31-05-2022, 12:16 PM
(30-05-2022, 09:55 PM)kckluge wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Lisa, assuming that you are privy to details of the McCrone analysis beyond the summary made public, are you able to comment on:
* Barbara Bennett's claim in _Fortean Times_ that "...McCrone Associates tested the ink and determined...that it had been applied to 'fresh' vellum: i.e. before a patina had built up, meaning within months of the vellum being made if not mere weeks afterwards..." (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
* Rich's reading of the public report as implying that the the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. marginalia sampled was contemporary with the main text and drawing ("...Barabe also concluded that certain quire and page numbers were different than the main text inks, telling us that if the f166v (sic) ink were different, we would have been so informed. In effect, the conclusion tells us that the marginalia was applied 'contemporaneously' with the main text ink!....the ink of the main text and the 'pox leber' marginalia are the same, according to the well-respected scholarship of McCrone." -- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
Hopefully NDAs regarding further details don't prevent clarification on these points.
I don't have access to anything that isn't already public - I'm not affiliated with Yale at the moment, so I wouldn't have access to anything confidential. But I'm not sure what your point is in citing these observations. There's nothing unusual about parchment being used soon after its creation...what do you think that observation implies? And as for 116v, there are other inscriptions in the manuscript that appear to be roughly contemporaneous with the C14 dating: not only 116v, but the months on the zodiac pages and the inscription on f. 17r. None of this seems suspicious to me.