• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

What's the evidence that the colors were added later?

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Physical material
  • What's the evidence that the colors were added later?
• What's the evidence that the colors were added later?

• What's the evidence that the colors were added later?

  Koen G > 29-09-2025, 11:33 AM

  It seems almost accepted as a truth that the colors in the MS were added later, by someone who didn't know what they were doing. When I saw the following quote by Stolfi, I thought it was time to collect the actual evidence. 
  
  

  (29-09-2025, 10:18 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It cannot be stressed enough that, almost certainly, the colors in the VMS are not original.  They were applied centuries after the manuscript was scribed

  
  
  What do we know, apart from hunches? Obviously, paint is applied in a later stage of a page's development: usually, the image is outlined first. But apart from that, all I know is this:
  

  • Nothing in the manuscript is painted with great expertise. 
    
  • The paint job is bad in a variety of ways.
    
  • The same pigments are used in a variety of ways.
    
  • These pigments are widely available and compatible with 15th century Europe.
    
  • Some colors are lacking from some pages. 
    

  
  How does any of this tell us when the manuscript was painted, and whether or not the painter knew what they were doing? Or how many phases there were in the painting, and how much time was in between them? Where does the idea of centuries come from? What's the evidence?

• RE: What's the evidence that the colors were added later?

  RobGea > 29-09-2025, 01:43 PM

  Cipher Mysteries Wrote:"given that there is now strong evidence that many of the bifolios and even quires were scrambled several times over the manuscript’s history and yet nearly all the paint transfers appear to be between pages in their current order, it seems that a great deal of the Voynich Manuscript’s paint was added later on in its life"

  ciphermysteries --> "Voynich colour inference, a sure path to madness…"
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

• RE: What's the evidence that the colors were added later?

  Bernd > 29-09-2025, 01:44 PM

  I feel that the best way to research is to analyze in what stage the manuscript was when paint was applied. Was it rebound/reordered afterwards?

• RE: What's the evidence that the colors were added later?

  LisaFaginDavis > 29-09-2025, 02:04 PM

  I addressed Bernd's question somewhat in my Toronto lecture...the recording will be available soon. I don't see any evidence to suggest that the pigment is later. Recent XRF elemental analysis on ff. 1r and 1v did not find any evidence that the pigments were later (also introduced in my lecture but not yet publicly available...the Yale team is working on a report). All of the elemental signatures of the ink and pigments are consistent with the 15th c., except for the Marci annotations, which are zinc-gall and therefore confirmed as post-medieval. The elemental signature for the Tinapius signature is heavily occluded by the sulfur-based reagent Voynich applied.
  
  The suggestion that the pigments must be later because of the offsets makes no sense to me. It's just the opposite. The offsets suggest that the manuscript has been in its current state for centuries. If your favorite theory only works if the pigments are later, then you're going about it backwards. 
  
  In my lecture, I have laid out a clear and evidenced-based timeline for the material history of the manuscript (original structure, annotations, stains, offsets, binding, rebinding, and conservation). Once the recording is up, I'll be happy to answer questions here.

• RE: What's the evidence that the colors were added later?

  Koen G > 29-09-2025, 02:08 PM

  (29-09-2025, 01:43 PM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.ciphermysteries --> "Voynich colour inference, a sure path to madness…"
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  
  My understanding of the arguments:
  
  * Different painting techniques are observed in different places. --> as I argued before, the paint job has the appearance of someone attempting to do something they don't quite master. Picking one awful thing as original and another as later is arbitrary.
  * There are no bright yellow flowers --> This is an anomaly indeed, but one of the overall color scheme. See You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 
  * There have been several rebindings (implied: shuffling) of the folios. Paint transfers have taken place while the manuscript was in its current order. --> according to Lisa's latest research, the first binding was already in this order. With some goodwill, we can say that the MS was likely painted after it was bound, quite possibly still in the 15th century.

• RE: What's the evidence that the colors were added later?

  Bernd > 29-09-2025, 02:30 PM

  (29-09-2025, 02:08 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.the paint job has the appearance of someone attempting to do something they don't quite master.

  To me, the entire manuscript has this vibe.
  
  So this would mean it is very unlikely the VM was painted during creation while still in loose sheets.
  And that when it was bound and painted, it is likely the ability to make sense of it (implying there was any) was already lost.
  Still 15th century is a bit vague. If the VM was created around 1420 that would still leave 1-2 generations until the binding.
  
  I am looking forward to the recording of Lisa's lecture.

• RE: What's the evidence that the colors were added later?

  Aga Tentakulus > 29-09-2025, 03:11 PM

  Difficult to assess the underlying layers.
  On the yellow side, on the rosette side, the yellow still seems to be in good condition in the wind roses.
  I think this was painted at the same time. Due to the extensive overpainting of the stars, the yellow became dirty and grey. In the end, it was only suitable for green.

• RE: What's the evidence that the colors were added later?

  Koen G > 29-09-2025, 03:22 PM

  Thanks, Lisa. This sounds more likely to me than the complex constructions that had become fashionable in the mailing list days.
  
  One question still remaining is this bit from Rene's site:
  
  "In addition, on folio 42 recto, the folio number has been written inside the drawing of a leaf. This leaf was also painted in green. In 2009, when the MS was inspected by microscope by Joe Barabe of McCrone, I asked him to look at this, in order to see whether the page number was written before or after the painting. The surprising conclusion was, that it really appeared as if the folio number was there before, and the paint (consisting of small green crystals) was over it."
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

• RE: What's the evidence that the colors were added later?

  Aga Tentakulus > 29-09-2025, 03:36 PM

  Search for a clue.
  There is no text in blue or green.
  But there are some words in red on f67r.
  Question for Lisa. Would you say that the writing matches that of one of the scribes? Yes?
  Now there is a possibility that the colour red was already available at the time of the scribes. However, it is not the dominant colour. Nevertheless, the fact that the same red was used indicates that the plants were not coloured much later. The same is certainly true of the other colours.

• RE: What's the evidence that the colors were added later?

  LisaFaginDavis > 29-09-2025, 04:19 PM

  There is no question that the order of application was pigment, upper-margin stain, foliation. The green is offset from the damp of the stain, and the foliation wasn't damaged by the stain elsewhere. I haven't looked at f.42 under a scope, but I would be extremely surprised if the green was on top of the folio number.
  
  As for the red, there's nothing inconsistent about a fifteenth-century scribe writing in iron-gall and red ink. It is quite common.
• Next Oldest Next Newest