The Voynich Ninja

(13-03-2026, 11:17 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This has always been understood.

Except when people claim that the VMS has "period appropriate" ink, which is technically true, it can end up being slightly misleading.

As a non-expert, hearing that term makes me think "appropriate to the 15th century specifically", not "appropriate to every century" or "appropriate to every century before the 20th". Maybe experts in this field have always known this, but I definitely didn't, and i'm sure many others don't either. 

In that sense, calling the ink period appropriate is meaningless. We should be calling it "not inappropriate", which sounds like hair splitting, but really has different implications in discourse and debate on the subject.

I agree that wording is important, and it is annoying when misleading (or in some cases incorrect) information gets propagated from one source to another.

(14-03-2026, 12:44 AM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(13-03-2026, 11:17 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This has always been understood.

Except when people claim that the VMS has "period appropriate" ink, which is technically true, it can end up being slightly misleading.

As a non-expert, hearing that term makes me think "appropriate to the 15th century specifically", not "appropriate to every century" or "appropriate to every century before the 20th". Maybe experts in this field have always known this, but I definitely didn't, and i'm sure many others don't either. 

In that sense, calling the ink period appropriate is meaningless. We should be calling it "not inappropriate", which sounds like hair splitting, but really has different implications in discourse and debate on the subject.

You're correct: the most accurate way to describe the McCrone results is "the inks and pigments are not inconsistent with a pre-modern origin." It is not possible to definitively date inks and pigments (at least not yet). All you can do is look at their elemental composition and see if there's anything out of place. For example, the Vinland Map was determined to be a modern forgery because of the high amount of titanium in the ink (MUCH more than the small traces found in some of the VMS samples). The Spanish Forger's work was proven to be fake because of the high amount of arsenic in the green pigment (as was mentioned in the Voynich Zoom lecture). The McCrone report found nothing that directly pointed to a modern origin for the VMS. There are some "unexplained" results, but nothing truly problematic.

In response to the argument that Voynich (or someone else) could have made inks and pigments using medieval recipes and ingredients: sure, but why would they? There would not have been any way to determine the elemental composition of the inks and pigments before about 1970, so why would anyone go to that trouble? Why not do what the Spanish Forger did, and use contemporary store-bought inks and pigments that LOOK correct, which is all a forger would need?

(14-03-2026, 02:31 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For example, the Vinland Map was determined to be a modern forgery because of the high amount of titanium in the ink (MUCH more than the small traces found in some of the VMS samples). 

Not to split more hairs, but this statement is not really accurate. 

Barabe made clear that there was actually MORE than "trace" amounts of titanium in (some of) the VMS samples.  It was not the quantity that differentiates the Vinland Map test results and those of the VMS. It was the specific form of the crystals that revealed it as Titanium anatase -- the form of Titanium dioxide that did not become commercially available till around 1920.

(14-03-2026, 03:58 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(14-03-2026, 02:31 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For example, the Vinland Map was determined to be a modern forgery because of the high amount of titanium in the ink (MUCH more than the small traces found in some of the VMS samples). 

Not to split more hairs, but this statement is not really accurate. 

Barabe made clear that there was actually MORE than "trace" amounts of titanium in (some of) the VMS samples.  It was not the quantity that differentiates the Vinland Map test results and those of the VMS. It was the specific form of the crystals that revealed it as Titanium anatase -- the form of Titanium dioxide that did not become commercially available till around 1920.

Yes and to add, we still do not know the level... but as asteckley points out, he specifically did not describe the amount of titanium in the Voynich as "trace", but even used the term "fair amount". That sounds like more than "trace". And I also agree with asteckley, and was going to point out the same thing as he just did (beat me to it!)... that while the Vinland ink did, yes, have a far higher amount of ti... and while that amount, alone, would have been cause for concerns... it was the modern, manufactured form of the titanium anatase... the smooth crystals of it... which demonstrated it was a post-1920 (or so, date varies, as it was invented in 1912 to 1917 or so) manufactured product.

So the questions still remain: Which form of Titanium is in the Voynich? Ilmenite, Rutile, Anatase, or other? Each has a different implication, and some of thes might be highly useful to determining the actual age and place of creation of the Voynich. We should know. Also, what is the specific level, described by Mr. Barabe as a "fair amount", in comparison to other Medieval and other inks? In this chart, for instance:

[attachment=14620]

Professor Richard Hark shows low levels of titanium in 120 samples from 50 Medieval manuscripts. But in one or two samples, the levels of titanium rise above that "baseline" of a 0.5 XRF Signal. My questions have been:

1) Where, on that chart, would the amounts of titanium found by Barabe in the Voynich manuscript, fall? Would they also be in Hark's baseline? Would they be in the line above? Would they be higher?

2) Is it possible that those higher containing samples WERE the actual Voynich?

I've asked these very important, and I think definitive questions of Professor Hark, in three separate emails over last summer. Unfortunately I have not yet heard back. Lisa, I'm sure you know the professor... if you have a chance, could you run these questions by him? The answers may go far to clear up this matter, so we no longer have to guess at things like whether the Voynich titanium is "trace" or not, and just how all these finding compare.

Unless and until we have these answers, it would be incorrect and misleading to either dismiss the presence of titanium in the Voynich ink, or consider it a problem, either.

Rich

(14-03-2026, 02:31 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(14-03-2026, 12:44 AM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(13-03-2026, 11:17 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This has always been understood.

Except when people claim that the VMS has "period appropriate" ink, which is technically true, it can end up being slightly misleading.

As a non-expert, hearing that term makes me think "appropriate to the 15th century specifically", not "appropriate to every century" or "appropriate to every century before the 20th". Maybe experts in this field have always known this, but I definitely didn't, and i'm sure many others don't either. 

In that sense, calling the ink period appropriate is meaningless. We should be calling it "not inappropriate", which sounds like hair splitting, but really has different implications in discourse and debate on the subject.

You're correct: the most accurate way to describe the McCrone results is "the inks and pigments are not inconsistent with a pre-modern origin." It is not possible to definitively date inks and pigments (at least not yet). All you can do is look at their elemental composition and see if there's anything out of place. For example, the Vinland Map was determined to be a modern forgery because of the high amount of titanium in the ink (MUCH more than the small traces found in some of the VMS samples). The Spanish Forger's work was proven to be fake because of the high amount of arsenic in the green pigment (as was mentioned in the Voynich Zoom lecture). The McCrone report found nothing that directly pointed to a modern origin for the VMS. There are some "unexplained" results, but nothing truly problematic.

Hi, Lisa: Asteckley and I have given feedback on the titanium level statement, so other than saying it was actually determined as a "high level", and not trace, the more complete answer is in both of our posts.

I might also add that, although I think it wonderful that you do now agree that the inks cannot and have not been dated, I agree with Mr. Eggyk that this has been the long standing impression imparted by the wording of many articles, blogs and lectures... that the ink is fine, and "nothing to see here", and that it is "15th century ink". Of course that was my point in my talk in this Zoom meeting, that this is a wrong impression, and will and has mislead many. I am hopeful that this new phrasing, with a more accurate description of what we really know about this ink, will be the status quo going forward.

But as for this:

Quote:In response to the argument that Voynich (or someone else) could have made inks and pigments using medieval recipes and ingredients: sure, but why would they? There would not have been any way to determine the elemental composition of the inks and pigments before about 1970, so why would anyone go to that trouble? Why not do what the Spanish Forger did, and use contemporary store-bought inks and pigments that LOOK correct, which is all a forger would need?

"Why would they?" mix Medieval recipes? For many reasons:

1) It would not be going through any extra "trouble", first of all. Inks of all ages are pretty simply prepared from simple, natural ingredients. I'm sure you have done it... I've collected my galls, have not yet done it, but I know the procedure.

2) A forger would not have to care about any possible future tests after them, even up to "about 1970" to do so. They would simply be following historic ink formulas, and simply copying them. If they stuck to those formulas, no ink tests of their time, nor any time, would be of consequence. So in answer to "why would they?", my answer would be "Why not?".

3) There were actually, already by 1910 or so, many ink tests. Look, for instance, at Albert Osborn's 1908 book, "Questioned Documents": You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. In it, Osborn describes some quite sophisticated methods for the detection of forged inks, among them the use of reagents and other chemical tests, microscopic examination, and many more. So again, to your "Why would they?", It think that any forger of the era might simply try to side-step the possibility of risk of revelation by current testing, by simply mixing their own ink from raw ingredients.

4) Your Spanish Forger operated mostly in the late 19th century, when, yes ("pre-Osborn"), perhaps a forger would be less concerned with their ink and paint chemistry. But also, the type of output of that forger... colorful, kitsch, dramatic, non-historical... was probably for a much less sophisticated buyer than would be expected for a $160,000 Bacon Herbal Cipher. And anyway, there are good and bad practices in any endeavor, in any science or art, I don't think it valuable to look to the worst of them, and dismiss the best of them, by comparison. They do not necessarily equate, because...

5) We also know there have been very good inks, by very good forgers, created in the span of literary history. Some of the best probably remain undetected, to this day... we wouldn't know.

6) One of the Voynich's buddies was the spy Rosenblum, a.k.a. O'Reilly, also a chemist, who took out a book on Medieval ink formulas. Why? We can only imagine, but he was interested in how these inks were made, and how to make them.

7) The inks of the Voynich are not perfect, they do have "mysterious", "unexplained", "head scratching", and "not typical" ingredients, which are not yet explained in any context. So in no way is it a "good ink", in any case, whatever that turns out to imply. I mean, I see this contention that the ink is "fine", when we do not yet know that, and have reasons to suspect it is not "fine", highly inaccurate. I don't know, nobody knows, but it would not be wrong to, IMO, categorize these as "potential problems", rather than assume they mean nothing.

I think there is more, but that is all I can think of. But, in short, I don't feel it is correct to give the Voynich's ink a pass on the any of the basis you have used here: Any forger would just as well mix inks and pigments from raw original source materials; it is not that hard to do; and it would blanket avoid any of the tests contemporaneous to them, as well as possible future tests; and anyway, that ink ain't "perfect". It is different, and odd, so says the actual performer of the tests themselves.

Rich

(14-03-2026, 02:31 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There would not have been any way to determine the elemental composition of the inks and pigments before about 1970

Actually there would have been chemical means capable of that, since the 1800s.  They would need much bigger samples than what McCrone's X-ray tools neeed.  Like scraping away a 5x5 mm area of paint.  But they would have given as much information as the McCrone report did: the blue pigment is azurite, the green pigment is some organic compound of copper, the red pigments are hematite or lead oxide, etc.

Even for the text and outline inks, an 18th century chemist may have been able to give a better identification than McCrone did.

(14-03-2026, 04:46 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Professor Richard Hark shows low levels of titanium in 120 samples from 50 Medieval manuscripts. But in one or two samples, the levels of titanium rise above that "baseline" of a 0.5 XRF Signal. My questions have been:

1) Where, on that chart, would the amounts of titanium found by Barabe in the Voynich manuscript, fall? Would they also be in Hark's baseline? Would they be in the line above? Would they be higher?

2) Is it possible that those higher containing samples WERE the actual Voynich?

With respect to question 2, the short answer would appear to be "no", as the chart in your post is showing "XRF raw signal intensity", and the ink analysis on the Voynich Mss. used EDS (page 2 of the report under "Preparation") rather than XRF (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. describes the differences between the two techniques).

With respect to question 1, you'd have to figure out how to transform the results of the EDS test (on Sample 17, say, which the summary table specifically calls out as including Titanium as shown in Figure 17C) into an equivalent estimated XRF raw signal intensity or vice versa.

(14-03-2026, 04:46 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) Where, on that chart, would the amounts of titanium found by Barabe in the Voynich manuscript, fall? Would they also be in Hark's baseline? Would they be in the line above? Would they be higher?

I don't know if it answers that question, but the McCrone report gives the estimated percentages of each element in the sample examined by the X-ray, on the same page as the spectrum.

IIRC, the numbers for Titanium and other "weird" elements are all around 1% per mass or less.  So they may be just contamination, or measurement error.

I will post a clip later, if you don't have it.

All the best, --stolfi

(14-03-2026, 06:39 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(14-03-2026, 02:31 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There would not have been any way to determine the elemental composition of the inks and pigments before about 1970

Actually there would have been chemical means capable of that, since the 1800s.  They would need much bigger samples than what McCrone's X-ray tools neeed.  Like scraping away a 5x5 mm area of paint.  But they would have given as much information as the McCrone report did: the blue pigment is azurite, the green pigment is some organic compound of copper, the red pigments are hematite or lead oxide, etc.

Even for the text and outline inks, an 18th century chemist may have been able to give a better identification than McCrone did.

True, Jorge, and I pointed to this in a previous comment:

The Spotted Unicorn Knocking on Your Door Wrote: Look, for instance, at Albert Osborn's 1908 book, "Questioned Documents": You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. In it, Osborn describes some quite sophisticated methods for the detection of forged inks

I plan to download that sucker and devour it.

Rich.