The Voynich Ninja

ReneZ,

Thanks, I do believe that situation rests on the margin of error inherent in the Carbon-14 test itself. The four VMs parchment samples all may well come from a similar place and a very similar time. They are close enough 'statistically' to be averaged in a way "fully consistent within the accuracy of the method" as you say. But the 'single-source' statistical option is not the only possible analytical method because it is not the only real possibility on the ground. The secondary option using an alternate two-source method and given the date range of the most recent sample, if it was parchment that came from a secondary source, could shift the date of final parchment production date closer to or beyond 1450. So, it's just as valid in a statistical sense.  And as to probability, that's going to depend on situational dynamics that require further clarification.

Single-source statistics have provided an average date. It's a good piece of information, groundbreaking. However, it does not tell how many batches of parchment there are in the four samples, in part because the margin of error in the C-14 test is too wide. The test can not detect a difference in a span of 30 years, but this could be much of a human life span. Thirty years is the span from 1420 to 1450. The data is simply not sufficiently specific or accurate enough to be able to validate one particular interpretation or another.

Or, perhaps the VMs could be produced in less than four years.  FROM: 1434 - Sainte Hostie - my starting date  TO:  1438 - the last C-14 single source, average date. Makes for an interesting potential scientific and cultural overlap, IMHO. Four years should be sufficient, but maybe it could be later.

No, it is not like that.

The calibration curve is very steep around the upper limit, and even if one increases the uncertainty of the method by a factor two, every single sample has an upper limit that is below 1450.
The probability that any single sample is after 1450 is negligible.

It is very different on the lower end, due to an inversion of the calibration curve. Increasing the uncertainty means that the parchment could also be 150 years older.

(30-08-2020, 05:43 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is very different on the lower end, due to an inversion of the calibration curve. Increasing the uncertainty means that the parchment could also be 150 years older.

Thank you, this is an important aspect that has escaped me so far.

ReneZ,

Thanks again. Discussion helps to develop an improved perspective.  As I understand it, the early 1400s is a relative 'sweet spot'  for C-14 data with the values involved for the margins of error being notable smaller than during other periods of time. That certainly helps.

The real question is, from the four samples analysed, how many different production batches of parchment are there?  The answer is unknown. Even if the range for a single batch of production is extended from annual to a five-year period, there would still be six different batches in a 30 year span. The C-14 test is not going to be sufficiently accurate to tell one end from the other, or anywhere in between. The test simply lacks resolution and cannot discriminate[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] between individual batches with such proximity. Yet the actual difference could really be more than just a couple of years. The mathematical results can be subjected to several interpretations.[/font]

With the four VMs samples, the dates are close enough, and the degree of imprecision is great enough to permit a valid statistical analysis *as if* all samples came from a single source. All is well and good. However, the data is such that the most recent sample is something of an outlier, and as such it is the primary candidate for production by an alternate source, and in this case an obviously more recent parchment source. Calculation based on a single-source assumption gives a good answer. However the C-14 inability to discriminate between batches made more than a decade apart means that the dual-source interpretation is also a valid possibility. And this version of dual-source interpretation is going to have the most significant effect on the potential chronology.

While initial VMs production may have occurred over weeks, months, or years, production cannot be completed before the final parchment date. Hence the effect of this dual-source possibility depends significantly on the date of the most recent sample. And this sample has the potential capacity to move the earliest date of VMs final production to a year that is somewhat later than the single source average indicates (1438) - to a date that is closer to 1450, and perhaps a bit beyond.

As you said, "[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]The probability that any single sample is after 1450 is negligible."  That would mainly be the one that is the most recent of the four samples. And negligible is not zero. So I can agree with that. There's more than one way to interpret the data, and current evidence is insufficient to confer validity on a particular method.[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]What do you say to 1434-1445+ as a date for the last sheet of parchment?[/font]

Batches should not be multiplied without necessity.
Those additional batches are Russell's teapots.

(31-08-2020, 12:34 AM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]There's more than one way to interpret the data, and current evidence is insufficient to confer validity on a particular method.[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]What do you say to 1434-1445+ as a date for the last sheet of parchment?[/font]

To discuss this in a meaningful way, one would need to understand the process of determining a radio-carbon date.

One thing can be stated:
the probability that the parchment of the Voynich MS is after 1438 is 2.5%

This is not negligible, but it is small.
That it is after 1450 cannot be computed but it is very significantly smaller.

Fortunately, we have completely independent evidence that points to the 1420's, namely the clothing of some of the people in the zodiac pages.

(31-08-2020, 07:34 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Fortunately, we have completely independent evidence that points to the 1420's, namely the clothing of some of the people in the zodiac pages.

I know there are one or more threads here in the forum that make comparisons with the clothes but I can't find them. Do you have the corresponding links ?

Koen may be in a better position than I to point to the relevant thread(s), or possibly a post on his blog.

His descriptions are very visual.

I can contribute with a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. .

See here for discussion of the threads: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Conclusion: it is very unlikely that these kinds of clothes were drawn outside of the 1400-1430 timeframe. Given the VM's carbon dating, we can probably narrow that down to 1410-1430. A window of 20 years based on fashion is wonderfully small already.

I must note that at that time, I (nor, I think, the other participants in the thread?) was not aware of the specialist statement quoted by Rene, so these can be seen as independent confirmations. I am not entirely sure on which grounds the 1410's can be excluded though.

Here is additional information on dating the fashions.

The second link has a map with dates:

• Baggy sleeves with tight wrists (April 2017): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.  scroll down to comments section 
  
• Hats and Tunics (July 2017): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
• Hats and Tunics and medieval drawing styles for clothing (Sept. 2018): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  

Despite having written all this about medieval fashions and dates, I have a slightly different perspective about the dating of the clothing drawings.

Any child who has seen Saturday morning cartoons has probably seen many anachronisms. For example, television aerials were often drawn as "rabbit ears" for decades after rabbit ears had basically disappeared. This is partly because cartoonists who were established in the industry were aging. They drew things as they remembered them from their youth, and as people were used to seeing them in cartoons even after the technology had changed.

There's definitely evidence in manuscripts that fashions were frequently updated, even when the script was copied word-for-word. But was it updated to contemporary fashion? Or were they updated to the point where the illustrator learned to draw them? Someone in his 40s might still be drawing them as he learned to draw them in his 20s. We see this frequently with contemporary illustrators. For the styles to change, "new blood" often needs to be introduced to the workplace.


So, I think (in general) that the fashions in manuscripts are probably quite close to what was worn at the time the drawings were made, but

• because the illustrators were copying from older exemplars, and
  
• because the illustrators themselves were aging and didn't always update their styles,
  

I think there may (sometimes) have been a lag of a decade or so between what we see in manuscripts and what was actually worn.