28-08-2026, 11:06 AM
I'm under the impression that the samples measured were not assumed to be from the same calf skin. The justification used was that they constituted a single object because they were bound within the same book.
One sample was specifcally chosen due to a different thickness, 2 under the assumption that currier A->B may consitute a jump in time (along with one being a on the same bifolium as folio 1), and one because it was from an interesting astronomical page. This leaves out half of the entire VMS.
Note that two folios of similar size and quality were specifically chosen due to perceived difference in the content on them. That implies that a difference in content can represent a different time of writing, and that noticeable differences in the parchment are not necessary for dating differences to be investigated. I'm pretty sure the sample selection leaves out quire 13 entirely, right? If what is now known about the entropy of that section was known at the time of these tests, it would likely have been chosen as a sample specifically to test whether it was made at a different time. Why should we now assume that the results would have been in keeping with the rest of the samples?
There is zero direct evidence that those other sections date to the exact same time as the tested samples, other than the parchment looks roughly the same and the script looks roughly the same. We are effectively saying "this half of the book definitely dates to the same time as the other half of the book, because they are bound in the same binding and don't look all that different".
It is entirely possible that the recipes section dates completely differently. There is no evidence for that being the case, but there is also no evidence against this being the case, in my opinion. The only evidence is that we are assuming it was probably written and added at the same time as the measured samples. That's literally it.
One sample was specifcally chosen due to a different thickness, 2 under the assumption that currier A->B may consitute a jump in time (along with one being a on the same bifolium as folio 1), and one because it was from an interesting astronomical page. This leaves out half of the entire VMS.
Note that two folios of similar size and quality were specifically chosen due to perceived difference in the content on them. That implies that a difference in content can represent a different time of writing, and that noticeable differences in the parchment are not necessary for dating differences to be investigated. I'm pretty sure the sample selection leaves out quire 13 entirely, right? If what is now known about the entropy of that section was known at the time of these tests, it would likely have been chosen as a sample specifically to test whether it was made at a different time. Why should we now assume that the results would have been in keeping with the rest of the samples?
There is zero direct evidence that those other sections date to the exact same time as the tested samples, other than the parchment looks roughly the same and the script looks roughly the same. We are effectively saying "this half of the book definitely dates to the same time as the other half of the book, because they are bound in the same binding and don't look all that different".
It is entirely possible that the recipes section dates completely differently. There is no evidence for that being the case, but there is also no evidence against this being the case, in my opinion. The only evidence is that we are assuming it was probably written and added at the same time as the measured samples. That's literally it.