12-09-2016, 05:33 PM
Statement
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
- 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