08-02-2016, 07:03 AM
One has to realise that, at the time the selections were made, nobody really knew what the outcome was going to be. The 'best guess' was second half of the fifteenth century to early 16th Century, and several people were thinking 'Paracelsan'. From a presentation by Greg Hodgins made a few days before the samples were taken, it became obvious that this time frame is not very favourable for C-14 dating, but it turned out to be clearly earlier.
I was not at all involved in the selection of the folios for the ink and paint samples. I don't know Dr. Alfred Vendl who is mentioned in the report, but it is clearly stated that he provided recommendations. Certainly, Joe Barabe made the final decisions with the aid of a microscope. As the Table in the report shows, he could take many different samples.
For the parchment samples, there were discussions beforehand, with the indication that three samples could be taken. On the event itself this was changed into four. The suggestion to select one folio that had other dating information was made by Greg Hodgins himself. These aren't very copious in the MS, and we could only think of two concrete ones: the signature of Tepenec, which puts a terminus ante quem and, more uncertain, the castle. The final approval had to come from the Beinecke curator, and she did not wish the large (double) foldout to be damaged. Thus, folio 8 was decided on the spot. There were two Yale conservators as well, both working in the laboratory of the Sterling library, where the MS was at the time, where the samples were taken, and where, in October of the same year, the relevant parts of the movie were recorded. One of them, Paula Zyats, had just conserved the MS, by fixing a few week spots and flattening some of the badly curled pages. She could report that the MS was basically homogeneous, and showed no signs of having very different origins. The only clear variations are in the handwriting. The other conservator, as I found out later, had just worked on the investigations of the "archaic Mark", which also involved Joe Barabe, and in which it could be confirmed that that MS is a fake.
I was not at all involved in the selection of the folios for the ink and paint samples. I don't know Dr. Alfred Vendl who is mentioned in the report, but it is clearly stated that he provided recommendations. Certainly, Joe Barabe made the final decisions with the aid of a microscope. As the Table in the report shows, he could take many different samples.
For the parchment samples, there were discussions beforehand, with the indication that three samples could be taken. On the event itself this was changed into four. The suggestion to select one folio that had other dating information was made by Greg Hodgins himself. These aren't very copious in the MS, and we could only think of two concrete ones: the signature of Tepenec, which puts a terminus ante quem and, more uncertain, the castle. The final approval had to come from the Beinecke curator, and she did not wish the large (double) foldout to be damaged. Thus, folio 8 was decided on the spot. There were two Yale conservators as well, both working in the laboratory of the Sterling library, where the MS was at the time, where the samples were taken, and where, in October of the same year, the relevant parts of the movie were recorded. One of them, Paula Zyats, had just conserved the MS, by fixing a few week spots and flattening some of the badly curled pages. She could report that the MS was basically homogeneous, and showed no signs of having very different origins. The only clear variations are in the handwriting. The other conservator, as I found out later, had just worked on the investigations of the "archaic Mark", which also involved Joe Barabe, and in which it could be confirmed that that MS is a fake.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)