The Voynich Ninja

(03-04-2024, 06:56 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."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.

So if you don't wish to include the 1410-1430 range, then the only way to read the above is as:
1470 = preferred date or lower end
1510-1520 = upper end
That gives a range of 1470-1520.

(04-04-2024, 10:16 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(03-04-2024, 06:56 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."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.

So if you don't wish to include the 1410-1430 range, then the only way to read the above is as:
1470 = preferred date or lower end
1510-1520 = upper end
That gives a range of 1470-1520.

Possibly, but it is an odd sentence. Well I would say it was he who no longer included 1410-1430, but in essence "yes" I think that would be one possible representation of Panofsky's "final verdict". We have to allow the 1470 though, in a way, because it is a bit of a clumsy phrase...

1) On the one hand, he seems to be writing that the presence of a sunflower is the "only thing" that draws him away... newer... than 1470.
2) But then he somewhat contradicts this explanation, the "sunflower factor" by stating, "I would go no lower than ca. 1510-1520 because no influence of the Italian Renaissance style is evident"... as though the presence or lack of a sunflower is a moot point, and overriding that possibility is the lack of an "Italian Renaissance" style. Sunflower be damned, in effect.

I'm sort of on the fence about it, and believe we cannot know for sure. One the one hand, he gives that strict lower end with the "lack of the Italian Renaissance" observation. But second guessing his point in that is the fact that (and I don't know that this is reflected in any other work) the absence of a previous style is not evidence that something was made later.

Basically, using his words strictly, his judgement here without second guessing his words, "1510-1520". Parsing them a bit, and applying our own attempt at deciphering his phrasing, one could make a case for "1470-1520". Either is possibly correct, and both are probably splitting hairs.

Are you up for a séance? We can ask him ourselves! He would probably, by now, have a third and forth verdict, like we all do.

Rich.

(04-04-2024, 08:36 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: 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.

Respectfully, Aga, the presence of these holes does not at all "disprove" modern forgery, nor support the C-14 data. By the latter I mean that, even if the Voynich is authentic, and the wormholes genuine, those worms could have been active any time between 1420 and 1912. The wormholes, if real, don't date the Voynich.

Another thing to consider is that the term "bookworm", and "wormhole" is a general one, as such damage is caused by an array of insects. Each type demonstrates a different sort of damage, leaving different evidence: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

But the thing about "wormholes" is that they have often been successfully faked by forgers, even using live worms. They have also been bored by various mechanical means very convincingly. And authentic, existing wormholes have been used by first filling them with bits of scrap material, then inking or painting over them... after the ink is dry:

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

"... if a forger paints over paper with wormholes, the ink/paint would seep through the hole to the back, which would immediately alarm an expert authenticating it. Master forger Eric Hebborn came up with a clever solution to keep the paint out of such wormholes. He would patch the hole with some chewed paper, and trim the edges of the paper plug to perfectly fit the hole. He would then remove the plug after the paint was dry."

From the Wikipedia Vineland Map page:

"All the tests that we have done over the past five years [on the Vinland Map] — on the materials and other aspects — do not show any signs of forgery". The formal report of his presentation showed that his work ignored rather than contradicted earlier studies. For example, he experimented only with artificial wormholes, and did not follow up the observation made at the 1966 Conference, that live bookworms were a known tool of the fake antiquities trade."

And live worms were so used by forgers, this is far from the only reference. 

All that being said, and then considering the history of forging wormholes by many means, then looking at the images in the paper you link, I don't personally feel that it would all that difficult to duplicate what we see here. The writer of the paper hopefully dismisses the possibility the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. hole was abraded, with this, "Now it is not that the worm has only gnawed on the parchment, as we can see he has also eaten away the ink. At the same time no mechanical influences, such as scratch marks or abrasion in the worm track." As a professional jeweler and fabricator in many mediums, I can think of a great many ways such a worn strip could be made in existing parchment, which would end up looking quite like this.

Also, I am not sure where the last image in your linked paper comes from... the more circular hole, showing ragged edges, purportedly made by a bookworm. Although the text below it states, "In the lower image we see a strongly magnified image of a Wormhole from the woodworm. Note the surface structure of the hole. These bumps are formed when the worm is the wood gnaws. Since the enlargement of the picture above is just sufficient, the same structure is just about visible on closer inspection." But that is clearly a different hole, as the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. hole is roughly oval in shape, while this one is round. Where did that image come from? Was it used as a relative example of a genuine hole, for comparison? Or is it another hole from the Voynich?

In any case, in summary, wormholes are a time-tested and successful tool of forgers of manuscripts, art, and furniture, and have been for well over a century. They have been made by mechanical means of many kinds, and have been made by leaving live worms on these surfaces for relatively short periods of time. And genuine, existing holes have also been used, by protecting them from subsequent painting and inking.

Would Voynich have had access to live worms? I don't think that would have been a problem at all. He bought the Libreria Franceshini in 1908, which had a forty-plus year mountain of books and other literary items of all types. He probably could have started a Worm Zoo, with a wide range of culprits.

But again I appreciate such input and rebuttal to my own ideas. For instance, in this case, you have refreshed my memory on some points, caused me to consider others, and made me realize I ought to spend more time on this issue. For one thing, I am exited to experiment on a scrap of 16th century manuscript parchment I have (it fell out of the binding of my Erasmus Bible, it was used as filler). I'd like to put my own notion to the test: Can I replicate the damage seen on Voynich f1r? I also ordered a copy of the 1966 Vinland Conference, something I have really wanted a copy of...

Rich

It's not the wormhole, it's the structure of the feeding site.
They are not insect holes either, but those of a woodworm.
These go into wood. So where is the wooden lid and when was it rebound?
The feeding marks run across the line and not lengthways, which makes it impossible to scrape them out. And scratching is not possible either, it is parchment and leaves fibres behind. You can't burn it off either, it leaves marks. The scan is so accurate that you could make a denture for the worm. What does it look like under the microscope?
Getting a worm of this type to eat parchment will not work. It might still be possible with insects.
For me, you just can't explain it and would prefer to have it off the table. Your arguments don't hold water.
With Vinland. Vinland is Vinland and VM is VM. There are 2 books, one is in Lucerne and has no map. But the story is real. Vinland was described by an abbot for the King of Denmark exactly what the church still had in its archives, that was around 1050.
Only the map is false, the rest is genuine.
PM

PS: Original VM hole.
f1r, 4 paragraph, top right. Beetle damage and not insects.
In terms of size, either....
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

(04-04-2024, 08:43 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's not the wormhole, it's the structure of the feeding site.
They are not insect holes either, but those of a woodworm.
These go into wood. So where is the wooden lid and when was it rebound?
The feeding marks run across the line and not lengthways, which makes it impossible to scrape them out. And scratching is not possible either, it is parchment and leaves fibres behind. You can't burn it off either, it leaves marks. The scan is so accurate that you could make a denture for the worm. What does it look like under the microscope?
Getting a worm of this type to eat parchment will not work. It might still be possible with insects.
For me, you just can't explain it and would prefer to have it off the table. Your arguments don't hold water.
With Vinland. Vinland is Vinland and VM is VM. There are 2 books, one is in Lucerne and has no map. But the story is real. Vinland was described by an abbot for the King of Denmark exactly what the church still had in its archives, that was around 1050.
Only the map is false, the rest is genuine.
PM

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Well I'm afraid we simply don't understand each other, which makes it somewhat difficult to have a conversation. But I don't feel I've left anything off the table, so to speak, and always seek to answer any question put to me. I have here, and will again. But you have not, so I'm still at a loss as to what you mean, or how you explain some of my own points. I mean, it is, or should be, a two way street. No?

- You seem to know much about these "woodworms", but they actually are insects, and come in many different models: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

- "It's not the wormhole, it's the structure of the feeding site." I'm not certain what you mean here: The larvae, when boring through wood, paper, or whatever their type does bore through, is eating that material... so every hole would also be a "feeding site", I believe. But I am still interested to know the answer to my question: The round hole you show in your paper: Is it from the Voynich, or not? If it is from the Voynich, which page?

- That is fine that they could be "woodworms", I never actually said otherwise. If genuine damage caused by woodworms, I also never argued against the previous presence of a wooden cover... or board, or whatever may have been there for them to feed on. It is a moot point, though, to my point that forgers have used "worms" (larvae of beetles) to create new wormholes. Nothing I wrote, or you wrote, counters this possible.

- I don't know when or where or if it was rebound, but this is also a moot issue to it being a forgery or not. You believe it is impossible for a forgery to be rebound? To be bound with wood, then later, goatskin? Why? Or made from materials previously bound? Your question is an interesting one, which I do not have an answer to... nobody does have that answer. But all these questions do not address the forgery/genuine issue.

- "Getting a worm of this type to eat parchment will not work. It might still be possible with insects." Again, they are insects. But you again confuse me with this "worm eating parchment" point: My understanding, to step into the shoes of those who believe this is genuine, is that some larvae, which likes to eat wood but not parchment, was eating a previous wooden board, and "missed a bit", thus causing this damage to the parchment, which they don't eat. So I am unclear of the meaning of the sentence I have copied here. Actually, I agree, but don't understand why you believe it is a point of contention between us.

- "With Vinland. Vinland is Vinland and VM is VM. There are 2 books, one is in Lucerne and has no map. But the story is real. Vinland was described by an abbot for the King of Denmark exactly what the church still had in its archives, that was around 1050. Only the map is false, the rest is genuine."

I have to apologize, again, but I simply do not understand what you are getting at with this. Maybe that the Voynich and the Vinland Map are different items? If so, you missed my point there: I was only making the point that some investigators pointed out that there was a known practice of forgers using live worms... larvae... of some type, to eat into materials, to simulate their being old. Would they have used different insects than the wood eating ones? Maybe. It is moot to our discussion, though... pick your material, pick your larvae, for the task at hand. I don't mind, it makes no difference to the possibility this was done with the Voynich.

I also don't understand your "1050" reference. As you probably know already, the Vinland map parchment dates to between 1423 to 1445. Interestingly, curiously, but as an aside, this range happens to overlap the possible dates of 1404 to 1438 for the Voynich. I know about the Tartar Relation and the Speculum Historale (sp?), but have forgotten what this "Lucerne" is, sorry. But as for the two books I am familar with, if you mean those, yes my understanding is that they are genuine... so again, I miss your point here, as, if I understand you correctly, we agree on that.

Anyway, sorry if I mistook anything you said here, that was not my intention. Nor is to EVER leave anything "off the table". We just disagree that the damage seen on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is proof the Voynich is old, and genuine. I can make wormholes like it this afternoon, as logs in my backyard are filled with living wood boring larvae. You disagree with me, that is fine.

Rich.

(04-04-2024, 08:43 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.PS: Original VM hole.
f1r, 4 paragraph, top right. Beetle damage and not insects.
In terms of size, either....
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Oh I see... while I was writing my response, you added this information. Well I can't find that hole, but I will take your word for it being there. First of all... and it really shouldn't matter to our discussion, but it seems to be a sticking point for some reason: Beetle damage like this is cause by the larvae of the beetles, and they are insects.

If the hole you describe is there, I can't argue against it being by an actual, living beetle larva, but don't know that it is, either. If it is, again, it can have been either on the sheet when used, whenever it was used, or created by a live insect larva any time up to 1912.

Rich.

[attachment=8400]

You're right about that. They are both insects.
But I think you've already understood what I mean. One is more like a fly with small holes, and the other is more like a beetle. It's also called a bark beetle.
My examples explain the difference.
And again, my one example is in the VM on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. at the bottom.
And again the type of feeding marks. You won't find them on the flies.
Then try it in your garden. Keep a larva in place until it eats the parchment. That really amazes me too.
That's it for me too.

(04-04-2024, 11:05 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You're right about that. They are both insects.
But I think you've already understood what I mean. One is more like a fly with small holes, and the other is more like a beetle. It's also called a bark beetle.
My examples explain the difference.
And again, my one example is in the VM on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. at the bottom.
And again the type of feeding marks. You won't find them on the flies.
Then try it in your garden. Keep a larva in place until it eats the parchment. That really amazes me too.
That's it for me too.

Well we got closer to a mutual understanding, maybe except for one thing: You seem to think I have some problem with one form of larvae over another- maybe that I am rejecting one type over another? Or insisting that it can only be one type? Not at all.

I'm not sure what our hang up on this is, but: Whatever larvae, in whatever material, does not alter my perspective on this, i.e., that these insects, and these results, can and have been faked and forged, and often, in many ways, and quite well. This is, in essence, my point about this issue.

But I have meanwhile found this all interesting, and it has sparked an interest in my learning more, and experimenting a little bit on my own.

Thanks again for the input and feedback, and the "talk". Rich.

(04-04-2024, 01:24 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."I would go no lower than ca. 1510-1520 because no influence of the Italian Renaissance style is evident"

Possibly the confusion is that the word lower can only mean "nearer to present", so "lower" should be read as "later".

(05-04-2024, 01:28 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(04-04-2024, 01:24 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."I would go no lower than ca. 1510-1520 because no influence of the Italian Renaissance style is evident"

Possibly the confusion is that the word lower can only mean "nearer to present", so "lower" should be read as "later".

That makes sense, too, René.