16-05-2021, 09:08 PM
Thanks for the clarifications, insights and explanations. Interesting and informative discussion.
As Anton points out above, and as I have repeatedly, this idea of limiting the interpretation of these results only in light of "one book, one duration" excludes many other possible reasons for the individual dating being what we see here. Not just for my case, but for untold others. Possible useful evidence is removed by this assumption, this averaging. Even if the Voynich is from, say, 1450, and genuine, the use of a wider date range of vellum for its construction may be a useful clue. Average those dates, and the clue is gone.
I understand what you mean about that, that some date ranges could have been problematic. But as for the dating range you cite, I don't believe this is the case. If one looks at the mass of pre-C14 opinions, they were all over the calendar. I'd made a couple of lists of them, and remember well our past discussions over those opinions. What happened after the testing put the vellum in the early 15th century was a "weening" of all previous expert and amateur opinions which did not fit that dating. Eventually, the reality of so many experts getting it wrong... the majority did get it wrong... morphed into the present claim that the "experts got it right".
The list I compiled from D'Imperio shows this well:
Wilfrid Voynich- late 13th century
Romaine Newbold- late 13th century
Theodore C. Peterson- 13th to 14th centuries
John H. Tiltman- 13th century
Hugh O’Neill- late 15th century (on)
Helmut Lehmann-Haupt- Early 15th century
Erwin Panofsky- Late 15th century, changed to early 16th century (1510-1520)
Elizebeth Friedman- late 15th, early 16th century (1480-1520)
A.H. Carter- “far later” than 13th or 14th century
Dr. Charles Singer- early 16th century (1520 or later)
Leonell Strong- 16th century (1525 or later)
Robert Brumbaugh- 16th century (1500)
Professor Giles Constable- 16th century
Professor Rodney Dennis- 16th century
Dr. Franklin aLudden- late 15th to mid 16th century (1475-1550)
Sergio Toresella- late 15th century (1460-1480)
The more modern... post D'Imperio... trend from the middle 16th to the early 17th century. So when the claim is made that the expert opinions, who whomever, were in the early 15th century, and therefore the dating shows the experts were correct; and conversely, then, the dating backs up expert opinion... no, that was not the case at all. The C14 dating was a surprise, and well out of the mass of expert opinion. In fact, that was how it was first reported when the dating was released. The pruning of the experts to fit the results happened soon after that, though, so the story changed.
(16-05-2021, 08:09 PM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Furthermore, the uncertainty in a date of any sample is far greater than the typical duration of creating a book. Of course, there are exceptional cases where this could have taken decades, but there is no particular reason to believe that this is the case for the Voynich MS.
As Anton points out above, and as I have repeatedly, this idea of limiting the interpretation of these results only in light of "one book, one duration" excludes many other possible reasons for the individual dating being what we see here. Not just for my case, but for untold others. Possible useful evidence is removed by this assumption, this averaging. Even if the Voynich is from, say, 1450, and genuine, the use of a wider date range of vellum for its construction may be a useful clue. Average those dates, and the clue is gone.
(16-05-2021, 08:09 PM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The best guess for the origin of the book, at the time that the experiment was prepared, was 1460-1470-ish.
I understand what you mean about that, that some date ranges could have been problematic. But as for the dating range you cite, I don't believe this is the case. If one looks at the mass of pre-C14 opinions, they were all over the calendar. I'd made a couple of lists of them, and remember well our past discussions over those opinions. What happened after the testing put the vellum in the early 15th century was a "weening" of all previous expert and amateur opinions which did not fit that dating. Eventually, the reality of so many experts getting it wrong... the majority did get it wrong... morphed into the present claim that the "experts got it right".
The list I compiled from D'Imperio shows this well:
Wilfrid Voynich- late 13th century
Romaine Newbold- late 13th century
Theodore C. Peterson- 13th to 14th centuries
John H. Tiltman- 13th century
Hugh O’Neill- late 15th century (on)
Helmut Lehmann-Haupt- Early 15th century
Erwin Panofsky- Late 15th century, changed to early 16th century (1510-1520)
Elizebeth Friedman- late 15th, early 16th century (1480-1520)
A.H. Carter- “far later” than 13th or 14th century
Dr. Charles Singer- early 16th century (1520 or later)
Leonell Strong- 16th century (1525 or later)
Robert Brumbaugh- 16th century (1500)
Professor Giles Constable- 16th century
Professor Rodney Dennis- 16th century
Dr. Franklin aLudden- late 15th to mid 16th century (1475-1550)
Sergio Toresella- late 15th century (1460-1480)
The more modern... post D'Imperio... trend from the middle 16th to the early 17th century. So when the claim is made that the expert opinions, who whomever, were in the early 15th century, and therefore the dating shows the experts were correct; and conversely, then, the dating backs up expert opinion... no, that was not the case at all. The C14 dating was a surprise, and well out of the mass of expert opinion. In fact, that was how it was first reported when the dating was released. The pruning of the experts to fit the results happened soon after that, though, so the story changed.