• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Assumptions baked into the VMS carbon dating

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Physical material
  • Assumptions baked into the VMS carbon dating
• Assumptions baked into the VMS carbon dating

• Assumptions baked into the VMS carbon dating

  eggyk > 2 hours ago

  Hello, 
  
  I wanted to raise some potential issues that I've had with the carbon dating of the VMS. Before I start, I want to make abundantly clear that I accept the dating for the individual leaves of parchment as reported, and that this is NOT an "anti carbon dating" post in any way.
  
  I believe that some of the core assumptions used to come to the final dating range do not necessarily hold up to scrutiny. Before I do so, I want to make clear the following things that I have no issue with: 
  
  - I see no issue in the handling or testing process for any of the individual samples
  - I do not disagee with any of the individual dating results for any of the samples
  - I believe that the results were correctly calculated after the core assumptions were applied (I ran the numbers myself as well and got pretty much the same range)
  
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  With that out of the way, let me explain what I mean. My issues stem from the combination of the invidual dating results into a smaller range using a statistical process. As I mentioned above, I believe that this statistical process was done entirely correctly after the core assumptions were applied. But, what were those assumptions that justified doing so? 
  
  1) The individual leaves of parchment are part of a singular "whole" object, and thus can all be assumed to be samples from that same "object"
  
  What is the justification for that to be assumed as correct?  As far as I can tell, the main reason to accept this is that the entire VMS contains "voynichese". That's pretty much it.  As i've frequently come across while looking through manuscripts, it is common for there to be a seemingly random inserted page, sometimes far older, sometimes far younger within the binding. And often the only discernable way to know that it is dated differently is the content: perhaps the handwriting is different, or the language is different. We have no such luxury with the voynich manuscript, as we cannot understand the content.
  
  Okay, but isn't this part of the reason why samples were taken from different sections? Yes, but there are FAR too few samples to conclusively say that there are no outlier leaves. If the manuscript was indeed previously loose sheets in a different order, it's completely possible that there are some older or younger leaves scattered within the sections. For instance, say that someone began writing the VMS in 1380AD, and completed around 4 pages, but never finished the rest or died. Then, a student or family member continued the work in the same style, with the same writing rules, later in 1420AD. When the book was rebound later, those 4 pages would not have stood out from the rest, and would now be inserted at random within a section. 
  
  So seperately, it is possible that if we were to take 4 more samples from 4 other leaves, we may happen to get completely different results. That is the nature of seperate pieces of parchment, and more importantly that is the nature of those sheets NOT being a single object. Let me present this another way: if 20% of ALL folios were truly from 1350AD, and 80% were from 1420AD, the chance to pick 4 samples from 1420 at random is around 40%. 
  
  2) The VMS was written and produced in a short period of time
  
  I don't understand the evidence for this. How can we possibly know? 
  
  As I mentioned above, there are countless instances of composite manuscripts containing works from different time periods. Quite often, there is no real discernable difference between the quality of the parchment - it is only the content that changes. Sometimes, I come across examples where the text was written at a certain time, and the illumination didn't take place until decades later. Take this example, where the text was written in 1425-1450AD (or maybe slightly earlier), but the illuminations date later, with some dating to around the last quarter of the 15th century: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  If you were to take 4 samples from that manuscript, how many would come back saying 1490AD? 
  
  The biggest issue with this assumption is that it effectively stifles research into anything post 1450AD, when it is entirely possible that sections of the VMS were written after 1450AD. We can point at certain aspects that potentially date the VMS, such as the clothing, or the zodiac signs, or the swallowtail merlons. Okay, but that dates those pages, not the entire VMS. It actually doesn't date those pages with certainty either; there are plenty of examples of almost 1-1 copies of illustrations over decades. 
  
  Seperately, this assumption itself implies something: that the works in the VMS must date to the same time period as the parchment. This, I believe for obvious reasons, is not a reasonable standpoint. What is to say the VMS author was not sourcing from an italian manuscript from 1320AD, and seperately sourcing another french manuscript from 1410, and then also sourcing a german manuscript from 1250AD? Sourcing works from 1250AD sounds unlikely, but to do so in 1430AD would be almost exactly like us sourcing from Charles Dicken's Great Expectations, from 1860. Not farfetched in the slightest. 
  
  
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  The 14th century f68 peak
  
  A seperate issue that comes forth after doing this statistical process is the dismissal of the huge early-mid 14th century peak in the f68 result. This is effectively brushed aside by aggregating the results of the different pieces of parchment. Is this proper? It seems entirely improper to state that a single piece of parchment has a 42% chance of being dated to 1308-1362, but then to take 3 other seperate samples, state that they are the same object as f68 (when they are not), and then say there's a 95% chance that the whole thing dates to 1404-1435.  
  
  This is basically saying "yeah, theres that huge peak there, but these other pages dont have the peak, so its probably worth ignoring". Why can't one page genuinely date to 1330, and another genuinely date to 1420? 
  
  Again, if we had chosen 4 other pieces of parchment, and each had the same ~50-50 peak distribution as in f68, there would have to be a huge discussion on which peak was more likely. But because we only found one, we dismiss it entirely. It's not right. 
  
  If the reality is genuinely that some pages date to ~1330, and others date to ~1420 (coincidentally at the same levels of atmospheric carbon), we would expect to see peaks in both for both sets of pages. 
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  Conclusion
  
  Basically, this is what I am making the thread to state: 
  
  - The dating range of 1404-1435AD is based on what I believe are potentially incorrect assumptions. 
  - Based on the results, we should probably have a likely working date-range of ~1385-1458AD
  - More carbon testing could potentially find more pages similar to f68, with a large peak in the mid 14th century
  - To say that the VMS was written in a short period of time, or saying that the VMS is dated fom 1404-1435, even if true, puts unneccesary restrictions on various aspects of research.
  - We should be treating works from the 9th-15th century as possible direct inspirations for the content in the VMS, instead of broadly dismissing most as probably not relevant.
  - We should not presume that the content cannot have been post-1435AD
  
  I know that making this thread will probably not win me any favours, and i've been sitting on it for a while now debating whether to post. But if anything comes across as an attack on other researchers and their work, please do not take it that way. I don't mean for that to be the case at all, and I have huge respect to those that have done that work.

• RE: Assumptions baked into the VMS carbon dating

  Linda > 2 hours ago

  I like your ~1385-1458AD idea.
  
  I keep coming across things from the latter part of that period that seem possible to have influenced the vms makers but I keep having to put a mental "likely too late" sticker on it. Just saw something from 1456, right before I read your post.
  
  I wish we could do some more testing to clear up some of these ambiguities. Sounds like they could be done with minimal damage to the manuscript. It makes a difference if the different sheets of parchment are from a number of different time periods, and it would be nice to test some of the organic pigments also to possibly figure out when some of the ink was made, and see how that fits with the timeline.

• RE: Assumptions baked into the VMS carbon dating

  ololololo > 40 minutes ago

  I don’t really know much about this topic. As I understand it, the period determined by radiocarbon dating is usually more or less accurate — that is, if a parchment is dated to around 1350, it’s unlikely to have been written in 1300 or 1400, but I could be wrong. Such a difference could be explained by the fact that the authors simply stole low‑quality parchment, but then it’s unclear where the quadrifoliums came from.
  Perhaps the old parchment was purchased first, and then the new one was created. In any case, the manuscript was definitely written sometime in the early 15th century; other explanations do not fit.

• RE: Assumptions baked into the VMS carbon dating

  Rafal > 35 minutes ago

  Well, we cannot exclude that the author was writing Voynich Manuscript for a lot of years and by pure chance only pages from some period were taken for sampling. For example Goethe worked on his masterpiece Faust for about 60 years.
  
  On the other hand VM doesn't give any hints of the aging author.
  
  Also it seems that some parts of VM could be inspired by De ingeneis by Taccola (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). It you accept it, it sets VM past 1433 and makes 1385 impossible.
  
  And what do you exactly need the extended creation period for? Do you have any hypothesis that requires it?

• RE: Assumptions baked into the VMS carbon dating

  eggyk > 14 minutes ago

  (35 minutes ago)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Also it seems that some parts of VM could be inspired by De ingeneis by Taccola (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). It you accept it, it sets VM past 1433 and makes 1385 impossible.

  
  Well, I don't agree that if certain parts are post 1433, other sections couldn't be from 1385. Why does one section have to date an entire manuscript? As the example in the OP shows, just because the illustrations within that manuscript are clearly late 15th century does not date the text in the manuscript, which was written far earlier.
  
  

  (35 minutes ago)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And what do you exactly need the extended creation period for? Do you have any hypothesis that requires it?

  
  I don't require it for any theory, and I am not stating any of this to push any theory. If the reality is that the 1404-1435 dating range is potentially incorrect, that should be considered for all theories. 
  
  

  (40 minutes ago)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don’t really know much about this topic. As I understand it, the period determined by radiocarbon dating is usually more or less accurate — that is, if a parchment is dated to around 1350, it’s unlikely to have been written in 1300 or 1400, but I could be wrong.

  
  As I stated, I am not disputing the individual results for each page. I am disputing that their results are combined as if they are the same object. Here is the dating for folio 68: 
  
     
  taken from page 6 of: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

• RE: Assumptions baked into the VMS carbon dating

  ololololo > Less than 1 minute ago

  (14 minutes ago)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am disputing that their results are combined as if they are the same object

  Well, I think, in any case, the dating 1400–1430 could be the period when the manuscript was being created, at the very least, it was being actively developed.
  In any case, the issue of dating the parchment will overlap with the issue of dating the application of the ink.
• Next Oldest Next Newest