(23-05-2016, 11:40 AM)Koen Gh. wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Does that mean there is any good reason to doubt the carbon-dating?
Even if we take the radiocarbon dating with a grain of salt (which is always a good idea, even though it is good technology and always improving), the vellum, script styles (marginalia), fashion styles, piments/inks, and many other aspects of the manuscript are at least in the same general ballpark as the carbon-dated estimate.
(23-05-2016, 11:17 AM)nickpelling wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.MarcoP: I think it is important to point out this: that even among the relatively small number of top experts on herbals, Sergio Toresella is unusual in that he travelled the world to examine a huge number of herbal manuscripts first-hand. This was his life's calling, not just a sideline: his opinion was formed from herbals in toto, not the kind of opportunistic and scattered sampling the Internet offers.
Moreover: Paris, BNF, It 1108 is dated "vers 1471", which does not match your personal dating of the Voynich manuscript but closely fits Toresella's dating of ~1460.
Glad to see you're over the worst of your computer woes, Nick. Hopefully the rest will fall into place.