1
00:00:05,030 --> 00:00:12,320
[Auto-generated transcript. Edits may have been applied for clarity.]
Welcome back to the second of these two sessions this afternoon about woodblocks and printing.

2
00:00:12,740 --> 00:00:22,820
And we've heard already from, uh, Alex and Andrew about some of the varied histories of these blocks and how they might have survived.

3
00:00:23,210 --> 00:00:31,460
And what we're going to look at now is how we might analyse them more materially and scientifically,

4
00:00:31,790 --> 00:00:43,519
to be able to add extra information from some of the documentary evidence which Andrew just showed to date the blocks as well.

5
00:00:43,520 --> 00:00:47,900
And we're looking at two particular projects related to that.

6
00:00:48,170 --> 00:00:52,309
So first of all, to introduce myself, I'm Julianne Simpson, um,

7
00:00:52,310 --> 00:01:00,830
librarian at Chetham's library in Manchester and also on the Council of the Bibliographical Society who have sponsored this particular session.

8
00:01:01,700 --> 00:01:10,850
We have, um, here Ed Potton, who is, uh, works on a book and library history with a particular focus on the 15th century.

9
00:01:11,270 --> 00:01:14,479
He was formerly keeper of printed books at the John Rylands Library.

10
00:01:14,480 --> 00:01:16,370
In fact, a role I took, uh,

11
00:01:16,370 --> 00:01:24,980
took on after him before I moved to Chethams and then Head of Rare Books and Joint Head of Special Collections at Cambridge University Library.

12
00:01:25,760 --> 00:01:34,220
His current research projects include work on the early history of York Minster Library, the library of the medic and alchemist, William Butler.

13
00:01:34,820 --> 00:01:40,340
And most relevant for today is the production and circulation of metal cut

14
00:01:40,350 --> 00:01:46,550
prints in Germany and the early development of print in between 1450 and 1500.

15
00:01:46,850 --> 00:01:53,480
So he is a principal consultant on an AHRC uh joint DFG project.

16
00:01:53,810 --> 00:02:02,480
Worke de Booke Transitions experimentation and Collaboration in Reaper Graphic Technologies, 1440 -1470,

17
00:02:02,840 --> 00:02:11,090
which investigates paper stocks used to print early printed books, books printed from woodblocks and single leaf wood and metal cuts.

18
00:02:12,450 --> 00:02:15,450
Joining us remotely is Doctor Elizabeth Savage.

19
00:02:15,750 --> 00:02:21,810
She is Senior Lecturer in book history and communications in the School of Advanced Study at the University of London,

20
00:02:22,980 --> 00:02:27,990
and she's also been an Honorary Fellow here at the Bodleian library in the Centre for the Study of the Book.

21
00:02:28,950 --> 00:02:35,010
She also explores how information was printed in Europe between 1400 and 1600,

22
00:02:35,400 --> 00:02:41,940
especially the use of colour in printing and exploring library and museum collections,

23
00:02:42,150 --> 00:02:49,140
and recreating techniques of historically, using historically appropriate printing presses like the bibliography

24
00:02:49,320 --> 00:02:55,740
press Alex showed us some images of and collaborating with heritage scientists.

25
00:02:56,430 --> 00:03:04,800
In 2023, she received a grant from the Bibliographical Society to carbon date a group of wood blocks in Berlin,

26
00:03:05,550 --> 00:03:10,950
and this grant was made possible with a generous legacy from Professor John L Flood,

27
00:03:11,250 --> 00:03:18,900
who was Deputy Director of the Institute of Germanic Studies at the University of London from 1979 to 2002.

28
00:03:19,110 --> 00:03:23,459
And we're very pleased also to have with us today his widow and, uh, in the audience.

29
00:03:23,460 --> 00:03:33,570
Thank you for coming. So, this session will actually be in the form of a conversation between Ed and Elizabeth with myself moderating.

30
00:03:34,190 --> 00:03:37,140
Uh or attempting to moderate, a bit threatening? Yes.

31
00:03:38,340 --> 00:03:46,590
And, um, we will, uh, take up about the first half of the time with some discussion and then open it up to the audience,

32
00:03:46,920 --> 00:03:51,870
both in person and also online. So be ready with your questions

33
00:03:52,260 --> 00:03:57,809
Uh, when we get to that. So first of all, I'm going to throw it over to Elizabeth,

34
00:03:57,810 --> 00:04:05,430
who will give us a bit more of an introduction and background to the projects that Elizabeth and Ed have been working on and the,

35
00:04:05,430 --> 00:04:08,790
uh, types of analysis. So I read to you, Elizabeth.

36
00:04:10,170 --> 00:04:16,680
I'd very much like to to reiterate Julian's thanks to, um, the family of John Flood.

37
00:04:17,160 --> 00:04:25,350
Uh, his scholarship is incredible. Um, and it is a huge honour to be able to contribute in a very small way to his legacy.

38
00:04:25,710 --> 00:04:29,580
Uh, through the research undertaken in the ground. It was named in his honour.

39
00:04:30,390 --> 00:04:32,760
Uh, so I hope in some way he might have found this interesting.

40
00:04:32,760 --> 00:04:38,580
And I hope that, uh, that his family is able to, uh, to appreciate the new kinds of research

41
00:04:38,940 --> 00:04:41,190
uh, that have been inspired by the work that he undertook.

42
00:04:42,720 --> 00:04:50,010
Um, so Ed and I today thought we went to talk to you about why everything you think you know is wrong.

43
00:04:50,850 --> 00:04:55,040
Um, with historical research. Uh, you can never trust the secondary sources.

44
00:04:55,050 --> 00:05:01,890
You always have to go back to the primary. But especially with woodblocks, you cannot trust them either at all.

45
00:05:02,580 --> 00:05:13,380
Um, dating them is incredibly difficult. Uh, linking them to, uh, to printed materials to images or books or anything in between, um,

46
00:05:13,620 --> 00:05:17,970
can be incredibly difficult, especially when they were never actually used to print things.

47
00:05:18,480 --> 00:05:25,500
Um, so today, Ed and I are going to talk to you about some of the ways we have we have tried to date the undateable.

48
00:05:25,890 --> 00:05:31,680
Um, and we think Andrew Handy for that catchy title. Uh, by using watermark evidence, um,

49
00:05:31,680 --> 00:05:39,510
and other conventional techniques of print scholarship all the way through collaborations with uh geochronologists to carbon date historical woodblocks,

50
00:05:39,810 --> 00:05:46,290
some of which are much more modern than they claim to be. Um, Ed, would you like to say anything?

51
00:05:47,390 --> 00:05:50,150
No. I think maybe we should, um, start.

52
00:05:50,180 --> 00:05:54,650
This is the sort of feels like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, coming at the end of the day,

53
00:05:54,980 --> 00:06:02,240
but I thought it might be useful just to talk a little bit in very basic terms about what a woodblock is in terms of, uh, in the printing context.

54
00:06:02,690 --> 00:06:06,049
Um, so we've seen some wonderful examples today.

55
00:06:06,050 --> 00:06:08,150
We've seen a lot of impressions from woodblocks today.

56
00:06:08,540 --> 00:06:12,860
But, um, I want to go back to the very beginning and think about this from the moment that it was a tree.

57
00:06:13,130 --> 00:06:18,590
So the very first thing which happens in the production of a woodblock is that that tree is felled,

58
00:06:18,890 --> 00:06:21,470
and then a plank is cut from along the length of the tree,

59
00:06:21,500 --> 00:06:30,079
so it's cut through the grain, and that plank is then chopped up into smaller sections, more manageable sections into those sections,

60
00:06:30,080 --> 00:06:32,750
And n artist then draws a picture.

61
00:06:32,750 --> 00:06:41,570
They draw what they would like to reproduce in print, and then using a series of gouges, these little V or u shaped tools,

62
00:06:42,140 --> 00:06:50,480
this portion of the surface of the block, which they don't want to take, ink, is gradually lowered down and lowered down, so that leaves in relief.

63
00:06:50,480 --> 00:06:55,340
So standing proud the image that the artist wants to reproduce.

64
00:06:56,420 --> 00:07:02,660
Now that block can then be inked. Ink can either be dabbed on it or rolled on it, and then anything can be put on top of it.

65
00:07:02,810 --> 00:07:06,410
Uh, you can print onto fabric, onto paper, onto parchment.

66
00:07:07,280 --> 00:07:13,370
Um, the medium is put on top and then then a pressure is applied,

67
00:07:13,670 --> 00:07:18,830
and again that pressure can be just your hand, it could be a stone or a pebble.

68
00:07:19,310 --> 00:07:28,160
Um, in Japanese, in eastern printing it's often a spatula or a wooden spoon type object, or it can be a printing press.

69
00:07:28,760 --> 00:07:37,280
And then when you peel that paper or medium back off, what you're left with is a reverse impression of the inked portion of the woodblock.

70
00:07:38,540 --> 00:07:41,630
So and you can see on the screen here sorry woodblocks don't photograph terribly well.

71
00:07:41,870 --> 00:07:49,070
Um, on the left hand side, you can see a woodblock, which coincidentally is one of the Bagford woodblocks that Andrew was just talking about.

72
00:07:49,970 --> 00:07:53,720
And then on the right hand side, you can see the impression that's taken from it.

73
00:07:54,320 --> 00:08:00,350
So we make this distinction between blocks and impressions and what you can see immediately,

74
00:08:00,350 --> 00:08:07,610
well, not very clearly because the slide is so dark, but what you can see is that the impression is a reverse, is a mirror image of the woodblock.

75
00:08:07,910 --> 00:08:13,220
So whatever you want to reproduce has to be carved in relief, but also in reverse.

76
00:08:14,420 --> 00:08:20,210
So this technology is probably our oldest reprographic technology.

77
00:08:20,240 --> 00:08:23,300
So we've been printing in this way for well over a thousand years.

78
00:08:23,840 --> 00:08:30,200
But the modern woodcutters outside are still using pretty much exactly the same process as was used, uh, historically.

79
00:08:31,430 --> 00:08:34,489
So it begins in China well over a thousand years ago.

80
00:08:34,490 --> 00:08:41,990
But the projects that Elizabeth and I work on focus on the very beginnings of printing from woodblock in Western Europe.

81
00:08:42,620 --> 00:08:49,790
So we're interested in printing Western printing primarily between 1400 and 1600.

82
00:08:50,930 --> 00:09:01,940
So there is a chronology to that. The very earliest, um Western woodcuts, woodcut prints start appearing around 1410 or 1420.

83
00:09:02,420 --> 00:09:07,999
And these are quite simple, quite naive designs, all of which share a lot of similarities,

84
00:09:08,000 --> 00:09:13,220
which suggests that maybe it's quite a small number of workshops that are producing these woodblocks.

85
00:09:13,850 --> 00:09:19,400
Um, they are without, uh, exception, they are devotional images.

86
00:09:19,790 --> 00:09:26,689
So these are um, and throughout most of the 15th century, um, and until it became, until we got, um,

87
00:09:26,690 --> 00:09:33,260
woodcuts used in books, most single sheet material that's produced by wood from woodblocks is devotional in nature.

88
00:09:33,440 --> 00:09:38,330
So these are images of Saiints. They are images of The Passion,

89
00:09:38,720 --> 00:09:44,330
Um, and the intention is that they are circulated as the focus of private devotion.

90
00:09:45,200 --> 00:09:48,620
And as a result, the're used in a series of contexts.

91
00:09:49,010 --> 00:09:53,030
So they're often found pinned to pews or to walls.

92
00:09:53,360 --> 00:09:58,490
They're found pasted into manuscripts and then later into devotional printed books.

93
00:09:58,940 --> 00:10:04,550
Um, and they're found pasted into things like coffrets, these little portable book boxes.

94
00:10:05,150 --> 00:10:08,660
So they fulfil the role of a sort of private devotional aid.

95
00:10:09,290 --> 00:10:14,089
So we have a very small clutch of them from the 1420s, 1410s and 1420s.

96
00:10:14,090 --> 00:10:22,460
About 6 or 7 dozen survive. And then in the 1440s, um, we get a huge expansion in their production.

97
00:10:22,760 --> 00:10:26,899
Um, and we also get, uh, a change in, uh, their nature.

98
00:10:26,900 --> 00:10:34,400
They become much more sophisticated, they start to integrate text, which obviously, if you're carving in reverse, is quite a complicated business.

99
00:10:34,910 --> 00:10:42,170
Um, they start to incorporate architectural designs around the figures that are depicted, scenes in the background.

100
00:10:43,700 --> 00:10:50,150
Then in around 14, somewhere around the mid 1450s, at precisely the time that Gutenberg is inventing printing the movable type,

101
00:10:50,600 --> 00:10:54,530
we get this phenomenon of block books, which, um, Andrew has already mentioned.

102
00:10:54,890 --> 00:10:57,350
So a block book is precisely the same technology.

103
00:10:58,070 --> 00:11:04,940
You take a slightly larger block of wood, plank of wood, and you carve into it two pages in relief and in reverse,

104
00:11:05,420 --> 00:11:07,970
and that block is one of a series of blocks.

105
00:11:08,630 --> 00:11:15,770
You then take impressions from them, and those impressions are then folded up and they're glued together sort of concertina wise.

106
00:11:16,310 --> 00:11:22,040
And those produce a codex, a book. So this is an early means of producing an illustrated book.

107
00:11:23,760 --> 00:11:32,730
And then I suppose finally, in terms of the 15th century, um, we have Gutenberg inventing, uh, printing with movable type in the mid 1450s.

108
00:11:33,030 --> 00:11:38,100
And very rapidly the woodblock starts to be used within the print shop.

109
00:11:38,430 --> 00:11:46,380
So from the very early 1460s, Albert Pfister in Bamberg starts integrating these wooden blocks into pages of type.

110
00:11:47,460 --> 00:11:51,240
Um, and then it sort of takes off, the illustrated book takes off from there.

111
00:11:52,260 --> 00:12:00,210
So the sorts of material that Elizabeth and I work on really all sort of cluster around this 15th and early 16th century period.

112
00:12:00,690 --> 00:12:09,420
But both the objects themselves, the surviving blocks and the impressions are really problematic.

113
00:12:09,960 --> 00:12:16,860
And I might hand back over to Elizabeth, maybe to talk a little bit about blocks and some of the problems we have with those?

114
00:12:18,210 --> 00:12:21,600
Yes. Of course. Uh, can we advance to the next slide, please?

115
00:12:23,140 --> 00:12:31,780
Uh, and actually, this is one of your slides. Uh, but one of the interesting things, uh, that that you can see here is the wood.

116
00:12:32,320 --> 00:12:38,350
Uh, it is a wood block. So you might be thinking, of course, you can see the wood, but when wood blocks are printed,

117
00:12:38,770 --> 00:12:46,870
they're coated with normally black printing ink, and printing ink is a really, really thick, viscous material.

118
00:12:47,380 --> 00:12:54,670
Um, it's, um, it's like a really thick maybe, um, paste more maybe like a solid.

119
00:12:54,670 --> 00:12:58,060
It can, you know, sort of stand up on its own if it's really, really thick.

120
00:12:58,450 --> 00:13:03,340
It is globby and it is opaque and it is permanent and,

121
00:13:04,350 --> 00:13:09,150
As oils that, uh, carry the pigment, uh, the black opaque pigment,

122
00:13:09,880 --> 00:13:13,680
Um, on the surface of the wood, they impregnate the wood.

123
00:13:14,310 --> 00:13:20,160
So after you print, under the impressions of a woodblock with a black ink,

124
00:13:20,640 --> 00:13:24,540
that wood block is going to always be glossy and black.

125
00:13:24,570 --> 00:13:35,070
It makes it a nightmare to photograph, you cannot see the wood, so when you clean it, um, you can you can use a solvent to get the globbyness off.

126
00:13:35,580 --> 00:13:39,960
Um, but you could never remove the ink that's impregnated the surface of the wood.

127
00:13:40,440 --> 00:13:47,460
Um, so here the fact that you can see the, uh, the, the characters that comprise these letters,

128
00:13:47,790 --> 00:13:56,460
Um, and black, that's where the ink was applied. Um, so, you know, it was printed, but there's a lot of wood, brown wood visible around that.

129
00:13:56,940 --> 00:14:01,950
Um, and maybe some of that, um, was applied by the inking board, which is quite big.

130
00:14:01,950 --> 00:14:04,739
Maybe it dropped, maybe that was from the wiping.

131
00:14:04,740 --> 00:14:12,180
So when you put a solvent on and you take a rag and clean it, you end up wiping that diluted ink, uh, around the surface.

132
00:14:12,840 --> 00:14:17,370
Um, maybe it's supplied then. But this block was not printed many times at all.

133
00:14:17,370 --> 00:14:24,209
Maybe just once or once or twice. Um, so I think, Ed, do you want to talk a little bit about the significance of the,

134
00:14:24,210 --> 00:14:29,580
uh, the unprintedness of blocks like this that are in excellent condition?

135
00:14:30,550 --> 00:14:36,090
Yeah. So I mean, the, the, the very condition of them sort of suggests that this is, as we've heard from Andrew,

136
00:14:36,090 --> 00:14:41,580
that this is not a 15th century block that has been been printed from since the 15th century.

137
00:14:41,910 --> 00:14:47,460
Um, and it's interesting, the other blocks, the Bagford blocks, although they're slightly darker than this,

138
00:14:47,640 --> 00:14:53,360
they also give this impression if there's no ink in the wells in the, in the, unprinted in the un inked section.

139
00:14:53,440 --> 00:14:58,500
So to me, um, it's a fair indication that very few impressions have been taken.

140
00:14:59,040 --> 00:15:06,450
Um, so these I suppose these, these blocks are interesting because they sort of they sort of float in space and time.

141
00:15:07,050 --> 00:15:14,730
And I think that's what fascinates Elizabeth and I about these things that they are, um, they are an artefact,

142
00:15:14,730 --> 00:15:19,260
they tend rarely to be signed, they tend rarely to be dated.

143
00:15:19,770 --> 00:15:26,550
Um, and as a consequence, sort of placing them chronologically or geographically is very difficult.

144
00:15:27,060 --> 00:15:36,660
Um, and, Elizabeth, you've been looking at the, the Derschau blocks, of the Derschau blocks that it's a huge collection, um, of these woodblocks.

145
00:15:37,080 --> 00:15:44,970
And I think what we're very interested in is trying to ascertain from this huge corpus of potential material which we could examine,

146
00:15:45,630 --> 00:15:48,390
sort of where do you begin with making sense of that?

147
00:15:48,750 --> 00:15:58,470
So where do you begin with actually saying, this thing looks like it should be from 1464, but it isn't from 1464?

148
00:15:59,070 --> 00:16:10,410
Um, so with this something like Derschau, which is a huge collection, um, how can we sort of interrogate that in new ways to try to work out,

149
00:16:11,160 --> 00:16:21,240
firstly what's a genuine early block and distinguish it from a later block, but also to ask questions about what actually genuine means?

150
00:16:21,720 --> 00:16:30,680
Um. So I mean, Elizabeth, you want to say a little bit more about Derschau now or do you want to do that later on and or we can do it now.

151
00:16:30,690 --> 00:16:36,930
Could you please forward. Uh, I think five slides to the picture of the Landsknecht standing with his staff.

152
00:16:37,320 --> 00:16:42,960
Uh, next one, please. Perfect. Uh, so, Hans Albert von Derschau was the first collector of woodblocks.

153
00:16:43,350 --> 00:16:47,610
Um, as opposed to, say, publisher or printer or practical user.

154
00:16:48,090 --> 00:16:51,240
Um. And he was active, you know, after, uh, the.

155
00:16:52,750 --> 00:16:55,870
And after German unification, which was in 1870,

156
00:16:55,870 --> 00:17:02,050
so there is a surge of interest in and in establishing collections and interpreting collections that um,

157
00:17:03,200 --> 00:17:10,130
with it. So the story of a German cultural heritage, rather than many separate, um,

158
00:17:10,520 --> 00:17:15,410
cultural heritage heritages in areas from the Holy Roman Empire that were German speaking.

159
00:17:15,830 --> 00:17:21,500
And so he created a collection of woodblocks, not editable and prints and many other things, but especially the woodblocks,

160
00:17:21,860 --> 00:17:29,480
uh, that showed the development of, of art making, um, in mostly the German speaking areas from its origins.

161
00:17:30,110 --> 00:17:33,200
Um, up until his, uh, up until his death.

162
00:17:34,100 --> 00:17:39,110
Um, no, what you're looking at here is a what seems to be.

163
00:17:39,110 --> 00:17:47,960
So, um, you're looking at a woodblock, the, um, recto or the line side, a side view the verso or the coloured side,

164
00:17:48,380 --> 00:17:54,830
and then an impression, uh, that shows how the, the lined and the tone side, uh, combined to create a single image.

165
00:17:55,730 --> 00:18:00,590
Well, this is, um, when I started this research several years ago, this was one of the only,

166
00:18:01,250 --> 00:18:05,720
uh, several dozen colour woodcuts known from early modern German speaking ones.

167
00:18:06,080 --> 00:18:11,240
Uh, these kinds of soldiers with a really fancy clothing were called Landsknecht, and they were, um,

168
00:18:11,540 --> 00:18:20,750
mercenary soldiers who had wild and radical fashion, with permission from the emperor himself to wear special clothing and special colours.

169
00:18:21,200 --> 00:18:24,829
Um, and legend has it that's in compensation for the life being so short.

170
00:18:24,830 --> 00:18:30,950
So they were known for their raucous behaviour and wild fashion, and are many woodcuts made of this fashion.

171
00:18:32,000 --> 00:18:35,510
Now, this one is exceptional because it's printed in it in colour.

172
00:18:36,020 --> 00:18:42,290
Um, and the colour palettes for printing were very limited at this time and fairly drab and also,

173
00:18:43,290 --> 00:18:48,479
um, because it seems to show sort of halo around, uh, parts of it.

174
00:18:48,480 --> 00:18:55,950
And so, uh, it was sort it was odd that it was printed in colour because normally these woodcuts were hand painted and really bright.

175
00:18:56,040 --> 00:18:59,040
Uh, we might even say garish to our eyes' palettes.

176
00:18:59,490 --> 00:19:02,940
Um, and this halo, you can see the edge of it is sort of scalloped.

177
00:19:03,330 --> 00:19:12,030
Um, makes this seem to be a test print or a proof impression that tests the alignment of the, the tone and the key blocks.

178
00:19:12,030 --> 00:19:13,440
Make sure they aligned correctly.

179
00:19:13,860 --> 00:19:22,440
Uh, before the cutter, then sort of scooped out all the, the rest of the, um, what seems to be the background in tone.

180
00:19:22,740 --> 00:19:28,380
So undocumented, unprecedented evidence for woodblock working practices in early modern Germany.

181
00:19:29,190 --> 00:19:33,990
Well, I don't think that's true. Um, this is the only known impression of it.

182
00:19:34,020 --> 00:19:40,499
Um. It was, I've found that all impressions that survive and every glam gallery, library,

183
00:19:40,500 --> 00:19:45,959
archive and museum worldwide, I've been able to track down copies of this, um, all identical.

184
00:19:45,960 --> 00:19:56,460
And they all are taken from the 1810 uh re strikes, uh, a volume that collects new impressions of all of Derschau's old woodblocks.

185
00:19:57,230 --> 00:20:02,760
Um, so this is an this seems to be an 18th century, um, or early 19th century

186
00:20:03,990 --> 00:20:09,810
woodblock created to be printed for the first time in 1810, um, and very recently.

187
00:20:09,820 --> 00:20:13,800
So the the print collection in Berlin has um,

188
00:20:14,130 --> 00:20:21,209
we took advantage of the closures due to Covid to do some incredibly detailed cataloguing projects of large bodies of their collection,

189
00:20:21,210 --> 00:20:27,900
and that includes a Derschau collection of woodblocks. So for the first time, they have been thoroughly catalogued and digitised.

190
00:20:28,680 --> 00:20:34,080
And you're looking at some of the results here. So hundreds of these blocks are now available to researchers for the first time.

191
00:20:34,830 --> 00:20:38,360
Um, what you can see is what we were talking about earlier.

192
00:20:38,370 --> 00:20:42,270
They're suspiciously clean. They're in really good condition.

193
00:20:43,050 --> 00:20:46,080
Um. And you can see the,

194
00:20:47,880 --> 00:20:50,700
so I don't know if you can see my mask on the image. You probably can.

195
00:20:51,360 --> 00:21:00,450
Um, the the key, block in black has a bit of that opaque glossiness that ink impregnated into it, but not a lot.

196
00:21:00,960 --> 00:21:05,400
Um, so it hasn't been printed in white too many times. And then the, um.

197
00:21:06,750 --> 00:21:10,310
The Tom block seems to have traces of two colours.

198
00:21:10,320 --> 00:21:15,570
One is a really, really bad, a really thin red ink which could have been used for proofing.

199
00:21:16,380 --> 00:21:19,440
There's only a faint traces of it, and only in several places.

200
00:21:19,890 --> 00:21:23,360
And then it has the, the green,

201
00:21:24,360 --> 00:21:27,839
uh, which remains in areas that were sort of rougher or cut away,

202
00:21:27,840 --> 00:21:31,110
so all of the smooth printed areas it's been wiped completely clean from,

203
00:21:31,570 --> 00:21:41,160
Um, so I would imagine this was printed in colour besides a proof only once and only for the, uh, 1810, uh, restructs.

204
00:21:41,820 --> 00:21:45,260
Um, so I started wondering how how can we know?

205
00:21:45,270 --> 00:21:51,720
How can we tell? Um, I can use humanities research methods to say, well, something smells wrong.

206
00:21:51,900 --> 00:21:59,370
I think these are much later. I don't think these are actually from the, uh, 1520s, 1540s, which the iconography would suggest.

207
00:22:00,030 --> 00:22:05,490
Um, so with the support of the John Flood funding and with Ed's involvement, uh, we.

208
00:22:06,900 --> 00:22:13,370
Add some conservators at Berlin. Remove little bits of the wood in ways that are not visible to the eye.

209
00:22:13,380 --> 00:22:17,520
There's no visible changes, and burn them up so they could be carbon dated.

210
00:22:18,130 --> 00:22:22,260
Uh, can you go backwards? One slide, please? Um, yes.

211
00:22:22,260 --> 00:22:29,340
There you go. Uh, and so here I can imagine the shock in the room about removing, uh, physical material for destructive testing,

212
00:22:29,700 --> 00:22:34,430
but here you can see the hand of the conservator removing very small pieces of wood.

213
00:22:34,440 --> 00:22:39,579
You can see a before and after of the, of one of the blocks,

214
00:22:39,580 --> 00:22:45,220
it's a different block. It's one of the group that was tested. So there is effectively no perceptible, uh, difference.

215
00:22:45,890 --> 00:22:51,880
And it was considered that the research value of the testing would be more significant than the, um,

216
00:22:52,570 --> 00:22:59,170
any minor change, uh, for the removal of material from the already existing worm damage or existing holes.

217
00:22:59,320 --> 00:23:04,900
And then you can see on the in the next picture the sort of pencil head size fragments of wood that were removed.

218
00:23:05,830 --> 00:23:11,350
Um, and so what we found complicates the story a bit.

219
00:23:11,680 --> 00:23:14,890
Uh, do you want to talk about carbon dating a bit?

220
00:23:15,730 --> 00:23:19,450
Um, actually, you're probably better placed to talk about that, having just written that.

221
00:23:19,450 --> 00:23:27,430
Just written. Ed and I have collaborated on an article in the volume Printing Things that Francesco Burke and I editing for

222
00:23:27,490 --> 00:23:33,969
Proceedings of the British Academy in collaboration with the geochronologist and conservation team who undertook this,

223
00:23:33,970 --> 00:23:37,210
which should be coming out next year. Fingers crossed. Um.

224
00:23:38,630 --> 00:23:48,170
Well, and this followed in the footsteps of Ed's earlier research into the pioneering carbon dating of a medieval woodblock that so can't be medieval.

225
00:23:48,830 --> 00:23:55,520
Um. But we found that the wood could have been, um.

226
00:23:58,010 --> 00:24:03,200
The wood could have been from a much earlier time, or it could have been, uh, from the 18th century.

227
00:24:04,070 --> 00:24:08,360
Uh, we found that it's incredibly difficult to use the information from carbon dating,

228
00:24:09,380 --> 00:24:13,940
Uh, in most cases, uh, to a certain the timeline of the production of a woodblock.

229
00:24:14,540 --> 00:24:17,570
So what looks like this, uh, they grow from a tree.

230
00:24:18,050 --> 00:24:23,270
They're taken from a tree, as Ed said. And the carbon in the atmosphere is trapped in each ring.

231
00:24:24,110 --> 00:24:33,020
Um, so when you if you were to, say, unlock or open up a ring of a tree, you can see the carbon levels in the atmosphere at that moment.

232
00:24:33,650 --> 00:24:38,540
Um, so it's often said that the carbon dating tells you when the tree was felled or it died.

233
00:24:39,050 --> 00:24:45,590
Uh, but that's not true. It, um, reveals the level of carbon in that atmosphere when that ring grew when that was created.

234
00:24:46,190 --> 00:24:52,569
And, thanks for woodblocks like these, uh, but tend to be chosen because they're more stable.

235
00:24:52,570 --> 00:24:56,710
They don't, um, bend over time, so they're taken closer to the core of the tree.

236
00:24:57,160 --> 00:25:00,550
But if you're talking about trees that are giant and centuries old,

237
00:25:01,150 --> 00:25:05,170
it can be very difficult to know where the position of that plank was within the tree.

238
00:25:05,710 --> 00:25:11,440
Um, and if the tree several hundred years old, then carbon dating each of the rings can show the range from,

239
00:25:12,190 --> 00:25:15,340
uh, 200 years ago to the, uh, to the present.

240
00:25:15,820 --> 00:25:20,590
Uh, so we've had additional challenges in carbon dating this, but the interpreting the results.

241
00:25:20,590 --> 00:25:25,000
But the results are not inconsistent, uh, with a much later production.

242
00:25:25,570 --> 00:25:31,630
But that doesn't mean that these wood blocks are fakes. Um, Ed, do you want to talk about your carbon dating and backward now?

243
00:25:31,900 --> 00:25:38,960
Yeah. So the interesting thing, I think Bagford, and I've got the Bagford block at the beginning there that we have.

244
00:25:41,370 --> 00:25:46,370
So. Okay. So. So the radiocarbon dating can give you a certain amount of data.

245
00:25:46,380 --> 00:25:52,350
But the problem with radiocarbon dating is that it gives you data in sort of, uh, blocks.

246
00:25:52,350 --> 00:25:59,610
So it says this could be between these dates based on the carbon decay, or it could be between these dates, or it could be between these dates.

247
00:25:59,820 --> 00:26:03,900
So it sounds like it's actually a very unhelpful, um, process.

248
00:26:04,260 --> 00:26:09,990
But what we've learned from the earlier talks today is that context is everything for these things.

249
00:26:10,440 --> 00:26:17,280
So the radio, radiocarbon dating is useful when it's put alongside other contextual information.

250
00:26:18,060 --> 00:26:27,150
So Bagfords blocks, for example, when the radiocarbon dating was done on the Rylands Apocalypse block, which purported

251
00:26:29,750 --> 00:26:34,310
Is there, which is this woman? Um, which was long,

252
00:26:34,370 --> 00:26:39,620
Which was long thought to be the, the only surviving woodblock from which a block book impression was taken.

253
00:26:40,070 --> 00:26:47,840
The radiocarbon dating came up with three possible um, uh, date ranges and, uh,

254
00:26:49,940 --> 00:26:54,140
two of those were problematic because of the contextual information that we know about that block.

255
00:26:54,320 --> 00:27:02,630
So, for example, um, we know that this block was in the ownership of um, Earl Spencer by 1800.

256
00:27:03,050 --> 00:27:08,360
So one of the ranges was 1820 - 1860 can't possibly be right.

257
00:27:08,360 --> 00:27:15,800
So we can strike that one off. The other one of the other date ranges was from 1340 to 1400.

258
00:27:16,280 --> 00:27:22,759
And you think, well, block books, we know now from the work of Allan Stevenson and other people that block books, uh,

259
00:27:22,760 --> 00:27:28,940
start to appear at precisely the same moment in the 1450s that Gutenberg is inventing, uh, experimenting with movable type.

260
00:27:29,750 --> 00:27:37,310
So by using that contextual evidence, you're able actually to strike out those two outlier dates and just leave you with one particular date,

261
00:27:37,550 --> 00:27:41,330
which in the case of the Rylands block was pretty specific.

262
00:27:41,330 --> 00:27:45,440
It was between 1684 and 1812.

263
00:27:45,860 --> 00:27:51,679
And lo and behold, we've got Bagford writing to Thomas Hearne at the beginning of the 18th century,

264
00:27:51,680 --> 00:27:54,590
saying, I'm in the process of making these wood blocks.

265
00:27:54,890 --> 00:28:03,440
So it's a nice example of how the contextual evidence, the sort of bibliographical communication which takes place around these things over centuries,

266
00:28:03,770 --> 00:28:08,330
um, actually allows us to make more sense of that radiocarbon dating.

267
00:28:08,600 --> 00:28:13,130
And I think when we come towards the end of this, Elizabeth, we might talk a little bit more about the sort of limitations,

268
00:28:13,700 --> 00:28:18,080
but also the potential for wider carbon dating for these, for these objects.

269
00:28:18,560 --> 00:28:21,890
Um, shall I say a little bit about impressions?

270
00:28:23,630 --> 00:28:33,140
First, I do want to say first very quickly, is that the fact that this medieval woodblock is actually not medieval, um, doesn't cheapen it.

271
00:28:33,140 --> 00:28:36,170
It doesn't make it just a fake or a fraud or a forgery.

272
00:28:36,620 --> 00:28:46,880
Um, Ed suspects, and I think he's absolutely right, uh, that it's instead a way to explore, honour or document, uh, earlier craft practices.

273
00:28:47,420 --> 00:28:55,219
Um, these and we think there are probably very many of them that just haven't yet been identified, uh, were created, uh, similar to the, uh,

274
00:28:55,220 --> 00:29:00,880
to the block in the Derschau collection at a moment of the creation of bibliograph or print

275
00:29:00,920 --> 00:29:07,400
historical study or moments of, of particular cultural importance for print history.

276
00:29:08,090 --> 00:29:13,760
Um, we think they might have been research tools or, uh, as Ed has said,

277
00:29:13,760 --> 00:29:19,610
a facsimile in the in an era before technologies of exact reproduction existed.

278
00:29:19,940 --> 00:29:24,830
Uh, so in a way, the facsimile of a technique or of an approach rather than of an image.

279
00:29:25,430 --> 00:29:28,999
Um, and I think this builds in some ways from, um,

280
00:29:29,000 --> 00:29:36,560
what Andrew and Alex have been saying about us standing on the shoulders of the giants who ran libraries in previous generations,

281
00:29:36,950 --> 00:29:45,380
uh, they were the ones who were commissioning these and working with, uh, with printmakers and block cutters to ensure that they were accurate.

282
00:29:45,770 --> 00:29:50,300
Uh, and as Ed has found in the correspondence, they, they knew this.

283
00:29:50,340 --> 00:29:51,740
They were not fooled.

284
00:29:52,100 --> 00:29:59,480
It's later generations and our generation who have been taken in by the accuracy and precision of the work that they were so invested in,

285
00:29:59,750 --> 00:30:01,070
and we have misinterpreted it.

286
00:30:01,550 --> 00:30:08,840
Um, but that so we think that actually the later production of these medieval that early modern woodblocks add significantly to their research value.

287
00:30:09,110 --> 00:30:13,280
It's a completely new way of interpreting the historical record,

288
00:30:13,280 --> 00:30:17,689
these objects that have come down to us and appreciating the, the research of the past

289
00:30:17,690 --> 00:30:21,920
that they represent and the role that they have in creating a sort of an antiquarian,

290
00:30:22,460 --> 00:30:28,130
uh, form of antiquarian scholarship, that established the fields of book history and print histories.

291
00:30:28,130 --> 00:30:32,490
We know what. Bagford has had a very, very bad press over the years.

292
00:30:32,490 --> 00:30:37,980
So Bagford, Bagford put together this collection, enormous collection of printed and manuscript fragments.

293
00:30:38,340 --> 00:30:42,690
So he was famously referred to as the Biblioclast, the sort of breaker of books.

294
00:30:43,230 --> 00:30:48,540
Um, I think over the past sort of 30 or 40 years, we've completely reassessed the way that we understand him,

295
00:30:48,900 --> 00:30:55,709
and there's, a there's a wonderful article, um, which looks at Bagford in a new light, um, uh, by,

296
00:30:55,710 --> 00:31:02,580
Wright. And it basically, he points out, the back foot is a bibliographical pioneer in just about every aspect of what he does.

297
00:31:02,970 --> 00:31:05,780
And I think Elizabeth and I would argue that this is what's going on here.

298
00:31:05,790 --> 00:31:10,080
You know, Bagford was working at a time when the word facsimile hadn't yet been invented.

299
00:31:10,440 --> 00:31:13,770
So there is no concept of what a facsimile is.

300
00:31:14,100 --> 00:31:22,260
So Bagford is travelling around the continent, going to Haarlem, visiting Mainz, Mainz, looking at all these examples of early printing,

301
00:31:22,590 --> 00:31:30,420
and trying to work out how he's going to express in the the, the abortive history of printing that never happens, how he's going to get this across.

302
00:31:30,690 --> 00:31:36,210
And he realises that this is a visual medium, so he needs to produce a visual representation.

303
00:31:36,540 --> 00:31:42,630
But he sees no issue with taking one bit of a block book, combining it with a text from a letter press book,

304
00:31:42,900 --> 00:31:49,800
and then creating a sort of composite imaginary object which illustrates all the points that he wants to make in his essay.

305
00:31:50,100 --> 00:31:55,290
So it's not a duplicitous activity. He would never I don't think we ever thought of it in that way.

306
00:31:55,290 --> 00:32:04,530
It is more about, um, producing something which illustrates physically the materiality of the things that he's been studying.

307
00:32:05,130 --> 00:32:08,220
So it's a super interesting thing. I think we're sort of really.

308
00:32:08,340 --> 00:32:11,880
So the question around the Rylands block has always been, is it a fake or is it real?

309
00:32:12,180 --> 00:32:15,630
And actually, the question is a much more nuanced one than that.

310
00:32:15,900 --> 00:32:22,950
It's not real. But actually in many respects, it's much more interesting as a composite object from the late 17th,

311
00:32:22,950 --> 00:32:27,479
early 18th century, uh, than it might be as a 15th century block

312
00:32:27,480 --> 00:32:32,910
dare I say it. Um, and that's where things like the Derschau collection are going to be so interesting.

313
00:32:32,910 --> 00:32:39,030
So Elizabeth and I, my suspicion is that actually there is a huge amount of, uh,

314
00:32:39,030 --> 00:32:47,910
woodblock material which either floats without any identification or dating at all because people don't know how to approach it,

315
00:32:48,600 --> 00:32:55,770
0r more likely, it's, um, been put across as either a genuine 15th or 16th century object or a fake.

316
00:32:56,640 --> 00:33:00,000
And I think what we're interested in is a larger endeavour to look at that and

317
00:33:00,000 --> 00:33:04,290
try and work out whether the techniques of radiocarbon dating and the various

318
00:33:04,290 --> 00:33:08,159
other contextual things that we've talked about today can allow us to sort of

319
00:33:08,160 --> 00:33:13,260
draw some lines around these various different clutches of woodblock material,

320
00:33:13,650 --> 00:33:14,910
which would allow us to say, okay,

321
00:33:14,910 --> 00:33:21,480
this sort of stuff does look like from the carbon dating and from the context that it might actually be from the 15th or 16th century.

322
00:33:22,560 --> 00:33:26,670
This set of material looks like it's from the 17th century,

323
00:33:26,670 --> 00:33:27,540
and is as I say,

324
00:33:28,050 --> 00:33:34,620
all grist to the mill of this idea that there's this great fermentation going on at that moment about the history of printing and understanding it,

325
00:33:34,620 --> 00:33:41,939
and it's a tool for doing that, and then this set of material is perhaps early 19th century and was produced

326
00:33:41,940 --> 00:33:47,100
by booksellers who wanted to be duplicitous and produce something which is a,

327
00:33:47,400 --> 00:33:53,430
you know, a fake. Um, so there's another metal cut at Rylands, which we I've been looking at recently,

328
00:33:53,790 --> 00:34:02,550
which does actually look like it might be a fabrication of the early 19th century, but it's been printed on paper from the early 16th century.

329
00:34:02,850 --> 00:34:09,089
So somebody is being very, very clever there about creating something which looks even if you look at the paper,

330
00:34:09,090 --> 00:34:15,180
it looks like a genuine object that isn't, um, but at the moment we're really only sort of dipping our toe in the water with that.

331
00:34:17,010 --> 00:34:22,800
I think there's a lot to be done to explore the relationship to what became a neo-Gothic movement.

332
00:34:23,070 --> 00:34:29,700
Um, you know, Viollet-le-Duc's restoration of Notre Dame and Paris has been, uh, in some cases mocked.

333
00:34:29,700 --> 00:34:33,780
He made it more medieval than the medieval ever was, but, uh

334
00:34:34,770 --> 00:34:36,180
at the same time he was, uh.

335
00:34:36,540 --> 00:34:44,400
He was pioneering an architecture ways of honouring and exploring and building on what he understood as the division of the, uh, creators.

336
00:34:44,940 --> 00:34:49,080
Um, and I think there's a huge amount of honour and respect and

337
00:34:50,340 --> 00:34:55,229
work invested in the revival and the continuation of medieval and early modern

338
00:34:55,230 --> 00:34:59,880
craft practices in wedlock that bears a huge amount of further explanation.

339
00:35:00,390 --> 00:35:06,390
Um, both the exploration with the fundamental research identifying objects, uh, processes, data,

340
00:35:06,690 --> 00:35:12,420
and also understanding the intellectual and the broader culture cultural context in which this took place.

341
00:35:14,310 --> 00:35:20,840
So I talk a little bit about impressions now. Yes. Um. Find the right slide.

342
00:35:21,260 --> 00:35:26,720
Okay, so if woodblocks are difficult to date, impressions in some respects are even more difficult to date.

343
00:35:26,960 --> 00:35:34,070
So we've already touched, uh, Alex touched on the idea of the sort of, uh, transient nature of these things.

344
00:35:34,070 --> 00:35:39,470
Most of the output from woodblock in the periods that Elizabeth and I are interested in is very ephemeral.

345
00:35:39,950 --> 00:35:46,130
Um, it survives in tiny quantities, you know, a thousand impressions may be taken,

346
00:35:46,280 --> 00:35:50,660
may have been taken in the 15th century, but maybe only 1 or 2 actually survive today.

347
00:35:51,170 --> 00:35:56,330
Um, and they survive in context, which makes them sometimes difficult to make sense of.

348
00:35:56,600 --> 00:36:02,360
So I mentioned this so that the coffret on the right hand, on the left hand side there is, you know,

349
00:36:02,360 --> 00:36:08,500
this is a print which in the 15th century was pasted into a book box, makes it very difficult for us to study it.

350
00:36:08,510 --> 00:36:12,710
It's great for the context, but it makes it very difficult to for us to study it as an object.

351
00:36:13,280 --> 00:36:18,859
Uh, the middle woodcut is actually printed directly into a medieval manuscript, so it's not a print,

352
00:36:18,860 --> 00:36:24,649
it was printed into the manuscript itself. And then on the right hand side, this is a bit of a cheat,

353
00:36:24,650 --> 00:36:26,300
it's a metal cut rather than a woodcut,

354
00:36:26,570 --> 00:36:33,080
but it's to give the make the point that these things the most common place we find them surviving is pasted into manuscripts and printed books.

355
00:36:33,770 --> 00:36:40,700
Um, so their context makes them complicated, but also their means of production makes them complicated.

356
00:36:41,330 --> 00:36:45,350
So printing from woodblocks is not like book printing.

357
00:36:45,710 --> 00:36:49,880
So when we're printing letterpress books, we have this concept of the addition.

358
00:36:50,390 --> 00:36:56,030
So when you're printing a large press book, you set the type to print a particular set of pages,

359
00:36:56,450 --> 00:37:00,770
you ink that type and you take off 500 or 1000 impressions of it

360
00:37:01,220 --> 00:37:08,990
and then you wash that type, you break it and redistribute it and use the same type to make different pages and print 500 of them.

361
00:37:09,380 --> 00:37:14,510
And that is a sort of an addition printing. Printing from woodblocks is different.

362
00:37:14,960 --> 00:37:20,840
So once you've put the effort into creating the woodblock, I mean, you can change it subtly,

363
00:37:20,840 --> 00:37:24,770
you can continue to cut away at it, but fundamentally it is what it is.

364
00:37:25,520 --> 00:37:30,410
And as a consequence, the printers have single sheet material from woodblocks.

365
00:37:30,860 --> 00:37:35,030
Um, it's a much more akin to print on demand than addition printing.

366
00:37:35,630 --> 00:37:46,070
And so you may have an artist or woodcutter who cuts a block in 1450, and they print 100 impressions from it in 1450, uh,

367
00:37:46,130 --> 00:37:52,580
five years later, that block is owned by somebody completely different, and five years later they take another 50 impressions of it.

368
00:37:53,590 --> 00:38:02,020
Or they cut colour but on black on the back. And so both sides of the block could have centuries of difference between the data and the design.

369
00:38:02,860 --> 00:38:05,920
Yeah. So suddenly they stopped printing, printing it in two colours.

370
00:38:06,400 --> 00:38:08,200
Um, and that can go on for a long time.

371
00:38:08,200 --> 00:38:16,900
So I know of one block which we know was, um, being produced in the 1420s, and impressions are still being taken off of it in the early 16th century.

372
00:38:17,380 --> 00:38:21,090
So. In terms of dating impressions,

373
00:38:21,090 --> 00:38:27,540
we have this great problem that you're if you're lucky, you've got a crack in the block or a bit of the side border falls off.

374
00:38:27,840 --> 00:38:32,520
And that allows you to say that this one comes after this one in a chronology.

375
00:38:32,970 --> 00:38:41,280
But often you don't even have that. So all you have is a series of impressions, um, which can sometimes be dated from their context.

376
00:38:41,640 --> 00:38:47,250
So, you know, if it was printed in a manuscript that was completed in 1464, you've got some context.

377
00:38:47,820 --> 00:38:51,090
But a huge number of these things float entirely without context.

378
00:38:51,450 --> 00:38:57,810
Um, print collectors had a habit of removing them from context, so they survive today in, um, albums and portfolios.

379
00:38:58,170 --> 00:39:03,810
Um, and that causes a problem because you can't, it's very difficult to pin down an impression.

380
00:39:04,170 --> 00:39:09,390
Um, if you don't have clues based on the cracks in the block or any or any context to go on.

381
00:39:10,050 --> 00:39:19,080
So we are fortunate, though, in that, um, there is a sort of hidden secret clue within the paper stocks used for printing this material.

382
00:39:19,710 --> 00:39:23,460
So the chap on the left here is, uh, Gerhard Piccard.

383
00:39:23,520 --> 00:39:26,490
Um, Piccard was a watermark obsessive.

384
00:39:27,000 --> 00:39:37,170
So Gerhard Picard had this idea that as part of the production process of paper, um, paper is made by using essentially a gigantic flat metal sieve,

385
00:39:37,440 --> 00:39:44,040
and you dip that into a a tub of, um, liquid in which there's a suspension of rag fibres.

386
00:39:44,430 --> 00:39:50,400
You lift it up, the water pours out of the bottom, you give it a shake, and the fibres then lock together,

387
00:39:50,700 --> 00:39:53,310
and when they dry, that forms a piece of paper.

388
00:39:53,940 --> 00:40:02,700
And almost without exception, in the 15th century, paper makers attached onto the wire frame a small bent piece of wire,

389
00:40:02,970 --> 00:40:07,350
which might be the shape of a bull's head, or a unicorn, or a crown,

390
00:40:07,890 --> 00:40:16,020
and that watermark survives in the paper. And Piccard had the idea that if you could draw enough, take off tracings of

391
00:40:16,020 --> 00:40:21,180
these watermarks and put together a sort of data set that was large enough,

392
00:40:21,540 --> 00:40:27,930
you could start to use those mount watermarks to put papers in particular places at particular times.

393
00:40:28,620 --> 00:40:35,010
So his idea was that if I find in a single sheet print somewhere the watermark which is in the middle here,

394
00:40:35,250 --> 00:40:39,360
I can consult his gigantic printed volumes, which thankfully are now online

395
00:40:39,660 --> 00:40:50,310
um, and if I find that Piccard found this particular watermark in papers which were being used in the city accounts of Haarlem between 1460 and 1465,

396
00:40:50,640 --> 00:40:56,190
I can be fairly certain within a couple of years that the date of the paper that I've got links up with,

397
00:40:56,190 --> 00:41:02,280
the date of the paper, that the watermarks that he found. So that's the basis for watermark studies.

398
00:41:02,400 --> 00:41:08,620
Um, and I just thought I taught you very quickly through one example, um, to see how it works.

399
00:41:08,670 --> 00:41:15,030
Um, so the item on the left hand side here is the famous Rylandss, uh, Saint Christopher.

400
00:41:15,360 --> 00:41:22,410
So this is a 15th century woodcut that survives, pasted to the inside of a book binding in the John Rylands Library.

401
00:41:23,010 --> 00:41:31,650
And its fame has rested for generations on the fact that it it was long thought to be the earliest dated piece of Western printing.

402
00:41:31,920 --> 00:41:38,250
So if you look in the bottom right hand corner, you couldn't see the Latin date 1423.

403
00:41:39,240 --> 00:41:47,700
So from its discovery in, uh, the late 18th century, this print has been lauded as this sort of, uh,

404
00:41:48,030 --> 00:41:54,660
hugely significant moment in that it puts a line in the sand that allows us to say that this was produced in 1423,

405
00:41:54,780 --> 00:41:57,060
it's the earliest dated Western impression.

406
00:41:57,960 --> 00:42:08,370
However, it is a problematic print for all sorts of reasons, and the main reason is that it looks absolutely nothing like a print from the 1420s.

407
00:42:08,790 --> 00:42:12,420
So I mentioned at the beginning that these prints, these very early prints, are very naive.

408
00:42:12,780 --> 00:42:19,800
They lack the sort of the look at the definition and the flowing robes and the definition in the beard and in the facial expressions.

409
00:42:20,370 --> 00:42:23,990
Uh, this is kind of like watching a 1980s movie and seeing an iPhone in it.

410
00:42:24,000 --> 00:42:28,170
It just doesn't ring true. Um, so from the very outset,

411
00:42:28,170 --> 00:42:36,690
this object was was raised eyebrows because it sits entirely out of our sort of art historical context and understanding of that period.

412
00:42:37,650 --> 00:42:44,040
So a couple of years ago, uh, we finally managed to extract, with Julianne's help, uh, a watermark from the paper,

413
00:42:44,190 --> 00:42:50,250
which was extremely difficult because it had been pasted to the wooden board of this binding for 500 years.

414
00:42:50,820 --> 00:42:53,850
But we did finally get, uh, a watermark out of it.

415
00:42:54,180 --> 00:42:56,700
And the watermark, thankfully, is quite characteristic.

416
00:42:57,480 --> 00:43:04,350
Um, so when you go to Piccard, you find this is just a small selection of, uh, of the of the type matches that we found.

417
00:43:05,130 --> 00:43:14,850
And to cut a very long story short, the papers which have this characteristic watermark in don't start to appear until the mid 1430s,

418
00:43:15,450 --> 00:43:18,810
and they're mostly used in the late 1430s and early 14.

419
00:43:18,960 --> 00:43:27,830
40s. So using the watermark evidence, you're able to I mean, we can't conclusively say that this isn't a woodcut dated from 1423,

420
00:43:27,830 --> 00:43:31,010
still being printed in the 1440s,

421
00:43:31,550 --> 00:43:38,240
but it does add significant weight to the argument that with all that contextual material, the bibliographical debate,

422
00:43:38,240 --> 00:43:45,620
which has gone on around this for a century and a half, and with these sort of glaring stylistic problems that we have,

423
00:43:45,980 --> 00:43:55,220
placing this into the established chronology, that the watermark evidence does strongly suggest that this is not a woodcut from 1423.

424
00:43:57,020 --> 00:44:03,399
So. The project, which I am involved in, uh, the AHRC project is looking at block books,

425
00:44:03,400 --> 00:44:09,220
which we've talked about, and looking at paper stocks and trying to map trying to do this exercise,

426
00:44:09,520 --> 00:44:18,130
but on a much larger scale to look at the watermarks that we find in all extant examples of block books,

427
00:44:18,550 --> 00:44:23,140
and to look at what that tells us about the chronology in the sequence of that block, of those block books,

428
00:44:24,100 --> 00:44:33,580
but also to compare it to the watermarks taken from paper, from single sheet material, um, and letter press books printed before 1470.

429
00:44:33,880 --> 00:44:40,270
So the traditional view of this has always been you have one group of people producing single sheet material in one place,

430
00:44:40,570 --> 00:44:44,260
you have another group of people producing block books in another place at a different time,

431
00:44:44,530 --> 00:44:49,930
and then you have letterpress printers are doing something different. Actually, we think that's probably not the case.

432
00:44:50,410 --> 00:44:54,010
And if we can link up paper stocks between these three different endeavours,

433
00:44:54,310 --> 00:44:57,910
what we might be able to show is they are reprographic technologies,

434
00:44:57,910 --> 00:45:02,890
which are all taking place in the same places at the same times, but and done by the same people.

435
00:45:03,340 --> 00:45:06,620
Um. So that's paper.

436
00:45:08,210 --> 00:45:13,040
Elizabeth, should we talk a bit about the limitations? Of what we.

437
00:45:14,650 --> 00:45:22,620
And let me just. So I said at the start, you when you're doing historical research, you can never trust rethink.

438
00:45:22,650 --> 00:45:25,950
You know, you have to go back to the the secondary literature.

439
00:45:25,950 --> 00:45:29,040
You can't trust that you have to go back to the objects and then you can't trust them either.

440
00:45:29,490 --> 00:45:35,130
And so Ed and I has been doing everything we can to find out more about these objects.

441
00:45:35,790 --> 00:45:39,390
And we can't trust our findings either.

442
00:45:40,260 --> 00:45:43,920
Um, to some degree, as Edward say, it's incredibly complicated.

443
00:45:44,370 --> 00:45:48,810
Um, woodblocks are not just chunks of wood. They're part of

444
00:45:50,000 --> 00:45:58,380
um, dead organisms and that their physical characteristics can reflect conditions of their,

445
00:45:58,400 --> 00:46:02,120
of course, in their lifetime of handling after the felling or death of the tree.

446
00:46:02,780 --> 00:46:12,440
Um, an accurate dating could reflect the, um, the time that the block was cut or seasoned, um, from a plank of wood.

447
00:46:12,770 --> 00:46:18,650
Uh, so the block itself was prepared. The dating could reflect the time that a design was created.

448
00:46:19,100 --> 00:46:28,740
Um, uh, maybe it was at the same time, or maybe it was generations or centuries later that, uh, that design was actually cut into the wood.

449
00:46:28,760 --> 00:46:39,740
That's another point for dating. Um, sometimes you have, especially for old, beaten up, um, not very good wood blocks with the outline.

450
00:46:39,830 --> 00:46:48,810
The block for back, Uh, the reverse will be cut with, um, a tone side, or come back to freshen it up to give new life to it.

451
00:46:48,830 --> 00:46:54,410
So the design of that can have another dating, the cutting of that kind of another dating and then the impressions,

452
00:46:54,440 --> 00:46:59,570
actual printing of one side or both of the other can have any range of readings.

453
00:46:59,750 --> 00:47:07,069
So when we say a wood block dates to, uh, circa 1500 or circa 1600 or any other specific date, uh,

454
00:47:07,070 --> 00:47:13,910
we could be talking about, uh, scientifically validated, uh, hypotheses about the dating of the wood itself.

455
00:47:14,420 --> 00:47:19,440
Uh, we could be talking about art historical, contextual information about the design.

456
00:47:19,460 --> 00:47:27,620
We could be talking about print historical or, uh, historical craft aspects that informed the dating of the cutting itself.

457
00:47:28,130 --> 00:47:37,950
Um, of one side or the other side, or for evidence to that, uh, cutting, sometimes if they were applied to a broken piece was removed and then an,

458
00:47:37,990 --> 00:47:47,480
a new piece was inserted, or maybe something that added more value, like a, uh, a fake monogram of a famous artist could be added in.

459
00:47:48,020 --> 00:47:54,540
Um. And sometimes the dating refers to the impression which is on a piece of paper,

460
00:47:54,870 --> 00:48:00,630
which has a watermark which is absolutely firmly datable to a specific location to a specific place in time.

461
00:48:01,350 --> 00:48:11,240
That paper lasted, maybe. That, uh, paper stock was used decades, generations, centuries later, in a different place in time for a different project.

462
00:48:12,350 --> 00:48:19,700
So we're doing everything we can to find reliable methodologies that draw

463
00:48:19,700 --> 00:48:26,030
together on humanities and STEM approaches to dating these kinds of materials.

464
00:48:26,360 --> 00:48:29,870
Uh, the papers, the printing inks, uh, and the wood itself.

465
00:48:31,010 --> 00:48:35,320
But as I said, you can't trust the secondary sources.

466
00:48:35,330 --> 00:48:40,870
You can't trust the primary objects. And for woodblocks you just have to do your best.

467
00:48:41,290 --> 00:48:49,030
Yeah. We also have a fundamental problem in, um, there's all of this depends on a large body of data.

468
00:48:49,150 --> 00:48:55,030
So radiocarbon dating itself depends on the fact that for generations we've recorded the rate these things.

469
00:48:55,030 --> 00:48:58,810
So we have this, this this chronology against which we compare things.

470
00:48:59,200 --> 00:49:03,069
Um, radiocarbon, carbon dating of woodblocks is in its infancy.

471
00:49:03,070 --> 00:49:06,160
I mean, what three examples now, Elizabeth.

472
00:49:08,170 --> 00:49:11,540
Um, have been. So two. There are two examples that were published. Um.

473
00:49:13,240 --> 00:49:18,970
That have been that are impressed. One of them is the carbon dating undertaken at the, the, uh, of the um.

474
00:49:20,040 --> 00:49:29,220
Uh the Vernoff in Paris of their Bois Protat, which is the oldest woodblock used for printing in in the west, was used for block printing on textile.

475
00:49:29,700 --> 00:49:34,380
Uh, stylistically the design is dated to the 1380s ish.

476
00:49:35,070 --> 00:49:41,280
Um, the wood itself is carbon dated to the early 1100s, which it could mean

477
00:49:41,280 --> 00:49:50,760
it was taken from inside the core of a very, very large tree, uh, that was felled 200 years after the tree was planted and started to grow.

478
00:49:51,420 --> 00:49:54,569
Um, so that's not in or it was old with.

479
00:49:54,570 --> 00:50:04,080
It was very well seasoned and reused from a different project. Um, so having a knowing that the wood is from the early 11 hundreds or thousands, uh.

480
00:50:05,220 --> 00:50:12,420
You know, doesn't confirm or deny, uh, the stylistic dating of the design to the 1370s, 80s.

481
00:50:13,140 --> 00:50:16,980
Uh, then we have Ed's groundbreaking, uh, carbon dating of Alfred blocks.

482
00:50:17,520 --> 00:50:23,250
Um, coming up, we hope next year at the volume printing things, uh, there'll be the the carbon dating,

483
00:50:23,550 --> 00:50:27,930
the results of the carbon dating of two blocks from the Joshua collection, which was funded by the John Flood

484
00:50:27,930 --> 00:50:28,210
grant.

485
00:50:29,340 --> 00:50:39,030
we're very, very grateful for, uh, as well as a handbook about, uh, a manual about what carbon dating means for research and for print institutions.

486
00:50:39,570 --> 00:50:48,140
Are there very specific considerations, for example, about contaminants like printing ink that gets absorbed into the wood that we need to be careful.

487
00:50:48,990 --> 00:50:53,640
Um, and then there's another example of carbon dating that, uh, will be published in that volume.

488
00:50:54,030 --> 00:50:56,549
Uh, which is in an Eastern European context.

489
00:50:56,550 --> 00:51:05,460
And again, has really surprising outcomes, that mean we have a huge amount of reinterpretation to undertake as research continues.

490
00:51:06,390 --> 00:51:12,000
But these are individual data points, their silos of data, and it is incredibly hard to know what they represent.

491
00:51:12,540 --> 00:51:21,510
Um, we don't have the body of research that say furniture history, um, depends on for authenticating or uh,

492
00:51:21,780 --> 00:51:30,180
potentially even making attributions of places or areas or, uh, periods or even workshops of production.

493
00:51:30,690 --> 00:51:35,430
So we're at a very early starting point. So maybe it's telling us what we know and what we don't know.

494
00:51:35,820 --> 00:51:40,800
And encourage those of you who, uh, who work in heritage collections that have woodblocks or who own them yourselves,

495
00:51:41,370 --> 00:51:45,810
to dig little holes into existing holes and send them off for carbon dating and let us know what you find.

496
00:51:46,560 --> 00:51:50,100
I mean, that is part of our part of our shtick, is this is a sort of call to arms.

497
00:51:50,460 --> 00:51:56,940
You know, we've got all of this material. Um, it is a it is invasive, but it is invasive in a very minor way.

498
00:51:57,390 --> 00:52:00,810
Um, and especially with an existing damage. Yeah, yeah.

499
00:52:00,930 --> 00:52:05,020
And if we do, you know, we do need to build up a better data set.

500
00:52:05,040 --> 00:52:09,450
You know, at the moment, as Elizabeth says, we've got a handful of outlying things.

501
00:52:09,900 --> 00:52:13,480
Um, we need the context to make more sense of that.

502
00:52:13,500 --> 00:52:19,350
Um, visitors are understandably wary about taking a scalpel to the back of a woodblock.

503
00:52:19,800 --> 00:52:27,030
Um, but the potential for what we can learn from this is, is enormous, I think, for these objects, which was floated,

504
00:52:28,290 --> 00:52:32,070
it is one thing which has really come out today. It's the fact that these things have they, they sort of float,

505
00:52:32,430 --> 00:52:35,190
nobody really knows quite where they sit or what to do with them.

506
00:52:35,400 --> 00:52:39,750
So sometimes they're in museums, sometimes they're in libraries, sometimes they're in archives.

507
00:52:40,260 --> 00:52:43,760
Um. It feels like sometimes they're in workshops.

508
00:52:44,130 --> 00:52:47,570
Yeah. And quite often there in workshops, as Alex had said. Yeah, yeah.

509
00:52:48,140 --> 00:52:52,670
Um, so it feels like there's a sort of groundswell of interest in them at the moment that, you know,

510
00:52:53,270 --> 00:52:58,520
it's a good moment to sort of actually start thinking sort of holistically about how we approach all of that.

511
00:52:58,830 --> 00:53:02,780
Um, I'm conscious that we were supposed to only talk with half an hour and ask questions,

512
00:53:02,780 --> 00:53:07,009
and we're now five minutes from the end, but should we are there?

513
00:53:07,010 --> 00:53:15,520
Does anyone have any questions for Elizabeth or I? So the question was about, um, data sets and about whether, uh,

514
00:53:15,530 --> 00:53:21,680
we're relying on published data sets or whether there is a sort of informal network of people doing this.

515
00:53:21,920 --> 00:53:26,299
I think the answer is that up until now, this has been very much an informal network.

516
00:53:26,300 --> 00:53:32,210
It's been a group of like minded, interested people, um, who have been pursuing independent projects.

517
00:53:32,670 --> 00:53:41,600
I what we would like, I think, is to try and secure some funding to do a larger project focussed on a particular collection of blocks.

518
00:53:41,600 --> 00:53:45,320
And, you know, Derschau would be a wonderful one to wonderful one to work on.

519
00:53:45,680 --> 00:53:51,140
Um, but yeah, the moment the fundamental problem is that there just hasn't been.

520
00:53:51,290 --> 00:53:54,230
I mean, watermarks are very different, a great deal of work has been done on them.

521
00:53:54,350 --> 00:54:00,020
But this the sort of application of, uh, STEM technologies to woodblock,

522
00:54:00,020 --> 00:54:03,889
so there's, there's also dendrochronology is another, um, way of looking at these.

523
00:54:03,890 --> 00:54:13,520
The DNA, DNA analysis of the, the wood blocks, which might help us identify whether, for example, this is a tree which is gigantic,

524
00:54:13,520 --> 00:54:17,630
so we have to question the date range because the block could have been taken from anywhere in it,

525
00:54:17,930 --> 00:54:21,139
or whether actually this is a very small tree which only lives for 50 years.

526
00:54:21,140 --> 00:54:27,890
So we can be much more confident about the dating. So but at the moment that work just isn't really being done.

527
00:54:28,010 --> 00:54:31,149
Elizabeth, do you want to add anything to that? We don't know

528
00:54:31,150 --> 00:54:38,080
what we don't know. Uh, at the minute we know so little, and we have so many questions about the scientific,

529
00:54:38,080 --> 00:54:44,470
about scientifically validated facts that we do have that we know even less than we did, when we started in some ways.

530
00:54:44,890 --> 00:54:46,719
Um, we have so many questions.

531
00:54:46,720 --> 00:54:55,480
And the only way to answer those questions and to refine those questions is to build up a critical mass of raw data that that we can analyse.

532
00:54:55,930 --> 00:55:00,550
And as Ed said, one of the best ways to do that is just to get digging in a collection.

533
00:55:00,970 --> 00:55:09,230
Um, the collection, any collection, any, um, individual wood block, uh, at this point in scholarship?

534
00:55:09,250 --> 00:55:13,960
Will add significantly to scholarship. Uh, if somebody is able to

535
00:55:14,990 --> 00:55:23,540
Um, to undertake the DNA analysis of a historical woodblock that would effectively constitute 100% of the published scholarship.

536
00:55:24,410 --> 00:55:31,100
The use of this technique, um, to understand this category of heritage material would be absolutely groundbreaking.

537
00:55:31,460 --> 00:55:36,890
Um, aDNA, or ancient DNA, uh, technology can be a bit hit and miss because DNA does degrade.

538
00:55:36,890 --> 00:55:43,219
But there are ways of doing this. Um, if the, the aDNA of timber from shipwrecks.

539
00:55:43,220 --> 00:55:46,430
It's been in saltwater for centuries can be retrieved.

540
00:55:46,640 --> 00:55:55,310
There must be a way to retrieve it from woodblocks. Um, if somebody has a group of ten woodblocks and they wanted to undertake the,

541
00:55:56,460 --> 00:56:00,480
the carbon dating of them to see what they could find that would

542
00:56:01,640 --> 00:56:11,810
Um, you know triple the quantity of published and unpublished results of carbon dating of European heritage wood blocks that currently exist.

543
00:56:12,200 --> 00:56:19,670
So there's enormous scope for significant contributions to scholarship, with really a minimum amount of work required within collections.

544
00:56:20,090 --> 00:56:21,850
I think Derschau is an incredible collection,

545
00:56:21,860 --> 00:56:28,580
I think that the collections within, um, Oxford and Cambridge and other university libraries are incredible collections.

546
00:56:29,000 --> 00:56:39,050
Um, I but to be honest, any single book analysed in any of these ways can alone constitute a significant contribution to scholarship.

547
00:56:39,890 --> 00:56:47,180
But yes, if if it is possible to, uh, collaborate with a collection to get a much better overview of the,

548
00:56:48,200 --> 00:56:53,900
and the results of the, of the fuller analysis of a number of blocks.

549
00:56:54,680 --> 00:56:57,739
That would be incredible, and build on John pledge legacy.

550
00:56:57,740 --> 00:57:02,420
So if anybody here is interested, please do be in touch with me.

551
00:57:03,140 --> 00:57:08,660
Thank you. That was incredibly interesting. Um, I just wanted to ask when you said when they do carbon dating and you might

552
00:57:08,660 --> 00:57:12,170
come up with kind of three different sets of dates and you use other factors,

553
00:57:12,740 --> 00:57:16,190
why is it that they're coming up with three kind of random and separate?

554
00:57:16,190 --> 00:57:19,940
Um presumably not random, but how are they getting those different dates?

555
00:57:20,180 --> 00:57:24,170
Well, therein lies the question, Elizabeth. So this is science.

556
00:57:24,290 --> 00:57:31,129
Answer science. Yeah. Yes. So we are not scientists and we have been trying to one of the purposes of the article,

557
00:57:31,130 --> 00:57:34,459
which Elizabeth and I have been writing for the printing things volume,

558
00:57:34,460 --> 00:57:42,860
is to try and give print historians and conservatives who work in our world a sort of basic understanding of how radio, radiocarbon dating works.

559
00:57:43,310 --> 00:57:46,610
Um, it is it is a well-established.

560
00:57:46,700 --> 00:57:51,829
So you talk to archaeologists, radiocarbon people about this, and you asked them this and they said, well, this is a well-established technique.

561
00:57:51,830 --> 00:57:55,010
It just is. You know, that's that's the reason, you know, it's a scientific technique.

562
00:57:55,190 --> 00:57:58,430
It is to do with these calibration curves. Is that right, Elizabeth?

563
00:57:58,730 --> 00:57:59,600
It starts in space.

564
00:57:59,720 --> 00:58:08,270
So, uh, there's a certain kind of cosmic ray that penetrates through its atmosphere that becomes a specific form of carbon, carbon 14.

565
00:58:09,110 --> 00:58:14,840
And this is incredibly variable year on year, but it's consistent across the world.

566
00:58:15,320 --> 00:58:24,350
Um, I say across the world, there's three different ways in which consist there's northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere and, uh, oceanic bodies.

567
00:58:24,710 --> 00:58:27,650
So within each of those three, it's consistent, uh, year on year.

568
00:58:28,220 --> 00:58:33,049
Um, but it might be the measurements in the northern and southern hemisphere or oceanic bodies might be different.

569
00:58:33,050 --> 00:58:36,710
Uh, so for us, we're looking only at the measurements from the northern hemisphere.

570
00:58:37,370 --> 00:58:42,200
Um, and so there's a huge amount of,

571
00:58:42,670 --> 00:58:48,739
of organic material that has been subject to carbon dating since carbon dating developed, uh, several generations ago.

572
00:58:48,740 --> 00:58:52,680
And, uh, because and because of that, Um

573
00:58:53,710 --> 00:58:58,840
a large body of scientists around the world have been able to collaborate for, for generations,

574
00:58:58,840 --> 00:59:01,990
Now to say here is something that we know. Absolutely.

575
00:59:02,420 --> 00:59:09,430
Uh, this tree ring absolutely is from the tree ring found in this year, or this object is absolutely dated to this moment in time.

576
00:59:09,670 --> 00:59:15,040
And we know that the amount of carbon 14 in it is this point ,and we know the next year is that point.

577
00:59:15,040 --> 00:59:17,940
And so there's international standards.

578
00:59:17,950 --> 00:59:24,970
Uh, this is publicly available data, uh, where you see sort of curves that go like this year on year as the carbon 14 levels change over time.

579
00:59:25,390 --> 00:59:31,780
And so what we what we ask the geochronologist to do when we send the little pencil shaping sized bits

580
00:59:31,780 --> 00:59:37,840
of wood from wood blocks is to find out what the levels of what the level of carbon 14 is in them,

581
00:59:38,230 --> 00:59:42,130
and then to knock them against those, uh, those really wobbly curves.

582
00:59:42,670 --> 00:59:45,790
And so if the numbers, the numbers have to line up.

583
00:59:45,790 --> 00:59:53,260
And so if the, the number matches, say this, a level that is found where the curve goes here and here and here,

584
00:59:53,650 --> 01:00:00,610
then the geochronologist will say it's consistent with the amount of carbon that was in the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere in this period,

585
01:00:00,610 --> 01:00:05,140
this period, in this period. And we can say, well, we know that this refers to,

586
01:00:06,430 --> 01:00:15,440
Um, I don't know, a. Of a saint who was seen as anathema in England at this time.

587
01:00:15,440 --> 01:00:20,509
So it can't be made in this year. And we know that this year is far too early because the material would have degraded.

588
01:00:20,510 --> 01:00:24,560
So maybe using humanities contextual scholarship, we can say this

589
01:00:25,520 --> 01:00:30,110
point where it matches is more likely of this of the three possible matches.

590
01:00:31,100 --> 01:00:35,650
Does that make sense? While we're thinking about that, I just have to,

591
01:00:35,660 --> 01:00:42,530
I think these are one, possibly one word answers and, uh, questions.

592
01:00:43,280 --> 01:00:46,640
Um, how many medieval woodblocks survive?

593
01:00:46,950 --> 01:00:50,550
Uh, well, we don't know the answer. What do you mean by medieval? Yeah, exactly.

594
01:00:50,900 --> 01:00:55,310
All right. Um, it's, it's probably that there are there ,is a there, how many zeros?

595
01:00:55,370 --> 01:01:00,440
Maybe. There are a group of blocks which are considered to be medieval.

596
01:01:00,860 --> 01:01:05,060
But then the Rylands block was considered to be medieval.

597
01:01:05,720 --> 01:01:09,530
The Derschau blocks were considered to be 16th century.

598
01:01:09,770 --> 01:01:13,210
There are contemporary German collections that include some of the material that's medieval,

599
01:01:13,220 --> 01:01:16,850
early modern, but created later out of a point of antiquarian interest.

600
01:01:16,860 --> 01:01:23,909
So these are not unique. We think this represents a much larger. And then you get into the more complicated aspect of reused materials.

601
01:01:23,910 --> 01:01:31,350
So impressions of things which weren't actually originally intended to be printed from which might be of any date.

602
01:01:31,950 --> 01:01:35,100
So it's a really difficult question to answer. We we don't know at the moment.

603
01:01:35,580 --> 01:01:46,010
Um, that another one line answer may be, um, what is a tone block, and how many blocks are carved on both sides? Over to you.

604
01:01:46,020 --> 01:01:52,530
Elizabeth. Okay, so if we could go back to those the slide that shows the, um, the block from the Derschau collection.

605
01:01:53,490 --> 01:01:58,229
So there's three pictures of the same piece of wood. Uh, one of them has an outline and black.

606
01:01:58,230 --> 01:02:01,440
And that's normally what we would call the wood block.

607
01:02:01,590 --> 01:02:05,220
Um, because it was printed with colour as well.

608
01:02:05,790 --> 01:02:13,320
Um, from a different block. Then we we then segregate that into a key or line block.

609
01:02:13,560 --> 01:02:19,680
A key means outline. So in CMYK printing it's cyan magenta yellow and key for black.

610
01:02:20,040 --> 01:02:21,870
Uh so we use key for that black outline.

611
01:02:22,260 --> 01:02:27,840
Um and normally that can be printed independently to make sense legible if nothing else is printed but not always.

612
01:02:28,530 --> 01:02:33,510
And then the tone block is the area that's cut for the colour.

613
01:02:34,200 --> 01:02:39,990
Um, so here I'm saying to key block and tone block. Really it's key side and tone side of the same block.

614
01:02:40,500 --> 01:02:51,180
Uh, very, very few survive. I have found a number of examples of two sided blocks, um, cut with a key block on one side, and often a much what

615
01:02:51,180 --> 01:02:59,370
seems to be a much later, um, a tone block cut, possibly to rev up the, the sales of a damaged block up, but I don't know.

616
01:02:59,850 --> 01:03:06,810
Um, I've seen them in, not in art historical contexts, um, but in book printing contexts.

617
01:03:07,170 --> 01:03:16,140
And the vast majority that I have seen are, um, possibly from the 15th or early 16th century and in a French archive that has left them, uh,

618
01:03:16,830 --> 01:03:18,840
unassessioned and not just on catalogue,

619
01:03:18,840 --> 01:03:25,350
but unassessioned for over 100 years because they're not fit into any standard cataloguing or descriptive procedures.

620
01:03:25,440 --> 01:03:28,770
They don't know what to do with them. Um, and they don't know how to best care for them.

621
01:03:29,520 --> 01:03:32,969
Uh, so that's a bit awkward. So I can't publish on this, but I know they exist.

622
01:03:32,970 --> 01:03:37,560
And if you want to reach out to me, I'll be glad to discuss what I know privately. I will read out

623
01:03:37,560 --> 01:03:41,490
a question has come from Father Katz. Um, and I.

624
01:03:41,570 --> 01:03:43,160
I don't know if it's been, um.

625
01:03:43,200 --> 01:03:51,330
I glad to hear, um, uh, regarding the wood sample or samples that was taken from a block that produced three very different date ranges,

626
01:03:51,600 --> 01:03:56,790
Was that a single sample or multiple ones taken from the same block?

627
01:03:57,900 --> 01:04:03,540
And even if multiple samples were taken from a single block, how could those indicate dates over hundreds of years?

628
01:04:04,080 --> 01:04:11,100
Um, that's probably say a small woodblock might capture rings that grow over a relatively short period.

629
01:04:11,160 --> 01:04:15,570
But I guess the the the way that this differs from a previous question is,

630
01:04:15,870 --> 01:04:25,710
was it one wood sample or multiple ones from the same block that produced three different date ranges?

631
01:04:26,850 --> 01:04:29,879
So I think some of the question has been answered by the answer to the previous question.

632
01:04:29,880 --> 01:04:33,240
In terms of the Rylands sampling, that was a single sample.

633
01:04:33,600 --> 01:04:45,030
Um, but actually the contextual evidence with the Rylands block was so strong that it actually fell exactly where we expected it to.

634
01:04:45,240 --> 01:04:51,960
So I think best practice probably is to take a series of samples from a series of different areas.

635
01:04:52,090 --> 01:04:57,719
Conservators are for obvious reasons, less keen to take multiple samples.

636
01:04:57,720 --> 01:05:01,830
But, you know, again, we're still working on the sort of methodologies for doing this.

637
01:05:02,160 --> 01:05:10,350
Um, and as I say, the paper that Elizabeth and I are co-authoring with various other people tackles a lot of these questions,

638
01:05:10,350 --> 01:05:17,940
and particularly these questions around how do we interpret the information that the radiocarbon people give back to us?

639
01:05:18,330 --> 01:05:24,150
Um, and the sort of caveats that we need to consider, um, when, when looking at that data,

640
01:05:25,050 --> 01:05:29,580
the sample does consist of all of the little pencil shavings type pieces of wood.

641
01:05:30,210 --> 01:05:35,190
Um, so one reason why they're different date ranges is within the results is that

642
01:05:35,190 --> 01:05:39,150
those samples could be taken from different rings that show different numbers.

643
01:05:40,690 --> 01:05:45,650
But overall they give a picture that's accurate for the artefact itself. If there are

644
01:05:47,080 --> 01:05:51,130
no other questions. Uh, thank you, everyone, for attending.

645
01:05:51,160 --> 01:05:55,240
Uh, here in the room and everyone online. We hope that was enlightening.

646
01:05:55,510 --> 01:06:05,200
It may well have raised more questions than we were able to answer, but that's, uh, we hope, the beginning of some new and exciting research.

647
01:06:05,200 --> 01:06:12,880
And do look out for the article and other publications from Ed and from Elizabeth coming up in the near future.

648
01:06:13,240 --> 01:06:16,420
So thank you again. Thank you.