For me the question is: why does one want to deviate from the C14 framework? Is it because something has been observed in the artefact that raises serious, scientifically legitimate concerns? In that case, present the evidence and it will speak for itself.
Is it because your proposed author lived later so you need the VM date to be later? In that case, your author is probably wrong.
There are a few ways to date an artefact. Carbon dating is one, which gives us the 1404–1438 range. If you have images of clothing, you're in luck because fashion is another. This gives us a ca. 1400 - 1430 range. If you were to take the VM to museum curators with the proper expertise in fashion and show them the Zodiac figures, they would say: 1430 or earlier.
Both carbon dating and fashion by themselves are enough for professionals to date an artefact. How lucky are we that we have both! And they overlap beautifully! The height of the fashion was in the 1410's and 1420's, right in the middle of the C14 range.
I cannot stress this enough: having both C14 analysis and fashion available to us and overlap so nicely is a tremendous luxury. This is not conclusive, it is double conclusive. Why struggle?
(17-07-2022, 11:35 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I cannot stress this enough: having both C14 analysis and fashion available to us and overlap so nicely is a tremendous luxury. This is not conclusive, it is double conclusive. Why struggle?
Hi Koen, I agree with what you write but I am not sure about the last sentence.
Probably I am having trouble with my bad English, but I understand "conclusive" as 100% certain. If this is so, the joint evidence from C14 and fashion is not conclusive, but it is stronger than either of the two alone. It is not totally inconceivable that the parchment was used 12 years later than the C14 range. It is not totally inconceivable that the manuscript reproduces 20 years old fashion. Both facts are unlikely, and the probability of them both happening together is even more unlikely. Both pieces of evidence are solid: taken together they are very solid, maybe 99% solid, but still not 100% sure (conclusive).
Any theory that contradicts this evidence should present equally (99%) solid evidence for a different date. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Let's see this evidence, at least: the same costumes from several 1450s manuscripts; proof of XV Century manuscripts being frequently written on decades old parchement; a different opinion from someone as qualified as Wieck... In the absence of such extraordinary evidence, theories that conform to the C14 date range are clearly preferable.
This of course only holds in the context of science and palaeography: allergy to these criteria implies that everything is equally valid and pet theories can be freely chosen by personal preference (no straitjacket, bingo!). We are left with what I like vs what you like; since "in matters of taste, there can be no disputes" all discussion becomes totally pointless.
A valid remark, Marco, I agree that conclusive is not the ideal word to use here, because there are always different scenarios imaginable. But saying "a strong indication" or something similar is enough for people to say "indication is not evidence so my theory remains valid" - which is the opposite of the message I want to get across :-)
But you phrase it well: evidence that contradicts this timeframe should be exceptionally strong. Saying that "99% is not 100%" does not constitute evidence.
The reason why I get so worked up around this discussion is that the early 15th century timeframe is one of the few really solid things we have. Let's build on that. But instead, the first thing people really love to do is to ignore this evidence.
(17-07-2022, 06:18 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I cannot say whether this spelling was adopted from Slavic.
The 'y' meant 'and' in Slavic. It originates in the Old Church Slavonic and was widely used in Slovenian dialects where OCS liturgy was practices. That means in the south-Eastern Carniola. In the Stična Codex from 1442, written by a Czeck monk, the word INU (in various variations of spelling - inu, inv, innu).That was the only 2-page document written in Slovenian and in Latin letters in the 15th century. The next text written in Slovenian and Latin letters were the books written written by the Protestant writers who studied in Tubingen and were later, after being exiled, living in Tubingen. Under the German influence, the used the word INO or INU for 'und'. The books written by the Slovenian writers. like philosopher A. Vremec, who lived in the regions where OCS liturgy was used, use the word 'i' consistently. Eventually, the word INU was used for Slovenian literary language, and has later evolved into 'in'. In the dialectal speech of White Carniola, the word 'i' is still used.
I noticed that in the VM, Y is used extensively for 'and'. Since VM was written before the letter 'j' became in use, the 9-like Y was used at the beginning and at the end of the words. This was consistent with change of pronunciation of the names of the saints in medieval Calendars. For example: Gregorius, spelled with Latin abrevation Gregory, Became pronounced as Gregory or Gregorij (in Slavic).
(17-07-2022, 08:22 AM)Hermes777 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As an academic I studied the Dead Sea Scrolls for 20+ years. From that experience I am wary of putting absolute faith ("scientism") in carbon dating, and even more wary of palaeography (which in the case of the Scrolls was a circus.) These are tools, and relatively blunt tools for all of that. I don't feel straightjacketed by them or intimidated by forensics. I'm looking at a 1450s scenario. The carbon dating terminus is 1438. On a small sample from a 600 year old document, I don't regard a leeway of a dozen years fatal to my argument.
I am sorry but that is also demonstrably wrong. In some parts of the historical timeline the C-14 method is quite accurate, and in others it is highly inaccurate. This has to do with the exact shape of the calibration curve coming from tree ring analysis.
If an estimate for biblical times is inaccurate, this says absolutely nothing about the accuracy of the early 15th century.
Even the accaracy in the later 15th century is very low.
Effectively, for the Voynich MS, if one increases the error margins on the measurements by a factor 2 or 3, the upper limit hardly moves. The lower limit can go back to the 14th century.
I am aware that this is only clear if one has a deeper understanding of the way how C-14 results are obtained.
I can only refer back to my web page for that.
In summary: if the C-14 dating error margins have been overly optimistic, this could make the MS older rather than younger.
(17-07-2022, 11:35 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....having both C14 analysis and fashion available to us...
I spent my morning researching the details of the eagle in heraldry and learned that the position of the wings has changed over time. I think the image of the eagle in 46v has been widely debated, did it help to confirm or deny the date of the manuscript?
(17-07-2022, 11:35 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I cannot stress this enough: having both C14 analysis and fashion available to us and overlap so nicely is a tremendous luxury. This is not conclusive, it is double conclusive. Why struggle?
One can argue about the best possible wording, but the key point is that the two consistent estimates for the origin of the MS are totally independent estimates.
This indeed makes the dating very strong.
There is even a second luxury. We have no insight in the analysis and experience of the Morgan curator who concluded on the 1420's date. This might make it easy to not consider it strong evidence. However, thanks to Koen's blog entry, everyone can see for themselves what it is based on.
So, while I consider the curator's statement the most important one, Koen's blog is extremely helpful.
(17-07-2022, 03:24 PM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think the image of the eagle in 46v has been widely debated
Why an eagle? In my opinion it might be Saint Michael in the apocalypse book of the bible, the flowers on the top form the shape of a You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view..
(17-07-2022, 04:43 PM)Juan_Sali Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why an eagle?
I never doubted that it was a heraldic You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., I think, because of its kleestengel.
However, I have no idea why the author drew the eagle: was it to indicate the name of the plant or to give some other information?
Rene,
This is an old topic regarding the C-14. And I know the many discussions with Rich S*C.
I am not suggesting your interpretation is wrong. I believe there two different ways to interpret the data. While your position is that all samples are statistically identical, I agree. But I suggest that statistical identity and physical identity are not necessarily the same. And the reason for that is the multiple decades-wide, margin of error that is inherent in the C-14 test results.
Again, I refer to the astronomical analogy. In the night sky, you see a star. You get the binoculars, and you still see a single point of light. Then with a serious telescope, there is the resolution of a close binary star. The C-14 test gets us to the second stage, but not to the third, because of the decades-wide margin of inherent error in the C-14 data. Do the four different data results come from the inherent uncertainty in the test process <of course> or from actual differences in the parchment samples <perhaps>? There is no way to differentiate.
A more accurate method of dating still might confirm that the statistical and physical identities are the same. All data variation is inherent in the test. That is one possibility. And the other possibility is that those physical identities, within the *decades-wide* *statistical* identity, are *not* the same. And the primary significance of a binary system would be a chronological shift based on the youngest parchment sample, *if* there are two actual parchment sources. A binary physical identity within the statistical range doesn't alter the statistics. However, a binary physical identity has the potential to advance VMs creation chronology a bit. We just don't know. We are at stage two, we have the statistics, we just don't have the physical reality, because of the inherent margin of error.