In order to follow already existing habits, we are looking for some examples of encoding for palimpsest texts, that is:
- erasing intentionally and entirely or most of the surface of the TBO: some symbols are still observable and eventually readable on this/these older layer(s).
- reusing the same surface to write another text, sometimes totally different from the previous one: this most recent layer on the manuscript is usually more readable than the older one / the olders.
Palimpsest texts have a "semantic baggage" that is a bit different from similar writing processes such as the two following examples:
- erasing part of the written surface (e.g.: a word or a letter) and rewrite for correcting a mistake for instance; in such an example both writings belong to the same layer and the writing process belongs to a same intention / moment / production.
- erasing and leave this textual phenomena visible such as in the cases of damnatio memoriae on some inscriptions.
We have searched in the Mark up list and TEI-L list archives and we have not found yet any previous messages that was convincing enough and definitive practice. The most interesting message seems to suggest to use the <altidentifier> with a @type + a value such as "palimpsest". But it also seems to refer to another description process, that is when one should collect several versions of a same text from various TBO. https://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TEI-L;ae9cfb92.1102
Could several <div> and / or <ab> be used to encode the overlapping texts on a same TBO + some attribute (@type ?) + a value ("palimpsest" ?) ?
What are your habits describe each layer of texts that are overlapping in a palimpsest manuscript?
Would some of you be kind enough to share their previous experiences (XML code and / or links), please?