Davidsch > 17-05-2021, 11:56 AM
ReneZ > 17-05-2021, 12:43 PM
(16-05-2021, 08:09 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.When I have more time, tomorrow, I can show an example of such a case, and the rather horrible date estimate that may result from it.
ReneZ > 17-05-2021, 03:26 PM
(16-05-2021, 09:08 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Wilfrid Voynich- late 13th century
Romaine Newbold- late 13th century
Theodore C. Peterson- 13th to 14th centuries
John H. Tiltman- 13th century
Hugh O’Neill- late 15th century (on)
Helmut Lehmann-Haupt- Early 15th century
Erwin Panofsky- Late 15th century, changed to early 16th century (1510-1520)
Elizebeth Friedman- late 15th, early 16th century (1480-1520)
A.H. Carter- “far later” than 13th or 14th century
Dr. Charles Singer- early 16th century (1520 or later)
Leonell Strong- 16th century (1525 or later)
Robert Brumbaugh- 16th century (1500)
Professor Giles Constable- 16th century
Professor Rodney Dennis- 16th century
Dr. Franklin aLudden- late 15th to mid 16th century (1475-1550)
Sergio Toresella- late 15th century (1460-1480)
proto57 > 17-05-2021, 05:37 PM
(17-05-2021, 03:26 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rich wrote:
(16-05-2021, 09:08 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Wilfrid Voynich- late 13th century
Romaine Newbold- late 13th century
Theodore C. Peterson- 13th to 14th centuries
John H. Tiltman- 13th century
Hugh O’Neill- late 15th century (on)
Helmut Lehmann-Haupt- Early 15th century
Erwin Panofsky- Late 15th century, changed to early 16th century (1510-1520)
Elizebeth Friedman- late 15th, early 16th century (1480-1520)
A.H. Carter- “far later” than 13th or 14th century
Dr. Charles Singer- early 16th century (1520 or later)
Leonell Strong- 16th century (1525 or later)
Robert Brumbaugh- 16th century (1500)
Professor Giles Constable- 16th century
Professor Rodney Dennis- 16th century
Dr. Franklin aLudden- late 15th to mid 16th century (1475-1550)
Sergio Toresella- late 15th century (1460-1480)
The summary of all this is that the best guess at the time that the C-14 experiment was prepared was: 1460-1470-ish. This was heavily biased by the most recent views of Sergio Toresella, and represents what was communicated to Greg Hodgins of Arizona at the time.
Indeed, there have also been earlier views that better match the result, which only became obvious after the fact. They (all three of them) are not in the above list.
Helmut Winkler > 17-05-2021, 06:18 PM
ReneZ > 17-05-2021, 07:43 PM
ReneZ > 17-05-2021, 08:14 PM
(17-05-2021, 05:37 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well we can go back and forth on this, but it is part of the record. The idea that the "best guess" was 1460-1470, and therefore the C14 dating was close, came some time after the original impression... which was that the dating was way off the majority opinion, i.e., that the C14 results were counter to the popular expert opinions, not in agreement with them.
This issue is to me very, very, important. It is one of the difference between a manuscript whose contact matches the dating, and one which does not.
MarcoP > 18-05-2021, 07:40 AM
Aga Tentakulus > 18-05-2021, 09:12 AM
ReneZ > 18-05-2021, 12:25 PM
(18-05-2021, 07:40 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As an independent dating of the ms, I found You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. very informative. Differently from the opinions of academics, which often are (or were transmitted as) just dates with no detailed argument, his research is based on simple principles and can be easily verified.