14-11-2022, 03:37 PM
Listing the dates Koen gives on the first page of this thread and taking the midpoint where a range is given we have:
1400
1412.5
1411
1411
1423
1412.5
1412
1405
1412.5
1410
1403
1407
1389.5
1414
1428
1415
1405
1402
1430
1405
1427.5
1427.5
1405
1389.5
1415
1423
1420
1408
1418
1450
1400
1460
1415
1427.5
1433.5
1420
1435
Note I have not removed any datapoints as non-manuscript art as I do not see why that is relevant. If there is a good reason for excluding those entries them I would be happy to hear it.
I have calculated on the basis of this data that the mean average year of these dates is:
1415.74 to 2 decimal places
The standard deviation appears to be:
14.61 years to 2 decimal places
The sample size is:
37
I think it is reasonable to work on the basis that the dates are normally distributed.
I believe in the carbon dating a 95% confidence interval is considered. This is quite normal, so I will do the same here.
Without considering sample size I believe we are looking at a range from -1.96 to 1.96 of the standard deviation.
So this gives us a range from:
1415.74 - (1.96×14.61) = 1387.11
to:
1415.74 + (1.96×14.61) = 1444.38
So to the year on the basis of the dates on the first page we would say that we 95% confidence the crossbowman was drawn between the years 1387 and 1444. This compares with the carbon dating that leads one to conclude that with 95% confidence the Voynich manuscript parchment dates to between the years 1404 and 1438. So on this basis this makes for a closer fit for the carbon dating than the crossbowman dating.
So on that basis one could conclude that it is perfectly reasonable that the Voynich crossbowman was drawn between 1430 and 1438 and does need necessarily pre-date 1430.
These are crude calculations, so I would greatly appreciate it if someone crosschecked them as I may have missed something. It would be great if someone conducted a more rigorous analysis, however it does seem to contradict the notion that the drawing of the crossbowman must pre-date 1430.
New data or analysis may change this picture.
I have also listed some other concerns with Koen's analysis elsewhere. Having said that I would reiterate that Koen has done an excellent job raising and exploring this subject.
1400
1412.5
1411
1411
1423
1412.5
1412
1405
1412.5
1410
1403
1407
1389.5
1414
1428
1415
1405
1402
1430
1405
1427.5
1427.5
1405
1389.5
1415
1423
1420
1408
1418
1450
1400
1460
1415
1427.5
1433.5
1420
1435
Note I have not removed any datapoints as non-manuscript art as I do not see why that is relevant. If there is a good reason for excluding those entries them I would be happy to hear it.
I have calculated on the basis of this data that the mean average year of these dates is:
1415.74 to 2 decimal places
The standard deviation appears to be:
14.61 years to 2 decimal places
The sample size is:
37
I think it is reasonable to work on the basis that the dates are normally distributed.
I believe in the carbon dating a 95% confidence interval is considered. This is quite normal, so I will do the same here.
Without considering sample size I believe we are looking at a range from -1.96 to 1.96 of the standard deviation.
So this gives us a range from:
1415.74 - (1.96×14.61) = 1387.11
to:
1415.74 + (1.96×14.61) = 1444.38
So to the year on the basis of the dates on the first page we would say that we 95% confidence the crossbowman was drawn between the years 1387 and 1444. This compares with the carbon dating that leads one to conclude that with 95% confidence the Voynich manuscript parchment dates to between the years 1404 and 1438. So on this basis this makes for a closer fit for the carbon dating than the crossbowman dating.
So on that basis one could conclude that it is perfectly reasonable that the Voynich crossbowman was drawn between 1430 and 1438 and does need necessarily pre-date 1430.
These are crude calculations, so I would greatly appreciate it if someone crosschecked them as I may have missed something. It would be great if someone conducted a more rigorous analysis, however it does seem to contradict the notion that the drawing of the crossbowman must pre-date 1430.
New data or analysis may change this picture.
I have also listed some other concerns with Koen's analysis elsewhere. Having said that I would reiterate that Koen has done an excellent job raising and exploring this subject.