The Voynich Ninja

I really cannot get at my bespoke version of Archtype anymore, but IT DOES NOT MATTER. I don't know how many ways I can say this: Archtype is a TOOL. It is not a calculator or a computer or a neural network. I have reams of paper on which I wrote notes and worked on the hands of the manuscript, but no one seems to care about those even though Archtype is just an extension of those notes; it is a substitute for cutting out glyphs and sorting them on a table. It's time to let this go. I've written two articles about this work and have two more coming out soon, and my work speaks for itself. Accept it or not, that's up to you. Just be careful that you are not drawing contrary conclusions just because your favorite theory might turn out to be wrong if I'm right. It matters a lot to some people that I be proven "wrong", because if I'm right, their ideas might fall apart. Base your conclusions on the evidence, not the other way around.

The manuscript was written by humans. Humans are variable and inconsistent. Paleography is about trends and tendancies and bell curves, not about absolutes and binaries. My experience tells me that it is more likely than not that folios 1 and 2 were written by the same hand, even though if you look microscopically you will find inconsistencies. My experience tells me it is much more likely than not that folio 14 and folio 103 were written by different hands. You might try to argue that folio 1r was written by 17 different hands, or that the entire manuscript was writte by a single hand. All of these are POSSIBLE, but they are not EQUALLY possible. 

If, in order for your own theory to be "right" (and here I'm addressing everyone on the site), the manuscript must have been written by one scribe, or 300, you may need to step back and consider your methodology and logic. Don't draw conclusions and THEN look for evidence to support them. Start with the evidence. 

This really is the last time I'm going to defend my work here. Accept it or not, that's up to you.

Is that Archetype software you are talking about , this one

Archetype (formely known as The DigiPal Framework) is freely-available generalised software 
for the online presentation of images with structured annotations and data which allows users to 
search for, view, and organise detailed characteristics of handwriting or other material in both verbal and visual form.
Designed primarily for the palaeographical analysis of handwriting, 
it was first developed for the Digital Resource and Database for Palaeography, Manuscript Studies and Diplomatic (DigiPal)
  -- > You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

If so modern versions can be found on github
 --> You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

OK, one more time: my version of Archtype was BESPOKE. Made just for me. That's the great thing about the software...you can customize it for your own dataset.

   I was only asking.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be snappy, but I am just really tired of talking about this.

I'm not entirely sure why this thread is listed under “News.” We already have a similar statement (I'll call it that) from Torsten You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . In any case, that's what the discussion boils down to. Hurych is also already mentioned here. Repeating arguments doesn't make them any more valid. Incidentally, a certain degree of caution is advisable when dealing with professional work outside one's own area of expertise

News because I just published the video. This was meant as a brief introduction for newcomers though, not a deep analysis or additional arguments for seasoned researchers.

I’m not talking about paleography here, but I wanted to share some results from my own You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (DMR with K=6).

I don’t know if the topics I found are really semantic topics or if they are capturing something more like writing styles. But what struck me is that these clusters line up quite clearly with three different subdivisions: the bifolia, the quires, the writing hands, and the language A/B division.

So if these topics are in fact reflecting style (even though I try to avoid that bias), it could be another argument in favor of the manuscript being created by multiple scribes, each with their own writing style.

Here are the three stacked-bar plots showing the distributions (each topic is a color, measured by paragraph, not by folio, that's why a folio can have multiple topics):

By bifolio (divided by bifolio and by order of appearance within the MS) (look for example how quire E is divided clearly in two topics, two bifolia red, two bifolia brown)

By quire (divided by quire and by order of appearance within the MS)

By writing hand (divided by hand and by order of appearance within the MS)

By language (A/B) (divided by language and by order of appearance within the MS)

Claire Bowern and Luke Lindemann include a similar graph here (fig. 20):

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

(29-09-2025, 01:39 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.On the other hand I wonder is this question about the number of scribes really helpful in solving the manuscript. What would it give us if we know for sure that it was made by 1,2 or 5 people?

Increasing the number of people makes it less likely that the whole manuscript is the result of an ill mind in a particular individual. I can imagine someone suffering from a debilitating neural problem feeling compelled to keep writing/drawing even if they are no longer capable of expressing their thought coherently. If we are talking about 2 or more people, this explanation doesn't work. 

I think this famous set of self portraits of William Utermohlen documenting the progress of his Alzheimer’s disease shows some resemblance to the way human figures deform in the Voynich manuscript. Unfortunately, I think most arguments about the number of hands in the manuscript might not work if we are dealing with a person whose skills vary greatly between bad days and good days. On the other hand, this could explain the nasty paint job, if this was the last step in the process of creating this book, the author's motor and/or mental skills could have degraded even more.

[attachment=11510]