Chronological Path Stability/Uncertainty Analysis

[Jorge_Stolfi]

(in my opinion, the talk about much later painters, and thus irrelevant colors, is pure speculation).

But the claim that colors are later than the binding has at least two crumbs of evidence: 

• the green pigment over the page number on f42r, attested by Rene and others from microscope examinatons;
  
• the blue paint spots at the upper left corner of f40r, that look like they are continuous with the blue "hearts" of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. but are in fact not aligned and do not match their color.
  

Granted, both of these bits of evidence can be disputed.  But the opposite theory -- that the color paints are original -- has no evidence at all, not even historical precedent.

Note that this "color paints are original" is actually two claims:

C1. The color paints were applied while the VMS was still in possession of the Author, and under his supervision.

C2. The Scribe applied colored paints to each page (or bifolio) as soon as he finished drawing the outlines, before proceeding to the nexp page (bifolio).

C1 would be sufficient for one to consider colors when trying to identify the plants.   But even if C1 is assumed, C2 seems rather unlikely.  But one needs C2 in order to use colors as the clue for the order of creation of the bifolios.

An intermediate hypothesis would be 

C1.5.The Scribe created the bifolios in batches.  For each batch, the Scribe drew the outlines of figures and text on all pages, and then he applied color paints to all those pages.

With C1.5 one could use colors at least to guess the order of creation among sections.

All the best, --stolfi