Book of Lost Books Discovered in Danish Archive (2019)(smithsonianmag.com)
smithsonianmag.com
Book of Lost Books Discovered in Danish Archive (2019)
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/book-lost-books-was-discovered-danish-archive-180971943/
27 comments
Makes me think of the Library of Alexandria. Such a great, great shame to think of all the knowledge lost forever.
> and plan to collaborate with the Arnamagnæan Institute to digitize the newly discovered volume.
This just makes me want to scream. When finding an irreplaceable book, the first thing to do is take a photo of each page with a phone. It'll take a whole hour or two. Then there's a backup.
This just makes me want to scream. When finding an irreplaceable book, the first thing to do is take a photo of each page with a phone. It'll take a whole hour or two. Then there's a backup.
>This just makes me want to scream
You really shouldn't become so worked up over something you clearly don't understand. I can assure you that the book is in good professional hands.
You really shouldn't become so worked up over something you clearly don't understand. I can assure you that the book is in good professional hands.
Many archives have lost their books due to fire, war, flood and theft. Texts are lost all the time because no copies exist.
What don't I understand?
There's the HP archives that burned down, for one.
For another, in a vault at the bottom of the World Trade Center, there was an archive of thousands of unpublished Kennedy photos. No copies were made of those photos. You'd think it would be safe in that vault. Nope. All gone.
Unless the book is a suspected palimpsest, a phone photo will preserve the text more than adequately, and would take an hour or two to accomplish. Then the risk of total loss is averted, and they can relax and do their proper scan whenever budget and schedule allows.
What don't I understand?
There's the HP archives that burned down, for one.
For another, in a vault at the bottom of the World Trade Center, there was an archive of thousands of unpublished Kennedy photos. No copies were made of those photos. You'd think it would be safe in that vault. Nope. All gone.
Unless the book is a suspected palimpsest, a phone photo will preserve the text more than adequately, and would take an hour or two to accomplish. Then the risk of total loss is averted, and they can relax and do their proper scan whenever budget and schedule allows.
You're assuming the worst without knowing the situation. It's not my area at all but
- 650 year old books may be fragile, both in paper (or whatever) and in the bindings.
- old books/codices/etc often displayed under low light conditions because light damages them. A phone light may not be healthy.
- how does it feel when someone clearly with less knowledge than you pops up to tell you where you're going wrong with D?
Don't assume people are being stupid and you're the only smart one.
- 650 year old books may be fragile, both in paper (or whatever) and in the bindings.
- old books/codices/etc often displayed under low light conditions because light damages them. A phone light may not be healthy.
- how does it feel when someone clearly with less knowledge than you pops up to tell you where you're going wrong with D?
Don't assume people are being stupid and you're the only smart one.
> fragile
Sure. But you're still gonna have to open it and turn the pages whatever scanner you use. And the book is open in the photo of it. If the photographer had moved a little closer, I bet you could read the text.
> A phone light may not be healthy
The thing is, you and I have phones in our pockets and can test this theory. It's an overcast day in Seattle. I turned out the room lights. It's too dark for me to read comfortably, in fact, I have to struggle to read. Took out my phone, took a picture (phone light off). I can read the text in the photograph just fine (though it's not as sharp as taking it with more light). I didn't even use a stand, I held the phone in my shaky hand. I only took one snap, not a bunch and select the best.
You and everyone else can do this experiment yourself. But instead, you assumed it wouldn't work.
> pops up to tell you where you're going wrong with D?
Sometimes they're right. How do I feel about it? I feel embarrassed. But it's hard to deny reality, and I accept my lumps and move on.
> Don't assume people are being stupid and you're the only smart one.
Don't assume I'm wrong about the phone camera without trying it yourself. I have tried it myself. I use my phone all the time to make copies of things it is inconvenient or impractical to scan, like oversize scrapbooks.
I challenge you to point your phone at documents you have at your desk and try it.
BTW, the phone camera also works great at literally taking "screenshops" of my computer screen. I do it because it's faster/easier than doing screen grabs.
Sure. But you're still gonna have to open it and turn the pages whatever scanner you use. And the book is open in the photo of it. If the photographer had moved a little closer, I bet you could read the text.
> A phone light may not be healthy
The thing is, you and I have phones in our pockets and can test this theory. It's an overcast day in Seattle. I turned out the room lights. It's too dark for me to read comfortably, in fact, I have to struggle to read. Took out my phone, took a picture (phone light off). I can read the text in the photograph just fine (though it's not as sharp as taking it with more light). I didn't even use a stand, I held the phone in my shaky hand. I only took one snap, not a bunch and select the best.
You and everyone else can do this experiment yourself. But instead, you assumed it wouldn't work.
> pops up to tell you where you're going wrong with D?
Sometimes they're right. How do I feel about it? I feel embarrassed. But it's hard to deny reality, and I accept my lumps and move on.
> Don't assume people are being stupid and you're the only smart one.
Don't assume I'm wrong about the phone camera without trying it yourself. I have tried it myself. I use my phone all the time to make copies of things it is inconvenient or impractical to scan, like oversize scrapbooks.
I challenge you to point your phone at documents you have at your desk and try it.
BTW, the phone camera also works great at literally taking "screenshops" of my computer screen. I do it because it's faster/easier than doing screen grabs.
To you, and @nitrogen, you make your points well, I retract all mine. Thanx & upvoted.
Wow, that's never happened to me before here! You da man!
> Don't assume people are being stupid and you're the only smart one.
Sometimes really smart people do things in really suboptimal ways because of tradition or other blindspots, and an outside perspective can break a person or a field out of a local minimum.
Maybe it's already being done, but installing a low-light camera above whatever workbench they use to analyze these ancient books with a footpedal or something to capture an image would provide some insurance against loss before proper archival, even if they don't open every page due to fragility.
> A phone light may not be healthy.
Modern cell phone cameras are quite capable of taking images without the flash in very low light conditions, either through high ISO or long exposures.
Sometimes really smart people do things in really suboptimal ways because of tradition or other blindspots, and an outside perspective can break a person or a field out of a local minimum.
Maybe it's already being done, but installing a low-light camera above whatever workbench they use to analyze these ancient books with a footpedal or something to capture an image would provide some insurance against loss before proper archival, even if they don't open every page due to fragility.
> A phone light may not be healthy.
Modern cell phone cameras are quite capable of taking images without the flash in very low light conditions, either through high ISO or long exposures.
There is a world of difference between “phone snaps of pages in library lighting” and a proper digitization of an antique book.
Not if your goal is to capture the text. I've used a phone for this purpose many times with nothing more than room lighting.
Don't believe me? Try it yourself, right now!
Remember that the HP archives burned down while waiting for a "proper digitization". Oops.
Don't believe me? Try it yourself, right now!
Remember that the HP archives burned down while waiting for a "proper digitization". Oops.
- The HP archives had been moved to a building without any protection. Before that the archives used to be in special vaults with fire-protection. (ref. spectrum.ieee.org)
- There doesn't appear to have been plans to digitize them, not at a large scale anyway - these were papers and notes and documents in a wide variety of formats, tricky to digitize unless you have a professional organization to do so (e.g. a museum working with old documents).
- In short, the HP archives seem to have been simply collected and stored, and not safely (after the archive was moved to an "ordinary" building).
- There doesn't appear to have been plans to digitize them, not at a large scale anyway - these were papers and notes and documents in a wide variety of formats, tricky to digitize unless you have a professional organization to do so (e.g. a museum working with old documents).
- In short, the HP archives seem to have been simply collected and stored, and not safely (after the archive was moved to an "ordinary" building).
> these were papers and notes and documents in a wide variety of formats, tricky to digitize unless you have a professional organization to do so
No, they are not tricky to digitize. Throw some random pieces of paper in various sizes and formats on the floor. Pull out your phone and take a picture and see for yourself.
For example, when I mail someone a package at the post office, they hand me a receipt with the tracking number. I hold the receipt in my left hand, take a phone photo of it with my other left hand, and text it to the addressee. Zip, boom, done. Works great.
The phone camera is simply the greatest document scanner ever invented, and everybody has one!
> not safely
Fireproof vaults have burned. See what happened to the Kennedy photo archive in the safe vault in the basement of the WTC.
HP likely didn't scan them because they didn't have budget for a "proper digitization". So rather than cheap snaps with a phone camera, they now have nothing.
No, they are not tricky to digitize. Throw some random pieces of paper in various sizes and formats on the floor. Pull out your phone and take a picture and see for yourself.
For example, when I mail someone a package at the post office, they hand me a receipt with the tracking number. I hold the receipt in my left hand, take a phone photo of it with my other left hand, and text it to the addressee. Zip, boom, done. Works great.
The phone camera is simply the greatest document scanner ever invented, and everybody has one!
> not safely
Fireproof vaults have burned. See what happened to the Kennedy photo archive in the safe vault in the basement of the WTC.
HP likely didn't scan them because they didn't have budget for a "proper digitization". So rather than cheap snaps with a phone camera, they now have nothing.
This person gets stuff done!
Ecce Homo is what happens when people who don't k ow what they're doing have a go anyway.
Also this book is nearly 500 years old, and is a foot thick and 2,000 pages. Just turning all the pages might cause serious damage. (But yes, the sooner it's digitized the better.)
I'm sure they already opened it and looked through it to see what it was. After all, there's a picture of it, open, with the article.
The book was discovered inside a library of irreplaceable books at the University of Copenhagen. The library contains some of the most important books and writings for Scandinavian history. They know how to handle old books and have access to professional equipment designed for digitizing old and fragile manuscript.
Here is a bit more detail: https://manuscript.ku.dk/news/a-new-discovery-in-the-arnamag...
Here is a bit more detail: https://manuscript.ku.dk/news/a-new-discovery-in-the-arnamag...
And it still isn't digitized and at risk of loss while everyone wrings their hands about budgets and schedules and perfection and what an abomination a phone picture would be :-)
BTW, I watched a segment on TV on the Vatican Library where they turned pages on ancient books by - turning the pages! For gosh sakes, these are not Dead Sea Scroll fragments.
BTW, I watched a segment on TV on the Vatican Library where they turned pages on ancient books by - turning the pages! For gosh sakes, these are not Dead Sea Scroll fragments.
You can see some of their digitized manuscripts here: https://manuscript.ku.dk/about/digitised_manuscripts/ They seem to know how to digitize a book.
Do you have any legitimate reason to believe the University of Copenhagen "wrings their hands" and need a HN-reader with a smartphone to save them?
Do you have any legitimate reason to believe the University of Copenhagen "wrings their hands" and need a HN-reader with a smartphone to save them?
Have they scanned the book yet? Nope. Case closed.
I don't know if the book is already scanned or not? Note the article is a year and a half old. A multi-year project to create a digital edition is under way https://nors.ku.dk/english/research/arnamagnaean/the-book-of... but will run til 2023. Of course scanning is just a small part of this.
I seriously doubt that taking photos with a smartphone will be faster than using professional equipment. The scanners have automated and semi-automated page turners which can be used depending on the state of the book. The have "beds" for holding fragile books which cannot be opened fully.
Digitization is certainly an important part of preservation, but speedily leafing through a fragile old book with a smartphone in one hand is not the way to do it. They inspect the material very carefully even before the scanning because it would be pretty dumb to destroy the book in the process.
I seriously doubt that taking photos with a smartphone will be faster than using professional equipment. The scanners have automated and semi-automated page turners which can be used depending on the state of the book. The have "beds" for holding fragile books which cannot be opened fully.
Digitization is certainly an important part of preservation, but speedily leafing through a fragile old book with a smartphone in one hand is not the way to do it. They inspect the material very carefully even before the scanning because it would be pretty dumb to destroy the book in the process.
> Note the article is a year and a half old.
Indeed, and I meant when the article was written.
You're not going to use an automated page turner on anything fragile. Note that the book was open fully for the photograph for the article.
Indeed, and I meant when the article was written.
You're not going to use an automated page turner on anything fragile. Note that the book was open fully for the photograph for the article.
Am I reading this right that they now have 15 volumes out of the 16 total volumes? Have they looked around in Denmark to see if the last ones is there also?
It seems the index was incomplete.
From [a link from inside https://icolombina.es/ that doesn't work if there isn't a session, I removed it]:
Of 3500 epítomes that were mentioned in Memorial al Emperador (report for the Emperor) Biblioteca Colombina keeps the following numbers: 509-576 (h.1r.-24v.), 697 (incomplete beginning)- 723 (incomplete ending) (h. 25r.-42v.), 881 (incomplete beginning)-956 (h. 43r.-74v), 957-1207 (h. 75r.-180v.), 1208- start of 1258 (h. 181r.-202v.), final of 1258-1316 (h. 203r.-227v.), 1317-1364 (incomplete ending) (h. 228r.-252v.), 1412-1550 (incomplete ending) (h. 253r.-516v.), 1576-1605 (incomplete ending), 1989 (incomplete begining)-2024 (incomplete ending?) (h. 527r.-538v.), 2183-2205 (h. 539r.-550v.), 3107-3130 (incomplete ending?) (h. 551r.-562v.)
Also in http://www.icolombina.es/colombina/bibliograficos.htm there's a more complete story of copies and how they tried to create a systematic index... as an example, you can read a reference to 1635 books of the collection that were lost when a ship sunk from Venice to Seville.
The part in Seville was recorded in microfilm years ago and it's possible to consult there. It doesn't seem to be online.
From [a link from inside https://icolombina.es/ that doesn't work if there isn't a session, I removed it]:
Of 3500 epítomes that were mentioned in Memorial al Emperador (report for the Emperor) Biblioteca Colombina keeps the following numbers: 509-576 (h.1r.-24v.), 697 (incomplete beginning)- 723 (incomplete ending) (h. 25r.-42v.), 881 (incomplete beginning)-956 (h. 43r.-74v), 957-1207 (h. 75r.-180v.), 1208- start of 1258 (h. 181r.-202v.), final of 1258-1316 (h. 203r.-227v.), 1317-1364 (incomplete ending) (h. 228r.-252v.), 1412-1550 (incomplete ending) (h. 253r.-516v.), 1576-1605 (incomplete ending), 1989 (incomplete begining)-2024 (incomplete ending?) (h. 527r.-538v.), 2183-2205 (h. 539r.-550v.), 3107-3130 (incomplete ending?) (h. 551r.-562v.)
Also in http://www.icolombina.es/colombina/bibliograficos.htm there's a more complete story of copies and how they tried to create a systematic index... as an example, you can read a reference to 1635 books of the collection that were lost when a ship sunk from Venice to Seville.
The part in Seville was recorded in microfilm years ago and it's possible to consult there. It doesn't seem to be online.
For another list of lost books, check out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_literary_work