The Voynich Ninja

According to the McCrone Institute report, glair (eggwhite) was used for clear or the color white.  I just can't remember where white was used in VMS.

Edit: It`s the headdress of bather on folio 78r ( clear, not white ) and a face on folio 70v (see report, table).

Egg can be used for dating.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:.... These findings are supported by results from the study of Smith et al., who noted the presence of both oil and protein, i.e., egg or hide glue. With respect to 14 C analysis, this dual carbon source is at first glance not ideal. However, with a deeper insight in paint treatise, it is well known that oil binders and egg tempera must be fresh for application; thus owing that both compounds are of natural source, it is reasonable to assume a similar 14 C signature for both compounds. ....

Microsamples = 160 μg are sufficient for dating (source see above ) .

That's interesting. It sounds like it would be almost non-invasive then, and it would allow scientific dating of something applied to the vellum.

I suppose that this could work for the paints in the MS.

Micro-samples were already taken by McCrone and they are still being kept.

- - -

Edit:
however, on second thought 'micro' does not equal 'micro'.

Here's a picture of the microsample ( < 200 microgram) used in the report:

[attachment=3655]

and this is how this 'maps' on the Voynich MS:

[attachment=3656]

The micro-samples taken by McCrone are only a fraction of this.

I sent an email to McCrone Institute asking if they think such a measurement is possible, just to be sure. Let's see if there's any feedback.

I have also sent an e-mail to the institute mentioned in the article (see above), the very renowned ETH Zurich, to hear their opinion:


My email (sent in German):

Quote:Subject: Age determination of protein-containing ink by the C14 method


Ladies and Gentlemen,

With great interest I have read the following article in which your institute is mentioned:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

My question from amateurish interest is whether it is technically possible to determine the age of protein-containing ink (protein, mixed with calcium carbonate) in a medieval manuscript. The ink was applied on vellum. Specifically, this is the so-called Voynich manuscript (MS408). The McCrone Institute in Chicago had already determined the age of the vellum using the C14 method (approx. 1420) and analyzed the composition of the inks. The above mentioned protein glaze was also discovered.

The Voynich manuscript still has the theory of a modern forgery, i.e. the ink was applied to the vellum much later. If, however, it is possible to determine the age of the ink, this theory would be refuted or confirmed. Before I turn to the owner of the manuscript ( Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library ) with the idea of an appropriate investigation, I would be pleased about your professional opinion.

Yours sincerely,



Translated with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Here's Dr. Hajdas's answer:

Quote:Dear Mr. Wille,

Yes, protein would give us the required carbon.

As in the presented paper that you mention in this email this is possible with very small samples however still the amount of the binder will require sampling of the ink.

I would like to ask if you are  researcher  working with that document?

Do you know what is the protein % in the ink?

Only then we can say how much we need to sample. That means we will have to scrape off the ink.

Best wishes, Irka Hajdas

----------------------------------------------
ETH Zurich
Dr. Irka Hajdas
Laboratory of Ion Beam Physics
HPK H25
Otto-Stern-Weg 5
CH-8093 Zürich

So it looks like the method is really applicable to ink.

Nice, this is very interesting. Once you have gathered enough information, you should contact Ray Clemens.. During our Skype interview he said he was open to suggestions of this nature.

On a different angle, this reminds me of something I flagged up a few years ago about the ink analysis. I've just dug it up from my archives, about five year ago when I first started whinging about it.

There is a serious doubt about sample (16) in theYou are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., the one coming from the back page.

In short, the coordinates given do not correspond to any text on that page!
The sample "black ink from text" was taken "from coordinates 6.9cm from top and 2.9cm from left of f116v." Those coordinates go to a blank spot on the page, waaay below the Michtonese text. There is nothing there. Certainly no text.
The components list also notes that (no photograph recorded of the gum binder), and the explanation says that no photomicrograph of the sampling process was taken of this sample, and this sample alone (despite this, references to figures are given in the sample list). No explanation is given as to why no photomicrograph was taken of this sample alone. It is said to be iron gall ink (high iron content) and gum binder.

Three possibilities occur to me: 
-The coordinates in the report are wrong but the sample did come from the Michtonese (maybe they meant mm instead of cm? But all other coordinates in the report are in cm, and anyway, there is no text at the mm coordinates)
-The coordinates in the report are correct (but no text appears on that page in that coordinate so what is the sample of?)
- The coordinates are correct, but the page number is wrong (it may have been taken from the previous page).
Without access to the original file samples, this is another dead end that will only lead us into useless speculation. I will only mention that the report focuses on the "Latin alphabet" text on folio 1R but at no time mentions the text on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as being different, which makes me suspect the technician had only orders to take a sample from the very end of the book for sampling purposes, and later on doubt emerged about whether he had taken it from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. or f116v.

I reckon its a labelling mistake , in that '116v' in the report, should be '116r'.

The figure references include IR spectra and other sciencey data and the photomicrographs for each sample,
for sample 16 there are only 2 figures 16A and 16B all the other samples contain more than 2 figures.
So i assume the refs to sample 16 figures woudl be the spectra and other sciencey stuff.

Not having taken a photomicrograph of sample 16 does seem a bit lax though.

I would like to see the figures, wonder what happened to them ?
Unidentified constituents in the gum sounds most intriguing.

My best guess is that the two coordinates have been swapped, and it should be: 2.9 cm from the top and 6.9 cm from the left. The microscope shot may have failed or was indeed forgotten.
But this is just a guess.