The Voynich Ninja

(27-11-2022, 10:12 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This discussion would make more sense if you could provide positive indications of anything in the manuscript that points to a date after 1430. Haguenau style existed before Lauber, so similarities with this style are not an indication.

I will also once again point out that the style of the ladies' dress is even rarer and in our admittedly limited survey resulted in an even narrower window within the 1400-1430 period. Do you know of any fashion items in the MS that must postdate 1430? This would immediately terminate this discussion and help us all enormously.

R. Sale has done a great job locating the following, as he refers to in his comment, I think->

manuscriptminiatures.com/5735/21102

Dagged sleeves by themselves aren't enough. Admittedly, this image Lauber used was probably outdated by then, but the cut of the dress is one that is very common post-1430. Can you spot the difference?

[attachment=7007]

It might sound to you like I am just looking for a tiny difference to criticize, but the fact that the sleeves continue to the ground and into the trail, being more "one" with the dress is still common after 1430. In these cases, the sleeves look like they are two halves that kind of hang over the arm. What we see in the VM is different: the sleeves form a closed "loop" hanging from the wrist and they don't droop as far. Examples of this style are generally pre-1430.

(27-11-2022, 03:40 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(27-11-2022, 12:50 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your own model

All I have done is taken the dataset that Koen lists, unvarnished. I have then calculated the mean and variance on the basis of the data. The only sense in which I have imposed "my model" is in assuming the underlying data is normally distributed; that seems to be a pretty fair assumption and consistent with the distribution of the data. So to say that it is "Your own model" seems to give the impression this is one that I have cooked up to prove a point. I would be very interested if anyone could suggest an alternative model based on the dataset.

You have brought your model forward twice, precisely to 'prove' the point that the 95% probability upper limit is at 1444. You did this also in this thread, where you are trying to argue that a date after 1430 is in fact more likely.
Except that the same model says that this probability is 16% (after 1431). This is not logical and you are not being critical, at least of your own views.

Also, in this post, it is the third time that you challenge readers to argue why your model is not good, or to come up with a better one. So you stand behind it. You should accept the 16% after 1431.
Even though that is a bit on the high side.
The model is not doing very well precisely away from the high-probability area. The 16% probability after 1431 is not matched by Koen's data, which has only 3 (out of 35) points above 1431. It is doing even worse at the other end. Only 2 out of 35 points in the lower 16% of the distribution.

(28-11-2022, 08:36 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You have brought your model forward twice, precisely to 'prove' the point that the 95% probability upper limit is at 1444.

You keep using the term "your model" as if I cooked up a special model for the purpose. What alternative model do you suggest?

(28-11-2022, 08:36 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You did this also in this thread, where you are trying to argue that a date after 1430 is in fact more likely.
Except that the same model says that this probability is 16% (after 1431). This is not logical and you are not being critical, at least of your own views.

I am not basing my argument about the 1430s being more likely solely nor primarily on this model. What I tried to do, is by taking Koen's data demonstrate that it is unreasonable to exclude the 1430s and that this kind of analysis had not been done prior to the pre-1430 dating.

(One should note that I am not excluding 1430 as you seem keen to.)

(28-11-2022, 08:36 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Also, in this post, it is the third time that you challenge readers to argue why your model is not good, or to come up with a better one. So you stand behind it. You should accept the 16% after 1431.

I have not argued against that figure, though I will happily provide more context to my argument. Firstly you are referring to within 1 standard deviation from the mean, something like a 68% confidence interval. Do you apply the same standard to the carbon dating?

(28-11-2022, 08:36 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The 16% probability after 1431 is not matched by Koen's data, which has only 3 (out of 35) points above 1431.

There are 5 above and including 1430.

(28-11-2022, 08:26 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It might sound to you like I am just looking for a tiny difference to criticize, but the fact that the sleeves continue to the ground and into the trail, being more "one" with the dress is still common after 1430.

These two illustrations appear remarkably similar to the one you discount.

[attachment=7008]

[attachment=7009]

It is noteworthy that this manuscript also has baggy elbows in it.

This is apparently what I wrote 4 years ago about the selection of the dresses. I took people's remarks into account and eliminated a number of my initial examples to zoom in even closer on the VM style:

Quote:One justified remark that was made about some of my proposals was: is this really a sleeve or more like a cape or the edge of the dress? The Voynich women wear sleeves that are clearly separated from the dress; they don’t touch the ground and aren’t folded back. This eliminates a large amount of my initial contributions, but we are left with the most certain parallels.

So when we were collecting these images, there grew an understanding that "being clearly separated from the dress" and "not extending to the ground" are important qualities. In the Lauber example above, we cannot even make out the other sleeve. Also interestingly, he continues the scallop pattern all the way to the ground. My guess would be that he may have been altering an older image to make it match more "modern" fashion, but this is just a guess. 

The two examples you picked from the blog post are different. I admit that the one on the right isn't very clear since she is riding a horse, so this may be a bad example. The one on the left has sleeves that are clearly separate from the dress, and don't touch the floor.

The bottom line is that our best examples are earlier. So far, the only argument that actually comes from you to defend a later date is "but Lauber...". This shows that sure, images can be copied at later dates (that's nothing new), but also that we only see this fashion after 1430 in rare circumstances. There is not a single reason to assume the VM is part of this. Either way, anyone defending a 1430's-1440's date must also take into account that the clothing was old fashioned by then. This may not be a problem, but it is something to take into account.

If we assume the VM artist followed the common practice of drawing figures in contemporary clothing, we can also say a 1420's date is more likely than a 1430's date. This is what curators would do, so it doesn't seem bad practice for us to do the same.

(28-11-2022, 09:02 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am not basing my argument about the 1430s being more likely solely nor primarily on this model. What I tried to do, is by taking Koen's data demonstrate that it is unreasonable to exclude the 1430s and that this kind of analysis had not been done prior to the pre-1430 dating.

Koen has already agreed ages ago that post-1430 should not be excluded, so there seems little point in continuing on that.


I think that we are talking here about your suggestion that post-1430 is in fact the more likely case. That is the title of this thread and your opening post.

(28-11-2022, 09:02 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(One should note that I am not excluding 1430 as you seem keen to.)



[...]

Firstly you are referring to within 1 standard deviation from the mean, something like a 68% confidence interval. Do you apply the same standard to the carbon dating?

It sounds as if one should only talk about the 95% confidence interval, as in the carbon dating. Is that just because the 68% confidence figure is inconvenient for your point?

First of all, the C-14 paper gives results for both confidence intervals.

Secondly, by chance, your computed mean and your computed sigma add up as 1416 + 15 = 1431, so without doing any math at all, we know that the probability beyond 1431 is 16%. Just convenient.

Anyway, I am happy to summarise my view now. It seems that you will are unwilling to seriously consider good arguments, and stick to nitpicking and looking at exceptions. You remain unwilling to accept that post-1430 is less likely as the date for the MS. Considerably less likely at that.
From the carbon dating I consider a post-1430 date to have a probability of less than 18%.

This completes my contrinutions to this thread. Otherwise I'd just be repeating myself.

It certainly seems fair to say that the fashion peaked before 1430, but a specific ending date is more elusive. Did it end in Paris the same year that it ended in Haguenau? So, the heigh-of-prevalence date is not quite the same as the ending date. And more importantly, in dealing with illustrations, there is an increased potential lag time. There are good cultural and chronological connections for *what* is being depicted, but not quite as good for the chronology of the VMs illustrations. And most of all in consideration that this is the VMs which can be shown to engage in intentional deception (White Aries).

It seems that dating works better when based on a specific event. The Golden Fleece has a specific date, it was a big deal at the time, and it is in 1430. So, any subsequent depiction is in or after 1430.

And speaking of repetition. As it is, the single sample assumption for the VMs C-14 dating has room for parchment production after 1430. Resolving this to a binary option could move things forward even a bit more. 

'1430' is a good dividing line. What is depicted may belong on one side of the line, the product of that depiction appears to belong on the other.

Those are good points, R.Sale. But on the other hand, three decades is an eternity when it comes to the fashion of the elites. When you look up specialist overviews of fashion developments in the early 15th century, you will see that they can make several distinctions even within this period. My impression is that the 1400-1430 timeframe already includes a certain buffer to allow these fashions to go out of style. Anything after than is really old-fashioned. It was also a time when Europe's courts were particularly connected (art historians speak of the international gothic) so regional differences may also have less of an impact than you'd expect.

The "sleeves" are more correctly called "houppelandes" and are this is an over-garment on top of the dress and chemise itself. The chemise, and often the dress, is usually tightly fitted throughout all of this period, in stark contrast to the houppelandes.
 The large open sleeves of the houppelandes popular in the early part of this century are in the bombard style.
The fashion of this period has been amply studied through the perspective of history of art.
1430 is interesting, because this is when we start to see a sudden change in female representation - the fashion is for a protruding belly, accenting their reproductive power and feminity. This suddenly comes on. Houppelands start to fall out of fashion for a while, except in more formal occasions. See, ie, Detail of Two Women in Floral Border, Hours of Margaret of Orléans, ca. 1430. Manuscript. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Latin 1156B, folio 172r. Source: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The women, none of whom wear houppelands, are displaying bellies but this is understood to simply mean they are attractive women, not that they are pregnant. 
Houppelandes, which are mainly fashion garments, start to undergo strongly marked changes throughout this decade, starting always in Italy and sweeping north. They are very visible in paintings, as they are fashion garments. See, ie, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. by Van Eyke. The various fashions come with different and very stylistic hairpieces and hairstyles.
By the middle of this decade Antonio "Pisanello" had become firmly entrenched among the Italian nobility and was a major fashion designer. His designs were sought after and would quickly sweep across the continent. He was responsible for bringing the houppeland away from the designs fashionable then and bringing them back towards a fashion based upon Roman or classical designs. He is believed to be responsible for the move away from huge sleeves towards classical lines, including fluting based on classical architecture.
Anyone interested in the fashion of the period should study his drawings, which again are flowing and very expressive in the distinctive fashion of the time.