24-05-2024, 08:22 PM
I think that when merrimacga writes
then what is meant is that the RC dating tells one about the date when the vellum was produced (more precisely, when the calf was slaughtered), not about the date when something was written on that vellum.
I believe that typically with most theories assuming "later dating", they do not dispute the RC dating itself, but rather they base their assumptions on the buoy of postponed writing. I do not follow "later dating" theories closely, so I may be mistaken, but I think that's how the things stand.
What exactly is this "later dating"? I think that mostly it falls into one of two broad categories. The first one are variations of "American"
stuff (American plants etc) which dictates shifting dates beyond 1492. The second one is modern forgery.
As Rene notes, there are non-RC dating approaches which make "later dating" unlikely.
Now, what is often overlooked, there are also "not-that-later dating" (or, equally possible, "not-that-earlier dating") approaches which, in my opinion, are inherently much more substantial than the post-1492 theories. They attract little attention because they do not lead to sensational conclusions. The foundation for those is the idea that originally the VMS did not exist as a single codex. Rather, it emerged as a set of quires which well may have been prepared in the course of a significant number of years - let's say, two or maybe even three decades in the lifetime of the creator (or maybe of a couple of creators in succession). If we treat and date several quires as a single object then we inherently lay foundation for error, although there's nothing wrong with the method (RC) neither with the sampling. The fault is only in that different samples belong to different objects, not to a single object under test. The widely cited interval of 1404 to 1435 with 95% probability is obtained by combining samples of 4 folios. But if we consider You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., then three folios (8, 26 and 47) exhibit similar results, while folio 68 differs and tends to somewhat earlier dating.
Imagine if the researchers were not allowed to sample f8, f26 and f47 and were limited to f68 only. Would then the dating be the same as it is accepted today? No, it would not. 8, 26 and 47 are all Herbal and span Quires 1-6. In contrast to that, f68 is Voynich stars and belongs to Q9. Who knows if samples from yet another quire would not alter the "combined" dating? The point is that the "combined" dating is a methodological flaw in the situation when it is not certain whether all quires were produced all at once. Chances are they simply were not.
Quote:this really only gives a starting point for the dating and not an end point
then what is meant is that the RC dating tells one about the date when the vellum was produced (more precisely, when the calf was slaughtered), not about the date when something was written on that vellum.
I believe that typically with most theories assuming "later dating", they do not dispute the RC dating itself, but rather they base their assumptions on the buoy of postponed writing. I do not follow "later dating" theories closely, so I may be mistaken, but I think that's how the things stand.
What exactly is this "later dating"? I think that mostly it falls into one of two broad categories. The first one are variations of "American"
stuff (American plants etc) which dictates shifting dates beyond 1492. The second one is modern forgery.
As Rene notes, there are non-RC dating approaches which make "later dating" unlikely.
Now, what is often overlooked, there are also "not-that-later dating" (or, equally possible, "not-that-earlier dating") approaches which, in my opinion, are inherently much more substantial than the post-1492 theories. They attract little attention because they do not lead to sensational conclusions. The foundation for those is the idea that originally the VMS did not exist as a single codex. Rather, it emerged as a set of quires which well may have been prepared in the course of a significant number of years - let's say, two or maybe even three decades in the lifetime of the creator (or maybe of a couple of creators in succession). If we treat and date several quires as a single object then we inherently lay foundation for error, although there's nothing wrong with the method (RC) neither with the sampling. The fault is only in that different samples belong to different objects, not to a single object under test. The widely cited interval of 1404 to 1435 with 95% probability is obtained by combining samples of 4 folios. But if we consider You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., then three folios (8, 26 and 47) exhibit similar results, while folio 68 differs and tends to somewhat earlier dating.
Imagine if the researchers were not allowed to sample f8, f26 and f47 and were limited to f68 only. Would then the dating be the same as it is accepted today? No, it would not. 8, 26 and 47 are all Herbal and span Quires 1-6. In contrast to that, f68 is Voynich stars and belongs to Q9. Who knows if samples from yet another quire would not alter the "combined" dating? The point is that the "combined" dating is a methodological flaw in the situation when it is not certain whether all quires were produced all at once. Chances are they simply were not.