OK, so it’s not the full radiocarbon paper we’re all (still) waiting for. But here’s a new webpage with a little bit more Voynich-related information from Greg Hodgins at the University of Arizona. Hodgins notes that dating the inks would be nice too (but sadly that’s not really possible): and because he scalpeled vellum slivers from the folio edges, there was the strong possibility that “a lot of finger oils adsorbed over time” into those slivers, which could easily throw the dating process off if they weren’t cleaned thoroughly.

Yes, the manuscript itself might once again have somehow managed to give even the most assiduous of researchers the finger. Now wouldn’t that be a surprise?

6 thoughts on “U of Arizona Voynich dating update…

  1. James Comegys on February 10, 2011 at 5:07 pm said:

    The Nahuatl Hypothesis would look a bit more solid if I could show a correlation between the most common words in Voynichese and in a suitable Nahuatl dictionary. The work of locating the correct Nahuatl word is labor intensive, grueling sometimes due to vagaries of Voynichese spellings (dropped final vowels, lost post vocalic nasals, multiple symbols for some sounds, etc.) It would be really decent if someone would post a list of the 25 or 50 most common words or perhaps a list of “labels”. I am will to post some suggested readings for thosem and will cheerfully give credit to the scholar in question.

  2. Early 1400’s could fit with your theory about the parallel hatching …

    … but as someone who draws I wanted to say that the examples you posted in your ref paper about hatching don’t look to me like instances of hatching, being in the wrong direction relative to the shapes/objects being drawn.

    Hatching is usually and deliberately done at an angle to the plane or surface of the object/form, so that the hatching lines distinguish themselves visually as “tone” rather than form.

    In the examples that you posted at any rate the lines that you suggest might be “parallel hatching” look more to me like indicators of form/shape/structure, striations, ribbing, sections, etc rather than tonal.

    Fascinating site! 😀 Am waiting with bated breath for the elucidation of this mystery. I particularly like your suggestion that the winning method may involve fuzzy thinking! 🙂

    .

  3. PS. When hatching in a drawing *does* follow the plane or surface of an object ( which I think was a somewhat later development or refinement on the technique anyway ) it “must”/should still harmonise with the hatching over all, and here too the lines you refer to in the examples your posted don’t fit; they “fight” each other. … They just look all wrong as shadow/tonal hatching! 🙁 🙂 …

  4. Alain: I suspect you’re imposing a modern aesthetic onto an historic set of drawings. Hatching was done to achieve a mid-tone, and there were no rules back then – it had only just been invented. 🙂

  5. Fascinating site! By the way, an Italian herbal manuscript dating from the late 15th/early 16th century has been digitized online here. No hatching to be seen, but the overall “look” does seem to be similar to the Voynich botanical sections at a coarse glance.

  6. Diane on June 25, 2013 at 11:05 am said:

    Nick,
    Everyone seems to quote the same information:

    “…conservators had previously identified pages that had not been rebound or repaired … .Hodgins …cut four samples from four pages..”

    but nobody seems to know which four they were.

    Do you, or any of your readers, gave the detail?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Post navigation