+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Tasks (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-28.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich tasks (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-32.html)
+---- Forum: Positions we can agree upon (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-53.html)
+----- Forum: Approved blocks (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-54.html)
+----- Thread: The manuscript is not a palimpsest (/thread-744.html)
The manuscript is not a palimpsest - davidjackson - 12-09-2016
Statement
- The Voynich manuscript is not a palimpsest
A palimpsestis defined as a manuscript which has been re-used by scraping off the previous writing, leaving a blank skin upon which to write afresh.
The process usually results in a finer skin, as the upper layer has been scraped off, leaving signs to the naked eye. Other methods to detect palimpests include chemical analysis (not carried out) and multispectral imagery (carried out in 2014 with no apparant signs being published).
Careful examination of the scans have failed to detect any signs of this process.
Furthermore, the manuscript has been subjected to analysis by experts from the McCrone Institute and Yale (both in 2009) with no signs being found that this is a palimpsest.
A further examination at the Folger Institute display in 2014 by experts also failed to detect any signs of previous writing, leaving the experts to conclude verbally to witnesses that it was not a palimpest (1).
Just as importantly, nor have the thousands of hours of analysis by amateurs over the course of the last century bought up any serious suggestion that the manuscript is a palimpsest.
Further reading
RE: The manuscript is not a palimpsest - MarcoP - 12-09-2016
I agree with the statement and voted Yes.
Yet, maybe it would be more correct to say that "the support of the manuscript is not a palimpsest"?
I understand that a palimpsest is a ms that was erased to be reused. The VMS was certainly not erased, by I think what is meant here is that the vellum it is written on was only used to write the VMS (it did not contain an older text that was erased).
RE: The manuscript is not a palimpsest - davidjackson - 12-09-2016
You are correct MarcoP. A manuscript is defined as "a book that is written by hand". Therefore, the statement is to be taken as the physical book.
RE: The manuscript is not a palimpsest - Anton - 12-09-2016
I agree with the statement.
RE: The manuscript is not a palimpsest - -JKP- - 12-09-2016
Based on hours of nose-to-screen scrutiny of the high-resolution images, I would say...
There are a number of erasures, even a couple that I've never seen anyone mention (usually above or below the main text rather than within it although there are a handful of individual letters that look like they might have been altered more aggressively than just adding a stroke to correct them) and the slight differences in the texture of the parchment (mild abrasions) give them away, but I see no signs of this being significantly overwritten.
The erasures mostly look like short notes that have been added and later removed. They are either in a different hand and larger, or they are at an angle, as though they are notes by someone else, or they have a character that's different from the slant/spacing/alignment of the rest of the text.
So, alterations/erasures are visible, even if they are hard to discern, which means it might be possible to answer this question without microscopic examination of the original document, and argues against the parchment having been deliberately re-used.
I don't see signs of significant scraping. It looks like most of the removals are chemical, with only a minimum of abrasions looking like they were removed with a physical tool. Some of them, however (e.g., what appears to be an Ex Libris on the first page) appear to have been significantly abraded/scraped in some way.
Nevertheless, despite scattered signs of removal or change, I agree with the statement. The changes are very minimal in relation to the size of the manuscript and usually around the margins, not the central text area.
Vote: Yes, it's not a palimpsest.
RE: The manuscript is not a palimpsest - ReneZ - 13-09-2016
This question is more tricky than it might seem at first sight.
I agree that the MS shows no signs of being on re-used parchment. It has been checked under a microscope on several occasions, but I doubt that every single sheet has been checked this way. Manuscripts that have a mixture of unused and re-used parchment also exist.
Certainly a leading expert on this question is Abigail Quandt:
(You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
She said (referring specifically to the Voynich MS) that detecting palimpsests can be difficult. That multi-spectral imaging is more reliable than just microscopic investigation.
Again, there has been no sign of earlier use of the parchment from the multi-spectral imaging that has been done in 2014, but I have no real report of that.
In the end, this is not a question that can be settled by a popular vote, I am afraid.
However, it is almost certainly true (FWIW).
RE: The manuscript is not a palimpsest - Koen G - 13-09-2016
Are there any possible implications if the vellum has been re-used?
RE: The manuscript is not a palimpsest - MarcoP - 13-09-2016
(13-09-2016, 08:02 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Are there any possible implications if the vellum has been re-used?
1. The support of the VMS would be a palimpsest
2. the carbon-dating would be much less relevant
3. the hypothesis that it is a false would be much more credible
...
RE: The manuscript is not a palimpsest - Anton - 04-10-2016
I'm glad to announce that we have got the first position we can agree upon:
The Voynich Manuscript is not a palimpsest.
