30-08-2026, 02:16 AM
Lisa told us that there is no difference in parchment quality between sections. It's all equally bad. How realistic is it that the author(s) acquired bad parchment, and similarly bad parchment decades later? That looks like a bit of a stretch to me. Not impossible, but unlikely. At least I see no evidence for it.
About the bimodal distribution: The calibration curve is from 2005. I wonder if anything substantial would change when recalibrating the values with a more modern curve. I believe the most recent one is from 2020, maybe there's an even newer one.
If we accept Taccola as a source, this would place the lowest boundary for at least the Balneo and Cosmo sections to the 1420s. More realistically the 1430s. That's within the upper range of the younger 1385-1438 peak, but the older 1308-1362 peak implies that the parchment would have been at least 60 years old when used, even up to 125 years.
About the bimodal distribution: The calibration curve is from 2005. I wonder if anything substantial would change when recalibrating the values with a more modern curve. I believe the most recent one is from 2020, maybe there's an even newer one.
If we accept Taccola as a source, this would place the lowest boundary for at least the Balneo and Cosmo sections to the 1420s. More realistically the 1430s. That's within the upper range of the younger 1385-1438 peak, but the older 1308-1362 peak implies that the parchment would have been at least 60 years old when used, even up to 125 years.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)