Still, batting this back and forth, eh? What are the facts? Firstly, C-14 dating is not an exact science. It has an error range of several decades. Quite significant in human terms.
Secondly, there are the four VMs samples. Given their relative chronological proximity, including the large factor for error, even though this is a C-14 "sweet spot," it is possible that all four parchment samples derive from a single source.
Alternatively, there may be more than one time for the parchment production. Based on the original dating. the scenario with the greatest effect is to group the three oldest samples together, then look at the date for the newest sample and consider the error range as an indicator of a more recent batch of parchment production. It might not change things that much. What's a couple of decades?
The difference is based on the assumption that all parchment came from a single source, or that there was a second parchment source. Given the error built into the data, it is a situation that cannot be resolved.
Secondly, there are the four VMs samples. Given their relative chronological proximity, including the large factor for error, even though this is a C-14 "sweet spot," it is possible that all four parchment samples derive from a single source.
Alternatively, there may be more than one time for the parchment production. Based on the original dating. the scenario with the greatest effect is to group the three oldest samples together, then look at the date for the newest sample and consider the error range as an indicator of a more recent batch of parchment production. It might not change things that much. What's a couple of decades?
The difference is based on the assumption that all parchment came from a single source, or that there was a second parchment source. Given the error built into the data, it is a situation that cannot be resolved.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)