount of zinc (0–12 %), corresponding to the inks used by Hand no. 4 and Hand no. 10 to write the mottos on Ar. 3272 and Ar. 3342, respectively (highlighted by the yellow hexagon with a solid line in fig. 11.1). The ratio obtained for the spots analysed on the partial motto named U2, written on Ar. 3272 by an unknown hand, falls exactly in the same area occupied by results of the Hand no. 10, suggesting that it was written with the same ink. A closer palaeographical examination confirms that it was probably penned by Hand no. 10 and left incomplete perhaps for aesthetic reasons or for an erroneous positioning in the book (see table 11.2 for comparison). The ink used by Hand no. 6 and that of the motto U1 from an unknown hand, both penned on the fore-edge of Ar. 3236, show a broad fluctuation in the elemental content and cannot be assigned to any of the subgroups. As has been clarified previously, such inhomogeneity is probably caused by the spreading of metallic elements in the writing support during conservation treatment.

The only pure iron-gall ink was used by Hand no. 3 for both the endowment statement and the motto on fol. 1a of Ar. 3315. Interestingly, this is the only hand that can be surely dated to after 1205/1790–1791, as it overlaps the seal impression. The identification of its class is based on optical properties in both IR and UV light (fig. 11.2a–b): the ink clearly changes opacity at 940 nm and becomes transparent above 1510 nm, and the presence of tannins makes it homogeneously dark in UV. The increased intensity of the peaks of iron, copper, zinc and sulphur in the XRF spectra of the ink with respect to those of paper confirms the identification as a vitriolic iron-gall ink (fig. 11.2c). Probably due to the damages that this ink suffered, the writing was retouched with a carbon-based ink in some places. This intervention is clearly visible in the images taken in IR light, as the overlapping ink does not change opacity (figs. 11.2a and 11.2d). As seen on fig. 11.1, the elemental composition of the ink used by Hand no. 3 is similar to the one used by Hand no. 2 in the endowment statement on Ar. 3334. That statement, however, was written at least eight years before the one penned by Hand no. 3, suggesting that a same source of vitriol was available on the market for a longer period of time and that perhaps other sources were available as well.

Figure 11.1: Comparison of the chemical composition of iron-gall and mixed carbon-iron-gall inks.

Figure 11.1

Comparison of the chemical composition of iron-gall and mixed carbon-iron-gall inks.

Based on the class identification and the semi-quantitative evaluation of the XRF data, it appears that none of the writings attributed to different hands share the same characteristics, discarding the hypothesis that the apposition of endowment statements and mottos was a collegial operation of people working together and sharing the same materials. The results seem, instead, to suggest a very personal ink usage, although we were able to analyse more than one note type penned by the same person on two different manuscripts only in the case of Hand no. 1. According to the abundance of this handwriting compared to the others, we provisionally identify Hand no. 1 as the handwriting of the first librarian. He used a glossy, deep black ink for both the endowment statement and a series of mottos on Ar. 3272 and the endowment statement on Ar. 3342. As an example, we show in fig. 11.3 the results of the motto on Ar. 3272, fol. 104b, identifying the ink as carbon: there is no change of opacity and intensity in either the IR or UV images (fig. 11.3a–b), and only traces of iron and lead are detected with XRF (fig. 11.3c). Due to the aforementioned limitations, it is not possible to unequivocally confirm that the two endowment statements and the series of mottos were written with exactly the same ink, however, the scribe clearly wrote them with inks of the same class, the same optical characteristics and a very similar elemental composition. Additionally, the endowment statements were written within a three months interval, highly suggesting the ink is, indeed, the same.

Figure 11.2: a) Left, visible light image of Ar. 3315, fol. 1a, with red boxes indicating the location of Dino-Lite micrographs in 2b and 2d, and right, IR light image of the same area using the LWP1510 filter; b) Dino-Lite micrographs from left to right in VIS, UV, and NIR light; c) XRF spectra of the ink and paper, analysed in the same area identified in 2b; d) Dino-Lite micrographs from left to right in VIS, UV, and NIR light.

Figure 11.2

a) Left, visible light image of Ar. 3315, fol. 1a, with red boxes indicating the location of Dino-Lite micrographs in 2b and 2d, and right, IR light image of the same area using the LWP1510 filter; b) Dino-Lite micrographs from left to right in VIS, UV, and NIR light; c) XRF spectra of the ink and paper, analysed in the same area identified in 2b; d) Dino-Lite micrographs from left to right in VIS, UV, and NIR light.

Figure 11.3: a) Top, visible light image of Ar. 3272, fol. 104b, with a red box indicating the location of Dino-Lite micrographs in 3b, and bottom, IR light image of the same area using the LWP1510 filter; b) Dino-Lite micrographs from left to right in VIS, UV, and NIR light; c) XRF spectra of the motto ink and paper, analysed in the same area identified in 3b.

Figure 11.3

a) Top, visible light image of Ar. 3272, fol. 104b, with a red box indicating the location of Dino-Lite micrographs in 3b, and bottom, IR light image of the same area using the LWP1510 filter; b) Dino-Lite micrographs from left to right in VIS, UV, and NIR light; c) XRF spectra of the motto ink and paper, analysed in the same area identified in 3b.

Figure 11.4: a) Top, visible light image of Ar. 3334, fol. 1a, with a red box indicating the location of Dino-Light micrographs in 4b, and bottom, IR light image of the same area using the LWP1510 filter; b) Dino-Lite micrographs from left to right in VIS, UV, and NIR light; c) XRF spectra of the endowment statement ink and paper, analysed in the same area identified in 4b.

Figure 11.4

a) Top, visible light image of Ar. 3334, fol. 1a, with a red box indicating the location of Dino-Light micrographs in 4b, and bottom, IR light image of the same area using the LWP1510 filter; b) Dino-Lite micrographs from left to right in VIS, UV, and NIR light; c) XRF spectra of the endowment statement ink and paper, analysed in the same area identified in 4b.

Figure 11.5: a) Top, visible light image of Ar. 3342, fol. 1b, with a red box indicating the location of Dino-Light micrographs in 5b, and bottom, IR light image of the same area using the LWP1510 filter; b) Dino-Lite micrographs from left to right in VIS, UV, and NIR light; c) XRF spectra of the motto ink and paper, analysed in the same area identified in 5b.

Figure 11.5

a) Top, visible light image of Ar. 3342, fol. 1b, with a red box indicating the location of Dino-Light micrographs in 5b, and bottom, IR light image of the same area using the LWP1510 filter; b) Dino-Lite micrographs from left to right in VIS, UV, and NIR light; c) XRF spectra of the motto ink and paper, analysed in the same area identified in 5b.

In 1197/1783, Hand no. 2 penned the endowment statement on Ar. 3334 with a mixed carbon-iron-gall ink (fig. 11.4), and a mixed carbon-iron-gall ink was also used for the three mottos written by Hand no. 10 on Ar. 3342 (fig. 11.5), although the ink has a different elemental ratio compared to that of Hand no. 2 (fig. 11. 1). We do not know if these mottos were penned in 1197/1783 at the same time as the endowment statement by Hand no. 1 or later. The abundance of ink classes and recipes detected, even during the same time span, reinforce the idea that different inks were available contemporaneously, either premade and sold on the market or prepared by the scribes themselves, and that the latter were using their own inks to write on al-Jazzār’s books.

Finally, all the inks used for the seals are carbon-based and, unsurprisingly, do not correspond to any of the inks used for the handwritten annotations. In some cases, it is possible to observe a small increase in the iron and lead peaks in the area around the seals compared to the paper, but the amounts are too low and heterogeneously distributed depending on the point of analysis to exclude the possibility that they may be merely impurities found in the writing support. Additionally, no clear correlation was noticed between the impurities in the inks and the seals stamped with the two matrices. It is, therefore, impossible to determine whether two different inks were used or if the matrices were made of different materials that left specific trace elements while stamping.

5 Conclusions

Overall, the observations suggest that a multitude of people had access to and responsibility over the books of the Jazzār library—challenging the assumption, based on the statement in the endowment deed, that only one position of librarian was envisaged for the complex. It is possible, for reasons unknown to us, that several people alternated in this position during the institution’s active years, or that users of the library and school had a more proactive role than we expect. It is also possible that some of the annotations were added during the revision of the library’s possessions that led to the production of the library inventory in 1215/1800.19 Extending the palaeographical analysis to other manuscripts from the collection might prove instrumental to defining each actor’s contribution to the annotation of the books. The application of the Handwriting Analysis Tool (HAT) developed by Hussein Mohammad (CSMC, Universität Hamburg) could be of help in the identification and attribution of hands.20 Enlarging the pool of handwriting analysed with archaeometric methods could answer additional questions concerning scribal habits and preferences, and perhaps clarify the temporal distribution or the order of the annotations.

As expected, the inks employed for stamping do not correspond to the inks used for the annotations. It was not possible, however, to discriminate the carbon-based inks of the seals, or clearly define the presence of metallic elements in some of the annotations, as it is unclear whether the trace elements are truly present in the inks—an impurity from the production process of the ink, or a contamination from the metallic seal matrix or the inkwell could have occurred—or are due to the contribution of the writing supports. Such an open question can only be answered through the future application of XRF mapping.21

1

Library inventory, Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü (Ankara), Daftar 1626. The authors would like to thank Said Aljoumani for having shared the palaeographic assessment of the various hands annotating the book with us. Without his notes, the evaluation of the data would have been much more difficult and incomplete. We also thank Astrid Meyer, Karin Scheper, Boris Liebrenz and the editors for their contribution in improving the first draft. And, last but not least, our thanks go to Moya Carey and Kristine Rose-Beers, who welcomed and hosted us at the Chester Beatty Library, facilitating our work in all ways possible.

The research for this chapter was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy—EXC 2176 ‘Understanding Written Artefacts: Material, Interaction and Transmission in Manuscript Cultures’, project no. 390893796. The research was conducted within the scope of the Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures (CSMC) at Universität Hamburg.

2

The CBL actually houses a total of nine al-Jazzār manuscripts, but our present corpus omits two (Ar. 3268 and Ar. 3310) whose connection to al-Jazzār was not known at the time of the analysis. The authors are grateful to curator Moya Carey and Said Aljoumani for identifying the two additional manuscripts.

3

Rabin et al., “Identification and Classification”; Rabin, “Instrumental Analysis”; Colini et al., “New Standard Protocol.”

4

The date of the seal on Ar. 3342 is illegible due to some abrasions and damages that occurred to the paper, but the comparison with other oval impressions leaves no doubt as to its identification.

5

See Chapter 10 on seals by Boris Liebrenz.

6

The authors are extremely grateful to Said Aljoumani for sharing the results of his preliminary palaeographic description. The assessment is still incomplete due to limited access to the manuscripts and images.

7

Library inventory, Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü (Ankara), Daftar 1626.

8

Rabin, “Building a Bridge”, 315. For the information specifically related to Arabic inks provided in the following paragraphs, see Colini, “From Recipes to Material Analysis”, 15–19, 39–40, 106–108.

9

Rabin, “Building a Bridge,” 315–318.

10

Krekel, “Chemistry of Historical Iron Gall Inks”.

11

Colini, “ ‘I tried it’ ”, 146–148.

12

Mrusek et al., “Spektrale Fenster”, 72; Colini et al., “New Standard Protocol”, 163, 172.

13

The model is designed to also take into consideration the impurities of the paper; Hahn et al., “Characterization of Iron-gall Inks”.

14

Hahn et al., “Erfurt Hebrew Giant Bible”; Geissbühler et al., “Advanced Codicological Studies”.

15

Concerning the identification of impurities in carbon inks, see Hahn, “Analyses of Iron Gall and Carbon Inks”. Carbon inks containing copper or lead have been reported in several works: Nir-El/Broshi, “Black Ink”; Brun et al., “Revealing Metallic Ink”; Christiansen et al., “Nature”; Christiansen et al., “Insights”; Colini et al., “Quest for the Mixed Inks”; Rabin et al., “Ink Characterisation”; Cohen, Composition Analysis; Ghigo, “Coptic Inks”; Ghigo et al., “Black Egyptian Inks”; Nehring et al., “Missing Link”; Bonnerot/Mascia, “Scribes and Writing Practices”. The differentiation between a mixed carbon-iron-gall ink and a carbon-based ink with an admixture of iron or copper, however, is not possible to ascertain with non-destructive methods alone. Additionally, none of the methods applied so far can unequivocally identify the presence of tannins in the ink; see Rabin, “Instrumental Analysis”, 30; Colini et al., “New Standard Protocol”, 165.

16

Rabin et al., “Identification and Classification”; Colini et al., “New Standard Protocol”.

17

Rabin et al., “Identification and Classification”; Rabin “Instrumental Analysis”; Colini et al., “New Standard Protocol”.

18

We used this normalisation instead of the normalisation to iron usually employed for the comparison of iron-gall inks as it captures the variability of the samples better.

19

See Said Aljoumani’s Chapter 2 in this volume.

20

Mohammed, “Handwriting Analysis Tool v3.5”.

21

Nehring et al., “Missing Link.”

Bibliography

  • Bonnerot, Olivier and Leah Mascia. “Scribes and Writing Practices in Egypt’s ala Veterana Gallica: A Preliminary Study of Inks from a Military Roll.” In 2023 IMEKO TC-4 International Conference on Metrology for Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: Rome, Italy, October 19–21, 2023, 845850. http://dx.doi.org/10.21014/tc4-ARC-2023.157

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brun, Emmanuel, Marine Cotte, Jonathan Wright, Marie Ruat, Pieter Tack, Laszlo Vincze, Claudio Ferrero, Daniel Delattre and Vito Mocella. “Revealing Metallic Ink in Herculaneum Papyri.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 113, no. 14 (March 2016): 37513754. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519958113.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Christiansen, Thomas, Marine Cotte, Wout de Nolf, Elouan Mouro, Juan Reyes-Herrera, Steven de Meyer, Frederik Vanmeert, Nati Salvadó, Victor Gonzalez, Poul Erik Lindelof, Kell Mortensen, Kim Ryholt, Koen Janssens and Sine Larsen. “Insights into the Composition of Ancient Egyptian Red and Black Inks on Papyri Achieved by Synchrotron-based Microanalyses.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 117, no. 45 (October 2020): 27825-35. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004534117.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Christiansen, Thomas, Marine Cotte, René Loredo-Portales, Poul Erik Lindelof, Kell Mortensen, Kim Ryholt, and Sine Larsen. “The Nature of Ancient Egyptian Copper-containing Carbon Inks Is Revealed by Synchrotron Radiation Based X-ray Microscopy.” Scientific Reports 7 (2017): 15346. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15652-7.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cohen, Zina. Composition Analysis of Writing Materials in Cairo Genizah Documents. Leiden/Boston, 2022.

  • Colini, Claudia. “From Recipes to Material Analysis: The Arabic Tradition of Black Inks and Paper Coatings (9th to 20th Century).” PhD diss., Universität Hamburg, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Colini, Claudia. “‘I tried it and it is really good’: Replicating Recipes of Arabic Black Inks.” In Traces of Inks: Experiences of Philology and Replication, edited by Lucia Raggetti, 131153. Leiden, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004444805

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Colini, Claudia, Oliver Hahn, Olivier Bonnerot, Simon Steger, Zina Cohen, Tea Ghigo, Thomas Christiansen, Marina Bicchieri, Paola Biocca, Myriam Krutzsch and Ira Rabin. “The Quest for the Mixed Inks.” manuscript cultures 11 (2018): 4148.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Colini, Claudia, Ivan Shevchuk, Kyle Ann Huskin, Ira Rabin and Oliver Hahn. “A New Standard Protocol for Identification of Writing Media.” In Exploring Written Artefacts: Objects, Methods, and Concepts, edited by Jörg B. Quenzer, 161182. Berlin/Boston: 2021. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110753301-009.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Geissbühler, Mirjam, Georg Dietz, Oliver Hahn and Ira Rabin. “Advanced Codicological Studies of Cod. germ. 6 (Hamburg, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek): Part 2.” manuscript cultures11 (2018): 133139.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ghigo, Tea. “A Systematic Scientific Study of Coptic Inks from the Late Roman Period to the Middle Ages.” PhD diss., Universität Hamburg and La Sapienza (Rome) University, 2020.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ghigo, Tea, Ira Rabin and Paola Buzi. “Black Egyptian Inks in Late Antiquity: New Insights on Their Manufacture and Use.” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 12 (February 2020): 70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-019-00977-3.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hahn, Oliver. “Analyses of Iron Gall and Carbon Inks by Means of X-ray Fluorescence Analysis: A Non-destructive Approach in the Field of Archaeometry and Conservation Science.” Restaurator: International Journal for the Preservation of Library and Archival Material 31, no. 1 (2010): 4164. https://doi.org/10.1515/rest.2010.003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hahn, Oliver, Wolfgang Malzer, Birgit Kanngiesser and Burkhard Beckhoff. “Characterization of Iron-gall Inks in Historical Manuscripts and Music Compositions Using X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry.” X-Ray Spectrometry 33, no. 4 (February 2004): 234239. https://doi.org/10.1002/xrs.677

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hahn, Oliver, Timo Wolff, Hartmut-Ortwien Feistel, Ira Rabin and Malachi Beit-Arié. “The Erfurt Hebrew Giant Bible and the Experimental XRF Analysis of Ink and Plummet Composition.” Gazette du livre médiéval 51 (Fall 2007): 1629. https://doi.org/10.3406/galim.2007.1754

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Krekel, Christoph. “The Chemistry of Historical Iron Gall Inks: Understanding the Chemistry of Writing Inks Used to Prepare Historical Documents.” International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners 5 (December/January 1999): 5458.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mohammed, Hussein. “Handwriting Analysis Tool v3.5 (HAT3.5)” (Version 3.5.0), May 21, 2021. https://doi.org/10.25592/uhhfdm.900

  • Mrusek, Ralf, Robert Fuchs and Doris Oltrogge. “Spektrale Fenster zur Vergangenheit: Ein neues Reflektographieverfahren zur Untersuchung von Buchmalerei und historischem Schriftgut.” Naturwissenschaften 82 (February 1995): 6879. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01140144

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nehring, Grzegorz, Olivier Bonnerot, Marius Gerhardt, Myriam Krutzsch and Ira Rabin. “Looking for the Missing Link in the Evolution of Black Inks.” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 13 (March 2021): 71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-021-01320-5

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nir-El, Yoram and Magen Broshi. “The Black Ink of the Qumran scrolls.” Dead Sea Discoveries 3, no. 2 (July 1996): 157167.

  • Rabin, Ira. “Instrumental Analysis in Manuscript Studies.” In Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies: An Introduction, edited by Alessandro Bausi, Pier Giorgio Borbone, Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet, Paola Buzi, Jost Gippert, Caroline Macé, Marilena Maniaci, Zisis Melissakis, Laura E. Parodi and Witold Witakowski, 2730. Hamburg, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.46784

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rabin, Ira. “Building a Bridge from the Dead Sea Scrolls to Mediaeval Hebrew Manuscripts.” In Jewish Manuscript Cultures: New Perspectives, edited by Irina Wandrey, 309322. Berlin/Boston, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110546422-012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rabin, Ira, Roman Schütz, Anka Kohl, Timo Wolff, Roald Tagle, Simone Pentzien, Oliver Hahn and Stephen Emmel. “Identification and Classification of Historical Writing Inks in Spectroscopy: A Methodological Overview.” Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies Newsletter 3 (January 2012): 2630. https://doi.org/10.25592/uhhfdm.508

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rabin, Ira, Carsten Wintermann and Oliver Hahn. “Ink Characterisation Performed in Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana (September 2018).” Analecta Papyrologica 31 (2019): 301313.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand
  • Bonnerot, Olivier and Leah Mascia. “Scribes and Writing Practices in Egypt’s ala Veterana Gallica: A Preliminary Study of Inks from a Military Roll.” In 2023 IMEKO TC-4 International Conference on Metrology for Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: Rome, Italy, October 19–21, 2023, 845850. http://dx.doi.org/10.21014/tc4-ARC-2023.157

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brun, Emmanuel, Marine Cotte, Jonathan Wright, Marie Ruat, Pieter Tack, Laszlo Vincze, Claudio Ferrero, Daniel Delattre and Vito Mocella. “Revealing Metallic Ink in Herculaneum Papyri.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 113, no. 14 (March 2016): 37513754. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519958113.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Christiansen, Thomas, Marine Cotte, Wout de Nolf, Elouan Mouro, Juan Reyes-Herrera, Steven de Meyer, Frederik Vanmeert, Nati Salvadó, Victor Gonzalez, Poul Erik Lindelof, Kell Mortensen, Kim Ryholt, Koen Janssens and Sine Larsen. “Insights into the Composition of Ancient Egyptian Red and Black Inks on Papyri Achieved by Synchrotron-based Microanalyses.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 117, no. 45 (October 2020): 27825-35. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004534117.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Christiansen, Thomas, Marine Cotte, René Loredo-Portales, Poul Erik Lindelof, Kell Mortensen, Kim Ryholt, and Sine Larsen. “The Nature of Ancient Egyptian Copper-containing Carbon Inks Is Revealed by Synchrotron Radiation Based X-ray Microscopy.” Scientific Reports 7 (2017): 15346. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15652-7.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cohen, Zina. Composition Analysis of Writing Materials in Cairo Genizah Documents. Leiden/Boston, 2022.

  • Colini, Claudia. “From Recipes to Material Analysis: The Arabic Tradition of Black Inks and Paper Coatings (9th to 20th Century).” PhD diss., Universität Hamburg, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Colini, Claudia. “‘I tried it and it is really good’: Replicating Recipes of Arabic Black Inks.” In Traces of Inks: Experiences of Philology and Replication, edited by Lucia Raggetti, 131153. Leiden, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004444805

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Colini, Claudia, Oliver Hahn, Olivier Bonnerot, Simon Steger, Zina Cohen, Tea Ghigo, Thomas Christiansen, Marina Bicchieri, Paola Biocca, Myriam Krutzsch and Ira Rabin. “The Quest for the Mixed Inks.” manuscript cultures 11 (2018): 4148.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Colini, Claudia, Ivan Shevchuk, Kyle Ann Huskin, Ira Rabin and Oliver Hahn. “A New Standard Protocol for Identification of Writing Media.” In Exploring Written Artefacts: Objects, Methods, and Concepts, edited by Jörg B. Quenzer, 161182. Berlin/Boston: 2021. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110753301-009.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Geissbühler, Mirjam, Georg Dietz, Oliver Hahn and Ira Rabin. “Advanced Codicological Studies of Cod. germ. 6 (Hamburg, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek): Part 2.” manuscript cultures11 (2018): 133139.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ghigo, Tea. “A Systematic Scientific Study of Coptic Inks from the Late Roman Period to the Middle Ages.” PhD diss., Universität Hamburg and La Sapienza (Rome) University, 2020.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ghigo, Tea, Ira Rabin and Paola Buzi. “Black Egyptian Inks in Late Antiquity: New Insights on Their Manufacture and Use.” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 12 (February 2020): 70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-019-00977-3.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hahn, Oliver. “Analyses of Iron Gall and Carbon Inks by Means of X-ray Fluorescence Analysis: A Non-destructive Approach in the Field of Archaeometry and Conservation Science.” Restaurator: International Journal for the Preservation of Library and Archival Material 31, no. 1 (2010): 4164. https://doi.org/10.1515/rest.2010.003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hahn, Oliver, Wolfgang Malzer, Birgit Kanngiesser and Burkhard Beckhoff. “Characterization of Iron-gall Inks in Historical Manuscripts and Music Compositions Using X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry.” X-Ray Spectrometry 33, no. 4 (February 2004): 234239. https://doi.org/10.1002/xrs.677

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hahn, Oliver, Timo Wolff, Hartmut-Ortwien Feistel, Ira Rabin and Malachi Beit-Arié. “The Erfurt Hebrew Giant Bible and the Experimental XRF Analysis of Ink and Plummet Composition.” Gazette du livre médiéval 51 (Fall 2007): 1629. https://doi.org/10.3406/galim.2007.1754

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Krekel, Christoph. “The Chemistry of Historical Iron Gall Inks: Understanding the Chemistry of Writing Inks Used to Prepare Historical Documents.” International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners 5 (December/January 1999): 5458.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mohammed, Hussein. “Handwriting Analysis Tool v3.5 (HAT3.5)” (Version 3.5.0), May 21, 2021. https://doi.org/10.25592/uhhfdm.900

  • Mrusek, Ralf, Robert Fuchs and Doris Oltrogge. “Spektrale Fenster zur Vergangenheit: Ein neues Reflektographieverfahren zur Untersuchung von Buchmalerei und historischem Schriftgut.” Naturwissenschaften 82 (February 1995): 6879. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01140144

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nehring, Grzegorz, Olivier Bonnerot, Marius Gerhardt, Myriam Krutzsch and Ira Rabin. “Looking for the Missing Link in the Evolution of Black Inks.” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 13 (March 2021): 71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-021-01320-5

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nir-El, Yoram and Magen Broshi. “The Black Ink of the Qumran scrolls.” Dead Sea Discoveries 3, no. 2 (July 1996): 157167.

  • Rabin, Ira. “Instrumental Analysis in Manuscript Studies.” In Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies: An Introduction, edited by Alessandro Bausi, Pier Giorgio Borbone, Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet, Paola Buzi, Jost Gippert, Caroline Macé, Marilena Maniaci, Zisis Melissakis, Laura E. Parodi and Witold Witakowski, 2730. Hamburg, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.46784

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rabin, Ira. “Building a Bridge from the Dead Sea Scrolls to Mediaeval Hebrew Manuscripts.” In Jewish Manuscript Cultures: New Perspectives, edited by Irina Wandrey, 309322. Berlin/Boston, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110546422-012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rabin, Ira, Roman Schütz, Anka Kohl, Timo Wolff, Roald Tagle, Simone Pentzien, Oliver Hahn and Stephen Emmel. “Identification and Classification of Historical Writing Inks in Spectroscopy: A Methodological Overview.” Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies Newsletter 3 (January 2012): 2630. https://doi.org/10.25592/uhhfdm.508

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rabin, Ira, Carsten Wintermann and Oliver Hahn. “Ink Characterisation Performed in Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana (September 2018).” Analecta Papyrologica 31 (2019): 301313.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past 365 days Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 371 371 106
PDF Views & Downloads 105 105 10