• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings?

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Voynich Talk
  • Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings?
• Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings?

• RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings?

  Mark Knowles > 27-11-2022, 03:18 PM

  (27-11-2022, 01:57 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Koen's web page very clearly visualises what an authority on the subject is saying, and there I see its great value.

  
  Except it doesn't. The only quote from an authority that I have seen dates the clothing to between 1420 and 1430. That is not what Koen is saying on his webpage or what his bar charts visualise.

• RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings?

  Mark Knowles > 27-11-2022, 03:23 PM

  (27-11-2022, 12:47 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Are there just the two workshops from Alsace that could be relevant?
  The reference to "all those other workshops" illustrates the point quite well.

  Assuming that the dataset that Koen and others have come up is representative then it should be clear as to which workshops are most relevant. Significant evidence of other Alsacian workshops producing such illustrations does not seem to be present in the data.

• RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings?

  Aga Tentakulus > 27-11-2022, 03:38 PM

  Now I just have to ask.
  
  What would change if the VM manuscript was written around 1450?

• RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings?

  Mark Knowles > 27-11-2022, 03:40 PM

  (27-11-2022, 12:50 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your own model

  
  All I have done is taken the dataset that Koen lists, unvarnished. I have then calculated the mean and variance on the basis of the data. The only sense in which I have imposed "my model" is in assuming the underlying data is normally distributed; that seems to be a pretty fair assumption and consistent with the distribution of the data. So to say that it is "Your own model" seems to give the impression this is one that I have cooked up to prove a point. I would be very interested if anyone could suggest an alternative model based on the dataset.

• RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings?

  nablator > 27-11-2022, 04:27 PM

  (27-11-2022, 03:38 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What would change if the VM manuscript was written around 1450?

  After ca. 1450 parallel hatching was used for shading, to give volume to surfaces. There isn't any in the VM, only a few completely hatched areas.

• RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings?

  Aga Tentakulus > 27-11-2022, 05:16 PM

  Thank you nablator
  I think the hatching was an issue Nick brought up once.
  
  My question is, what would change in principle?

• RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings?

  Mark Knowles > 27-11-2022, 05:44 PM

  When discussing expert opinion it feels like some people are using the term as a black box. So they are saying "this" is expert opinion and therefore unquestionable truth. However in this case, in particular, expert opinion is alluded to, but not clearly quoted. I think expert opinion when it exists needs to be quoted in detail. It also greatly helps if the expert can explain the basis of evidence etc. that they formed that opinion on, so that one can understand the underlying reasoning behind the opinion.
  
  Here as far as I can tell the only expert opinion we have to rely on is a statement that Robert Wieck said something about the Voynich clothing dating from the 1420s.

• RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings?

  R. Sale > 27-11-2022, 06:12 PM

  @nablator,
  
  Seriously? I guess that's a bit of humor that doesn't fly. The point being that looking through German mss for Hagenau only finds some mss, and it's necessary to look through French mss to find the other Hagenau mss that are included in this source. Perhaps it's historical location versus current location.
  
  Then it turns out that "Hagenau", as used in the source, is really Haguenau in Alsace <of course>, even though there 'appear to be' two towns in Germany.

• RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings?

  Mark Knowles > 27-11-2022, 06:44 PM

  (27-11-2022, 06:12 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The point being that looking through German mss for Hagenau only finds some mss, and it's necessary to look through French mss to find the other Hagenau mss that are included in this source.

  
  Yes, my opinion is that each entry even if it is from the same location and source should be considered a separate datapoint rather than being lumped together and treated as just one datapoint. Treating them as one datapoint can skew the statistics in a way I think unjustified or at least that hasn't been justified.

• RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings?

  R. Sale > 27-11-2022, 07:13 PM

  Going beyond "Hagenau", I tagged the first illustration in two other mss.
  
  1) Erfurt  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  UBWÜ M.ch.f.2 Speculum humanae salvationis
  Dated 1418
  
  2) Strassburg  <aka Strasbourg>
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  UBH Cod.Pal.germ. 323 Willehalm von Orlens
  Dated 1420
  
  Both of these seem to have some similarities of style with the *later* works from Haguenau.
• Next Oldest Next Newest