+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Imagery (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-43.html)
+--- Thread: J. Janick interpretations of the VMS... (/thread-1451.html)
RE: J. Janick interpretations of the VMS... - R. Sale - 13-01-2017
I certainly am *not* questioning the science or the information thus provided. I am saying that there are different ways to interpret the data. As it is, we have four samples and four different dating results. And it turns out that these four results are close enough that they can be statistically combined *as if* they were all samples from a single batch of parchment production. That is not necessarily wrong, but it is *not* a proven assumption. The parchment used in the VMs *could* come from different dates of production. Having two production batches, early and late, shifts the date of manuscript completion to a year that *could* be after 1450.
There were only four samples tested. If a fifth sample gave a date c. 1475, what would that do to the investigator who imposed a cutoff date of 1450 and refused to consider 1451 and beyond?
What if the creator of the VMs was not a modern and contemporary person of the mid-1400s, but lived in an isolated, backwards monastery that was a century behind the times during the mid-1500s? The VMs is a unique manuscript and it occurs only once along the potential timeline. What if its origins are unusual as well? That cannot be determined by probability.
I have no problem with accepting that the standard scenario is a highly probable hypothesis. If researchers want to impose cutoff dates on their research, that is up to them. However, stating that something is a fact, when it is only something that is presumed to be a fact, leaves a bit to be desired, IMHO.
For example, in the first three pages of the VMs Zodiac, patterns of alternating stripes have been created on certain tubs using an artistic technique that *might* be described as the use of hatching lines. Is that an accurate description? If not, what is the alternative explanation? And if the patterns seen on some the VMs tubs correspond to traditional, heraldic examples, as some of them seem to do, then the combination of hatching and heraldry has yet to be demonstrated in the period defined by the current dates of parchment manufacture.
RE: J. Janick interpretations of the VMS... - davidjackson - 13-01-2017
Let us open a new thread if we want to discuss the vellum carbon dating issue please. This is about someone's theory the manuscript was produced in the America's.
I'd point out the ink is gall oak, which AFAIK wouldn't exist in the America's.
RE: J. Janick interpretations of the VMS... - Koen G - 13-01-2017
Do they claim that it was written in the Americas or just that it contains some American things?
RE: J. Janick interpretations of the VMS... - Wladimir D - 13-01-2017
I would not rule out the possibility of writing a manuscript on parchment prepared in advance. Is it any wonder that the traveler takes with him a blank sheet of parchment?
I alarming some moments.
1 in the zodiac Pisces are very similar to Atractosteus spatula (indemik).
2 identification of sunflower and sweet potato.
3 ROS. In the upper middle and lower middle rosettes has 13 “petals”.
In the left middle rosette (look carefully breaking sheets) 18 petals.
13 and 18 - a system of calendar calculation Maya.
RE: J. Janick interpretations of the VMS... - -JKP- - 13-01-2017
(13-01-2017, 08:16 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Do they claim that it was written in the Americas or just that it contains some American things?
In the paper by Tucker and Janick, they don't say for absolute sure, what they say is, "The 55 plant species, identified with various levels of certainty, are either circumboreal or indigenous to Colonial New Spain. Most appear to have medicinal uses to improve human health. No European, Asian, or South American plants have been identified other than circumboreal species. This study is consistent with the determination that the Voynich Codex is a herbal written in Colonial New Spain in the 16th century."
To this, I can only say, there are many Old World species represented in the VMS that can be identified with about the same level of certainty as the Tucker/Janick IDs (which means no one can be absolutely certain without textual or other confirmation, but some appear to be naturalistic and identifiable). Maybe the authors are not familiar with European plants but if that's the case, they should say so.
Janick makes a stronger statement about them being New World plants on the Purdue newcrop site which I read yesterday but am having trouble finding today (I can't remember which chapter it was). If I locate it, I will upload it.
And in the interest of fairness (and accuracy), I said upthread that Janick didn't acknowledge that the zodiac labels had probably been added later (which is true in one of the chapters) but now I find he does acknowledge it in another chapter (but still doesn't appear to consider that the person who added them may have misunderstood the function of the symbols).
Also, he visually equates the alligator gar not only with the fish-like creature on the pool page, but also with the fish on the zodiac-symbols page and I can't see why. The front fin is wrong, the wiggly shape of the fish is wrong and... there are European fish and even some medieval zodiac wheel fish (see pic) that resemble the VMS Pisces with a long snout and extra fins, so one cannot say with certainty that it is specifically a New World fish or that it is alligator gar.
These researchers are staking their reputations on this being a New World manuscript (I'm not saying it isn't, I'm only saying that the evidence seems to lean in the Old World direction) or perhaps they are playing poker and hoping the text will never be decoded and betting that no one can refute them without textual confirmation. I am of the opinion, however, that certain claims can be refuted without decoding the text... so I guess we'll see.
RE: J. Janick interpretations of the VMS... - ReneZ - 13-01-2017
I find this quite problematic.
The original publication was in a journal ('Herbalgram') which I presume is peer-reviewed.
That puts it at a very different level than all the blogs and web sites about the Voynich MS (including mine) which have not been subjected to any kind of review.
Yet, the original paper, and this new follow-up are 'sweeping a lot under the carpet'.
So how can an amateur community prove scientists wrong?
This is not obvious.
It is not dissimilar to the identification of John Dee's hand in the Voynich MS foliation, stated by a respectable scholar.
RE: J. Janick interpretations of the VMS... - -JKP- - 13-01-2017
I do agree with Janick that the "lion dog" creature (the far right yellowish one) of the pool creatures has a face that resembles the North American Coatimundi, but the tail does not, it looks more like a lion's tail and not at all like the thick, striped tail of a Coatl Mundi.
Since the pool creatures are similar to many of the mythical creatures in various medieval illustrations, I'm not convinced they were meant to be naturalistic.
RE: J. Janick interpretations of the VMS... - davidjackson - 13-01-2017
Quote:The original publication was in a journal ('Herbalgram') which I presume is peer-reviewed.
From their You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.:
Quote:At the American Botanical Council, also known as the Herbal Medicine Institute, we are passionate about helping people live healthier lives through the responsible use of herbs, medicinal plants. ABC is an independent, nonprofit research and education organization dedicated to providing accurate and reliable information for consumers, healthcare practitioners, researchers, educators, industry and the media.
Since 1988, the American Botanical Council (ABC) has been educating consumers, healthcare professionals, researchers, educators, industry and the media on the safe and effective use of herbs and medicinal plants. Click You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.to read the history and highlights of ABC (through 2013) and the first 100 HerbalGrams. ABC is an independent, nonprofit organization supported by thousands of members around the world.
From its headquarters at the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in Austin, Texas, ABC publishes HerbalGram, a peer-reviewed quarterly journal; HerbClip, a twice-monthly series of summaries and critical reviews of recently published herbal literature; HerbalEGram, a monthly electronic publication; Herbal News & Events, a weekly update on events and media; and the Botanical Monitor, a quarterly newsletter addressing botanical adulteration issues. ABC is also the publisher of four books, including The ABC Clinical Guide to Herbs, a continuing education and reference book, which contains extensive monographs on the safety and efficacy of 30 popular herbs.In addition, ABC works through its Media Education program to respond to inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the media and provide proactive, science-based information about herbal medicine. ABC also provides an internship program for students of pharmacy and dietetics, as well as other training and certification programs.
How could this journal peer-review a historic comparison of medievalia? It's a modern day botanic journal, they have zero expertise in this field.
RE: J. Janick interpretations of the VMS... - Anton - 13-01-2017
For the journal to be peer-reviewed is one thing, but to find a proper reviewer is quite another. Articles of this sort which are inter-disciplinary should optimally be sent to several reviewers each of which has expertise in the respective field. I'm not sure that that was the case and I wonder how many Voynich-related peer-reviewed articles are sent to those who are in the Voynich Research for ages, such as Zandbergen or Pelling.
RE: J. Janick interpretations of the VMS... - Koen G - 13-01-2017
I'm taking my serious moderator cap off for a bit to answer as a researcher.
There's a certain specific kind of political correctness in Voynich studies, where even "ridiculous" theories should be given a fair shot. I think this is absolutely a good thing. We leave some room for outsiders with exotic views to rattle our frames of reference. It also helps us to keep discussions civil. So it's a good thing.
But then on the other hand... sometimes I'd just like to say: what a load of nonsense. There is not a sign of American culture in the manuscript, and everything points towards the Old Continent. Why is this necessary? Why is this given a stage in "serious" publications? I don't get it.
I guess it's the combination of "the most mysterious manuscript" and "American Codex" that really sells it.