Re: Ink and paper analysis?

["Gabriel Landini" <G.Landini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 22 Mar 2001, at 11:56, John Bush wrote:
> Yes, I recall reading this in disbelief on someone's VMS page. Has
> anyone followed up on this with an expert, or is it just someone's
> opinion? 

That was an expert's opinion from somebody who does the 
radiocarbon dating at Cambridge, and sought by Mike Roe (the 
expert's name was in his website, now no longer available). Mike's 
posting to the list is reproduced in my page.

On 22 Mar 2001, at 23:04, John Bush wrote:

> At 12:17 PM 3/22/01 -0800, Adams Douglas wrote:
> >......... If the VMs is from 1600-1950, then C-14 dating is difficult
> >due to the radiocarbon production plateau during that era. If it's
> >from earlier in that millineum, then C-14 dating is possible for the
> >vellum.

> Seems to me that's a good argument for running the tests.

It would be interesting to know, but I am not sure what would be 
proved. We have Rene's independent evidence (Baresch/Marci 
letters) that the ms. was around in the 1630's. So later forgeries & 
Barlow's Voynich conspiracy are out.

One interesting finding would be if the vellum turned out to be from 
the 1200's so the Bacon connection should be given a bit more of 
attention, but I cannot see a great clue being revealed from such 
analysis that already could not be investigated (i.e. if Bacon was 
the author, then looking at the writing in his mss. may reveal 
something).

Still a 1500's forgery made with "old" vellum (by 1500's standards) 
by Kelly or somebody else cannot be ruled out, so more than the 
vellum, the ink should be the target.
I do not know whether that is possible to do reliably, remember that 
there were some issues raised about contamination as shown in 
the dating of the ink of the Vinland map.

Cheers,

Gabriel