re that bath picture. If you swan through the Google pictures, you’ll probably find heaps from the same period under the name “Melusine”, too – though there she’s usually half snake/fish.

For all we know the Trotula may well be related, more or less, to some of the Voynich manuscript’s content. So might Roger Bacon be.

After all we only have a terminus ad quem, not a terminus ante quo so. So now we have a date for the manufacture of the Voynich as a material object, but still no date for the matter transcribed, and still no clue about whether or not the script is a real one or a cypher.

Thank you for your comment, much appreciated! I’ve moved it to a whole new post of its own together with my initial reply – hopefully this will be a better place to debate the limits of radiocarbon dating, which I’m sure is bound to become a hot topic over the next few months.

Cheers, ….Nick Pelling….

0.9588 +/- 0.014
0.9507 +/- 0.0035
0.9353 +/-0.006
0.9412 +/- 0.006
0.9310 +/- 0.008

F (weighted average) = 0.9434 ± 0.0033. or a 2SD range of 0.9368 – 0.9500

Radiocarbon age = 467 ± 27 BP.

You will note that 4 of the 5 F values that were used to compute the mean, from which the final age of the parchment was calculated, lie outside this 2SD range!

The U of A states: The error is a standard deviation deduced from the scatter of the five individual measurements from their mean value.

According to an article in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
Radiocarbon dating laboratories generally report an uncertainty for each date. Traditionally this included only the statistical counting uncertainty. However, some laboratories supplied an “error multiplier” that could be multiplied by the uncertainty to account for other sources of error in the measuring process.

The U of A quotes this Wikipedia article on their web site.

It appears that the U of Arizona used only the statistical counting error to computing the SD for the Vinland Map. They may have treated their measurements on the Voynich Manuscript the same way. As their SD represents only their counting error and not the overall error associated with the totality of the data, a realistic SD could be substantially larger.

A SD for the Vinland map that is a reasonable fit to all their data is:

F (weighted average) = 0.9434 +/- 0.011 ( the SD computed from the 5 F values).

Or a radiocarbon age = 467 +/- 90 BP instead of 467 ± 27 BP.

I appreciate that the U of A adjust their errors in processing the samples from their 13C/12C measurements, but this approach does not appear to be adequate. It would be nice if they had supplied their results with an “error multiplier”. They are performing a complex series of operations on minute samples that may be easily contaminated.

I suggest that this modified interpretation of the U of A’s results for the Vinland Map be confirmed because a similar analysis for the Voynich Manuscript might yield a SD significantly larger than they quote. I would also suggest that your bloggers read the results obtained for 14C dating by the U of A for samples of parchment of known age from Florence. These results are given at the very end of their article, after the references. You and your bloggers should have something concrete to discuss.

Nope, you haven’t missed anything – we’re still waiting for these. Perhaps they’ll magically appear at the same time that the Smithsonian Channel broadcasts the (English version of the) Austrian documentary.

Cheers, ….Nick Pelling….

The film says (I think it was me ) that this detail now takes on a new
significance. It does not claim, of course, that it is a new discovery. To
be honest, I don’t know who was the first to point it out
(perhaps Voynich himself?), but I know that many people have found this
independently.

Rene

Jan

The biggest problem is contamination with modern material, which
has a tendency to make the samples appear younger than they are.