The Voynich Ninja

Thank you for all the interesting and well-thought responses and questions. As always, I appreciate and value these discussions. I'm going to go through all of them, and try to respond to most of them.

(23-03-2024, 09:06 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think the problem comes with the use of the term "experts". There is nobody who really definitively can be called an "expert" on the Voynich manuscript. You are precisely an example of the point that it is difficult to find a consensus on any aspect of the Voynich manuscript. Take the Rosettes Folio and we have many different ideas what this page represents.

I think you are completely wrong about it being a modern hoax, but I think the chance of me or any evidence persuading you otherwise is very slim.

True on the "use of the term 'experts'", and that is one of my points in the blog post: That we all... myself included... tend to decide who is the right expert, or not, or "enough" of an expert, or if an expert at all. The point being, that... and this is human nature... to select those references which concur with our own biases, with our preconceptions, our hopes, or beliefs... whatever. The second point is the over-riding one: It is ironic to me, when being told that I "don't listen to the experts", that I actually listen to far more of them than virtually anyone else... well, anyone without a forgery theory. The very nature of the wide range of varying observations is easily explained by forgery, and therefore they must be winnowed down drastically to fit any other narrative, especially "circa 1420 European Cipher Herbal", as it had practically no supporters before the C14. So the "problem" you cite is an accurate one, but far less of a problem for holders of a modern forgery theory.

As for "persuading" me otherwise, I also pointed out in my post that I've actually been persuaded several times, and moved through two major, and many smaller, hypothesis. I think this is proof that I am quite "persuadable": It is just that, so far, the issues I've raised which support my modern forgery hypothesis are not close to being satisfactorily explained to me. But, should I be shown why they are not problems (anachronisms and anomalies), I have no problem with moving to some other hypothesis, including 1420.

(03-04-2024, 05:23 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is ironic to me, when being told that I "don't listen to the experts", that I actually listen to far more of them than virtually anyone else... well, anyone without a forgery theory. 

You don't listen to the people you list as experts as they don't say the manuscript is a modern fake. To go from saying there was uncertainty about the dating of the manuscript to saying it is a modern hoax is a big jump. Rather one might say that the dating of a manuscript like the Voynich, where one cannot read the text, is very difficult and so many people came up with different dates for it. The carbon dating has been very helpful in clearing up the dating issue.

Hi, Koen:

(23-03-2024, 09:20 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The only conclusion one could have drawn before the carbon dating was that people seemed to have had a hard time agreeing on a dating for the MS. If they had brought on board someone specialized in medieval dress, they would have certainly pointed to the first half of the 15th century. 

What was the background of the people offering date ranges for the MS, and what were those assessments based upon? A look at a few black and white scans? A specific part of the MS? All of these things matter.

You relate two of the many reasons experts and their opinions are dismissed, and I don't necessarily disagree with either of them. But we do have a wide range of experts, with many very targeted skills and experience, the vast majority of which didn't think the Voynich was circa 1420. If the "right" expert... a "better" one, such as you describe, was brought on board... a specialist in medieval dress as you say... would THAT expert have declared "definitely 1420"? Maybe, we can't know. But I also tend to think that the dress of the medieval era was somewhat considered by the art historians, and experts in the history of the botanical and herbal, and so on. And if they had better copies? I don't know if that was the case... some saw the original, others were privy to the good B&W film strips. I believe those would be sufficient. Besides, until the 2009/10 C14 announcement, there were already some pretty good copies... and experts in medieval dress, for that matter... and still there were no experts thinking "circa 1420"... or, few, if any.

So yes, we can tinker with the list, and conditions over the years, and access, and blame the lack of expert support for 1420 on those. And that is what has been done, and that is one of the major points of my post.

Quote: As for your support for Yanick and Tucker, I am greatly confused. They claim that "the Voynich is a 16th century codex associated with indigenous Indians of Nueva España educated in schools established by the Spanish". If I recall correctly, they even had an author in mind, a 16th century painter known for his work decorating churches.

I just don't get it. Why would Wilfrid Voynich make something that looks like it is made by Mexicans and then try to sell it as the Roger Bacon cipher manuscript?

Well, like everyone... but to a far, far lesser extent... I do not agree with each and every point made by every expert, past and future. I don't agree with some of the points of Tucker and Janick, and actually have had long... and pleasant... email discussions with Mr. Janick (and others on these subjects). He knows I disagree with him on several points, including the one you mention. But even if that signature is there, if Janick is correct, it does not alter the possibility that the Voynich is a modern fake... at all. Many fakes/forgeries/hoaxes are (falsely) signed. Even the Voynich! JK... sort of.

Why would Wilfrid make a Mexican (Meso-American) work, then try to sell it as a Roger Bacon? I don't think he did. What I do think happened was that he was creating a manuscript to look as though it came from the Court of Rudolf II, as per his faulty perception of that court which he learned through one of his favorite books, "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II". The inclusion of New World plants, animals, and other features, would have been quite appropriate for such a work, as there was a great fascination for all things New World in the early 16th century. Rudolf's "Kunstkammer" was filled with plant samples, animals (armadillo!), and artifacts from the Americas. The Bolton book mentions many such things, as studied by Horciciky, who as you know, "signed" the Voynich.

I believe that this first iteration of the Voynich... circa-1909/10... didn't "pass muster", for one thing. And there was a growing media "buzz" about Bacon, as his 700th birth anniversary was fast approaching (1914). I think it possible that the rebinding and loss of pages happened for this reason: To "erase" most of the more "Rufolfesque" content, and "make it" pass as a Roger Bacon. Just a theory, but to explain "why"... to answer your question, in my opinion.

Related posts on these subjects:

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

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

(25-03-2024, 06:30 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well to me this seems to be about how we rely on experts. It is not because someone has any PhD, that they can be relied upon to assess a medieval artefact. 

Certain herbal traditions stray very far from botanical reality. In these cases, asking the opinion of a botanist may be counterproductive.

I also don't think Rich should cherry pick from their findings. He likes that they said the plants are American, but he doesn't like that they did so in the framework of their Mexican theory.

Again though, why would the European Voynich put so many American plants in his forgery?

Well yes, considering one's PhD, the area of study it covers, or the lack of one, are also reasons one may choose to use or lose a particular expert or their opinion. But I have to say that thinking the use of an expert in botany is "counterproductive" is a new one to me. The Voynich has plants, botanists study and identify plants. I would say that rejecting their input without consideration makes little sense... it is to me exactly the sort of testimony we should be seeking.

About my "cherry picking" findings: Fair, as I've said, while pointing out that to a vast degree, I and my modern forgery theory needs to reject very little as compared to 1420. I accept, in fact, virtually all of it. But that brings me to another point from my post:

Quote:"So then, anyone who believes the Voynich is genuine, and circa-1420, must reject all those 14 pre-C14 experts who said the manuscript was anything BUT 1420. But I do not reject them. I actually agree with virtually all their observations. The thing to realize here is- the reason my seemingly hypocritical belief that the Voynich is a circa 1910 forgery, while the experts did not- is simply because these opinions were not about, nor considering, whether or not the Voynich is a forgery. These experts were looking at the style and content, and then giving their expert opinions as to when and where that style and content most likely originated from. These were not forgery experts, they were art historians, linguists, scholars of the history of the herbal tradition, of iconography, cipher, codeology, palaeography, and so on."

Yes I did answer your question, "... why would the European Voynich put so many American plants in his forgery?", with my opinion on that, in my previous comment above.

(03-04-2024, 05:33 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You don't listen to the people you list as experts as they don't say the manuscript is a modern fake.

Are you seriously trying to say that if the expert  hasn't stated that they subscribe to particular theory that is supported BY their findings, then one is therefore not listening to that expert?!

Hi René!

(27-03-2024, 01:42 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just to stay away from all the speculation, there is one important error in the graph, and there are two interesting omissions.



The error is with Panofsky, whose range is shown as 1510 (blue) - 1520 (orange).

However, his first assessment after seeing and handling the MS in the 1930's was: 1410-1430
Some 30 years later he gave a new assessment, 1470 or 1510 - 1520. The correct range from all this is not 1510-1520. It is 1410 (blue) - 1520 (orange).

I disagree with you on this, René: Well, yes, as I stated in my post, Panofsky's first opinion, on his brief, two hour visitation with the VMs, was 1410-1430. And yes, on further thought, consideration, what have you, he changed his opinion to 1510-1520. So I don't agree that it would be correct to spread his entire history of opinion on this in order to incorporate his first opinion of dating... he changed it, so his earlier opinion should be dropped. I think he made it clear, in his later assessment, as quoted in D'Imperio,

"Were it not for the sunflower [as identified by O'Neill]... I should have thought that it was executed a little earlier, say about 1470. However, since the style of the drawings is fairly provincial, a somewhat later date, even the first years of the sixteenth century, would not seem to be excluded. I would not go lower than ca. 1510-1520 because no influence of the Italian Renaissance style is evident. The above date is based on the charter of the script, the style of drawing and on such costumes as are in evidence on certain pages. For example folio 72 recto [probably referring to the costumes in the Gemini representations]."

Quote:The first interesting omission is Richard Salomon, who stated: "it was written in the 15th century, possibly as late as 1450, possibly earlier in the century"

So that would deserve a bar of 1420 (blue) - 1450 (orange).

I had trouble finding Salomon's opinion, and it does not appear in D'Imperio (although other observations he made are in that book). I think you may be quoting, not Salomon, but Anne Nill's recollection as to what Salomon told her in person.

But that is a fair observation, second hand or not... I also trust Anne Nill's recollections... and so, "possibly earlier" could reasonably be construed as bringing 1450 back to the C14 date range. I'll make a note on my blog reflecting this.

Quote:The second omission is interesting in a very different way, but Rich may not have these details. 
Theodore Petersen had written to one of his contacts in the Vatican (A. Strittmatter), who consulted the respectable Mgr. August Pelzer about Roger Bacon in general, and Voynich's Bacon MS. Petersen had sent along some photostats. 
The answer came:

"You will be interested also to know that in the course of our first conversation Msgr. P. remarked: 
"Die Voynich HS ist sicherlich nicht von Bacon. Sie stammt aus dem späten 16. oder frühen  17. Jhdt, höchstwahrscheinlich aus der Tschecho-Slowakei oder aus Polen." As I understand it, he considers the drawings representative of interests utterly alien to Roger Bacon."

The German part means: The Voynich MS is certainly not by Bacon. It dates from the late 16th or early 17th century, most probably from Czechoslovakia or Poland.

This could rate as probably the worst of all estimates, from a respectable expert.
Of course, he did not see the MS. Only some B/W photos.

So considering our disagreement over Panofsky's date range, Richard Salomon's hitting the C14 squarely, then Pelzer's thinking much later, the modifications to the tally are somewhat a draw. Basically, respectfully, I would say my point still stands: The overwhelming majority of experts and expert opinions, pre-C14, placed the possible date of origin for the Voynich decades to centuries away from what those radiocarbon results give for the calfskin.

Here is another thought I've had about this, over the years... and, I think, it goes to the most important lesson here, which is also in my post, but not touched on: Imagine for a moment if the case was reversed: If the majority of experts actually gave a date range of, say, 1400 to 1450. That is, that the content DID actually match the C14 range? Of course... and rightly so... a case for authenticity would have further evidence in its favor. For one to think the Voynich may be circa-1910 as I do, then, I would have to consider it a great coincidence that the "right" parchment "happened to be chosen" by my imagined forger.

And that would be true. So in that light, consider the other point I make in my blog: According to the majority of the experts, the "right" aged parchment was not chosen. That is, it is exactly the blind choice of materials we would expect a pre-radiocarbon test age forger to make. That is a key point here... as the winnowing of the list of experts had/has, really, this one goal: To make the list short enough to include only those experts with opinions close enough to the C14 dates, in order to then (improperly, illogically) claim that the "right" parchment was chosen, and done so, pre-C14, thus showing it was not a forgery... because a forger "couldn't have known".

No, the right age parchment was not chosen. It cannot be claimed that it was. I wanted to add that, because it has been overlooked by the commenters here, so far, and I think it is probably one of the most important points to acknowledge.

Rich.

(03-04-2024, 06:46 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(03-04-2024, 05:33 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You don't listen to the people you list as experts as they don't say the manuscript is a modern fake.

Are you seriously trying to say that if the expert  hasn't stated that they subscribe to particular theory that is supported BY their findings, then one is therefore not listening to that expert?!

If you listen selectively to the people you deem to be experts only taking onboard statements they may have made that support your ideas, then you cannot really be said to be listening to the expert. Listening to the expert should be listening to the entirety of what they say. If these experts are saying it is not a modern forgery then only focusing on the difference in their dating is ignored the complete picture. Of course, as I have said before, I think when it comes to the Voynich there are no experts.

(27-03-2024, 05:29 AM)merrimacga Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I had started this reply much earlier but then ran out of time to post it. The site has been really busy this month and so has my life outside this group. So please forgive if this response is a little old now that so many more responses have been posted.

There is a side of me that wants to thank Rich for his post. He does make some good points in it and he has been researching the VM for quite awhile. While that might not make him a so-called expert, it doesn't mean his opinion isn't worth listening to. Quite the contrary actually. Just as are the many other opinions, opposing or not, of the many others who have also been researching the VM for a long time.

But Rich's blog post reads like a diatribe more than it does an honest opinion or an offer of useful information for thoughtful consideration. And as others have pointed out there are also errors and omissions in it. There are several staunch factions, like the hoax versus genuine ones, in VM research that seem to me to quite often distract everyone from being able to reach any kind of conclusion. As long as VM research remains a Tower of Babel, I doubt we will ever find, or at least not widely accept, any possible solution. I understand Rich's frustration and I sympathize but I don't think the post really accomplished anything other than allowing him to vent. The blog is Rich's and so he should post what he wants in it but I wish he would have written this post better, leaving all the venting and frustration and bias out and keeping all the good points in about the so-called experts and considering what they have said at varying times with both a measure of respect and one of skepticism.

I think it is good for VM researchers to consider what has actually been proven and more importantly what has not and then keep that all in context. It is also important to consider the backgrounds of those who propose anything about the VM, dating or otherwise, so their opinion can be judged according to the level of their knowledge, if not also their expertise (which is not the same as being an expert), professional or otherwise. And so much of what has been written about the VM is just that: opinion. Knowledgeable and well-researched perhaps but still opinion. Irrefutable proof of anything about the VM, and also what it is not, is in very short supply, the radiocarbon dating, the ink analysis and the protein testing notwithstanding, and probably will remain so for the foreseeable future. And any such proof will have to invariably consider and relate to and concur with all other aspects of the VM as well. The very best proof would be to thoroughly dissect and study and scientifically test all of the physical VM, not just samples here and there, and that isn't going to happen because this would likely destroy it in the process. Whether or not irrefutable proof is even possible otherwise remains to be seen. It may well be we will only ever achieve convincing proof of what the VM is or is not, in whole or in part. If we are even able to do that.

Personally, I have my own ideas about the VM and I expect them to change many times for the duration of my interest in the VM. I do pay attention to the experts in the various disciplines related to VM research and I consider them accordingly. I also consider others who may not be experts but who offer much knowledge and expertise. None of what I have read so far has irrefutably or even convincingly proven or disproven to me anything about the VM, in whole or in part. Not yet. Except possibly the dating of the vellum, the composition of the inks, the composition of the vellum and the conclusion that it is not a palimpsest but even then only in the context of the limited samples taken and tested. There is so much written opinion to consider and I am still very new to VM research. If you were to ask me if I currently agree or disagree with Rich about the VM being a forgery or a hoax (which, I might add, as much as he wants us to believe his post is open to other possibilities, he is still promoting that it is such), then I would have to say no and that is considering all aspects of hoaxes and forgeries, modern or otherwise. I am open to the possibility but I will need convincing proof of such and so far I have not seen that. Ultimately, anyone researching the VM, myself and Rich included, must limit ourselves to what we believe to be the best possible assumptions and lines of investigation and this is simply because there are so many possibilities and we each have only so much time to invest in something that we are not getting paid to do but rather are doing it from personal interest.

Thank you for that, and I actually agree with most of it. My post in question is certainly one of the more "rantish" posts, a "diatribe" maybe, in many respects, and yes, it was one written with a measure of frustration. That being said, being admitted to, I would say that this is not entirely correct, "[it] reads like a diatribe more than it does an honest opinion or an offer of useful information for thoughtful consideration."

Diatribe, yes... but it is an accurate reflection of my honest opinions, and I would argue that the points presented are useful to others. It think, for one thing, the interesting (contrary and agreeing) responses to it are a reflection of this. And I think it does offer useful information that should be considered: Probably since the beginning of this investigation, circa 1912, the use and treatment of expert opinion has been of paramount importance and interest. Yet most people new to the field of Voynich research simply hear, "The experts got it right!", not realizing the long and complex saga of "Voynich expert opinion".

But point well taken, I did reflect some frustration there, and so I don't mean to throw the baby (your review) out with the bathwater (the small part I disagree with). I highly appreciate you, and the others, for taking the time to respond to my ideas here, whether or not they understand or agree with them entirely.

Rich.

(03-04-2024, 05:33 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(03-04-2024, 05:23 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is ironic to me, when being told that I "don't listen to the experts", that I actually listen to far more of them than virtually anyone else... well, anyone without a forgery theory. 

You don't listen to the people you list as experts as they don't say the manuscript is a modern fake. To go from saying there was uncertainty about the dating of the manuscript to saying it is a modern hoax is a big jump. Rather one might say that the dating of a manuscript like the Voynich, where one cannot read the text, is very difficult and so many people came up with different dates for it. The carbon dating has been very helpful in clearing up the dating issue.

It goes like this:

1) Yes, I do listen to the vast majority of the experts in that I agree that the content they observe(d) and identify in the Voynich is (mostly) all there: The wide range of plants, art styles, writing styles, lettering content, artistic techniques, clothing, and so on. Most of it contradictory with each other, as it covers an impossible range of geography, ages, influences, and so on.

I don't feel it is a "big jump", for one thing, to note that this wide range of content, geography and ages can best be explained by it being a modern forgery. But also, it is not a "jump" at all, as there are a great many other (what I consider) elements of supporting evidence for my hypothesis, other than this disparity of expert opinions. Yes, that is a piece of the hypothesis, but there is much more than that, which "happen to" coincide with this expert opinion bugaboo.

2) True, the experts didn't, to my knowledge, state this was a possible modern fake. But, also, they were not queried, for the most part, as to whether or not they thought the Voynich was/is a modern fake in the first place. Also, forgery was not, to my understanding, a major element to any of their scholarship or experience. I've read a good 15 plus books on the history, examples, perpetrators, motivations and detection of forgeries throughout history, and I can tell you that there is a very unfortunate chasm between literary scholarship and the world of the forger. There are a great many cases in which forgeries have been long considered genuine, by expert opinion, which later turned out to be forgeries... when examined by those practiced in the art. It is a fascinating and eye-opening subject, one which I recommend to everyone.

3) I disagree that the C14 cleared up the dating issue, as you say, but that it did just the opposite, for the reasons I've stated, i.e., the overwhelming number expert opinions did not match the eventual C14. That raises questions, unless we discount those opinions. But that's dead horse territory now, I've stated my opinion on this several times.

So I separate the concepts of expert observation from detection of forgery. They are not always, actually often, from different worlds of scholarship. Personally, I don't think they should be. I think it both should be enmeshed, and the art collections and museums of the world would be far more accurate and honest, if not far more sparse than today. FYI, here is my Forgery Bibliography, which I compiled for the Voynich Net Forum:

Books about Forgery:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Otto Kurz, Faber & Faber, 1948, Dover Publications, 1967, ISBN: 0-486-21871-6

If no other book on forgery is on your shelf, this classic is the one you should have.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Thomas Hoving, 1996 (Simon & Schuster), ISBN: 0-684-81134-0

Hoving wrote in a more popular, personal style. He repeats many of the findings of Kurz, with updates, along with many of his own finds and the anecdotes about them.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Kelker & Bruhns, Routledge 2009, ISBN-10: 1598741497

Read this book, and you will never look at a (supposedly) genuine work in the same way, again. My favorite quote from the book,

"Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to find professionals--- art historians, museum curators, and even well-known archaeologists--- championing these fake works. Some of these erstwhile defenders suffer from the "missing link of history" syndrome, in which the most glaring errors of a forgery are dimsissed in the desire to see a fraudulent work as a legitimate copy of some now-lost, previously unknown, ancient manuscript. The discovery of said manuscript--- or at least  its ever so faithful copy--- is guaranteed to plug major holes in scholarship as well as rocket its discoverer to fame, fortune, and guest appearances on the Today Show--- or even better, invitations to weekends at well-heeled collectors' country estates. Those suffering from the "missing link" syndrome are perhaps the most dangerous because their misplaced enthusiasm, coupled with their professional reputations, presents the greatest opportunities for the pollution of science to arise."-        Nancy L. Kelker & Karen O. Bruhns, "Faking Mesoamerica"

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., 1991, edited by James Gilreath, American Antiquarian Society, Worchester, Mass.

This book is unique on the subject of the forged Oath of a Freeman, as it contains the interviews of the forger and murderer Hofmann, along with essays by various experts and law enforcement people. This gives a view from the mind of the forger, the methods he used and why, and how that forgery both fooled some experts, and was discovered by others. Spoiler alert: Walter McCrone was fooled, he stated definitively it was genuine.

I also find this one of the better insights into the "process of apology" that often permeates expert opinion: On the one hand, their experience notices problems; on the other, they dismiss those problems, with prejudice. Experts often do the forger's work for them, without even realizing it.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Stephen C. Carlson

One of the more in-depth, detailed, condemnations of a forgery, and the suspected forger behind it.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Frank Arnau, 1961, LOC: 61-5317


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Kirsten A. Seaver, 2004, 0-8047-4963

A definitive case for the forgery of the Vinland map, along with the identification of the "primer" used, and a suggested culprit.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., John Paul Floyd

From my Amazon review, "Anyone who still contends the Vinland Map may be authentic is strongly advised to read this work, because they will either have their minds changed, or at least, see the impossible task they would have in addressing the problems with continuing holding their position. I do not envy them. I would say... although the author is more modest than to assert this... the case put together here is unassailable, and the verdict of "forgery", undeniable."

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Charles Hamilton, 1980, ISBN: 0-517-540762

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Melissa Katsoulis, 2009

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., by Melissa Katsoulis

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Myers & Harris, eds., 1989

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Mark Monmonier, 1995

Provenance, Salisbury & Sujo, 2009, The Penguin Press, 2009, ISBN-10: 0143117408

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Michael Blanding, Avery, 2014, ISBN-10: 1592409407

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Gary Vikan, Select Books, 2016, ISBN-13: 978-1590793930

A colorful, personal account of Mr. Vikan's years as Museum Director of the Walter's, and the problematic situations and items he encountered.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., William Voelkle, Morgan Library, 1978, ISBN-10: 0875980546

This early book on the Spanish Forger covers several dozen of that artists nefarious works. Since publication, many more have been discovered. This book contains an image of the one forgery we do know that Wilfrid Voynich sold, a "Columbus Miniature". For some time, this work was considered as one of the Spanish Forgers, but Voelkle thinks it is by another hand. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

But there is something that disproves a modern forgery and supports the C-14 dating.
It's not the wormhole, it's the feeding tracks. Since this type of worm does not occur in the present lid, but certainly in wood. So where is the lid?
The sequence: parchment, writing, lid, worm.
[attachment=8395]