The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[Yavernoxia]

IMHO, the core scenario of the backstory, namely a European learning spoken Chinese and having a scribe transcribe a Chinese text orally into an invented phonetic script, is extremely far-fetched. If the author already understood spoken Chinese well enough, he could simply have translated the text into his own language instead of inventing a new script. If not, relying on oral dictation through intermediaries would have produced huge errors, yet the text shows patterns that are far too regular to be explained as random dictation artifacts.

Yes, it’s interesting (as I mentioned in a post last year) for me to explore such an uncommon hypothesis, but as the thread has continued, it has become increasingly hard to take seriously. It would need much, much more support to be convincing.

I can't believe you're still mulling over this theory

I can't believe that people are still clinging to the "European Origin" theory -- which is supported by  ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence, and contradicted by 408 tons (metric) of evidence.

The claim that the European Origin theory is supported by 'ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence' is scientifically untenable. It ignores the entire forensic reality of the object.

Let’s look at the '408 tons' of hard evidence that anchor this object to Europe, specifically Northern Italy:

- The radiocarbon dating (1404–1438) places the vellum in the early 15th century. The ink chemistry (Iron Gall) is consistent with European recipes of that period. The quire binding is European. Unless you suggest the 'Author' shipped 15 calfskins from Europe to Asia, processed them there, and shipped them back to be bound, the physical artifact is European.

- The Scribe, your own admission: You concede that 'The analysis of castle and dress drawings... makes it almost certain that the Scribe was from Northern Italy. If the scribe is Italian, the materials are European, and the style is Venetian/Lombardic, then the Null Hypothesis must be that the text is also of local origin. To argue otherwise requires extraordinary evidence, which the 'Chinese Theory' lacks.

- The 'bench' or 'gallows' are common in legal shorthand of the era. It is far more logical that a European scribe used familiar abbreviation symbols to write a constrained European code, rather than inventing a new phonetic script that coincidentally looks exactly like a Latin chancery ledger.

You cite low entropy as proof of a monosyllabic Asian language. This is a logical leap. Low entropy simply indicates a highly constrained system. A ledger, an index, or a technical list in Latin also exhibits low entropy and rigid structure because it is not narrative prose. We don't need to traverse the Silk Road to explain rigidity, we just need to look at a European inventory.

We are looking at a European artifact, written by a European scribe, using European symbols. The 'strangeness' comes from the method of encoding, not the continent of origin.

On this point, I agree with Alicia completely. Based on the evidence, if the scribe was (most likely) Northern Italian, the materials are European, and the graphic style is European, then the null hypothesis must be that the text itself is also of local (European) origin. To argue otherwise requires extraordinary evidence, which the Chinese theory fails to provide.