Voynich StudiesBeinecke MS 408
RU EN IT

Hypotheses and how we tested them

What others have claimed about the Voynich manuscript - and what survived an honest test. Each article: the claim, the method, the outcome.

Language claims

"The Voynich manuscript is Aztec." What is left of the Tucker and Talbert hypothesisf2r"The Voynich manuscript is Aztec." What is left of the Tucker and Talbert hypothesisArthur Tucker's hypothesis says the Voynich manuscript was written in colonial Mexico in Nahuatl. We check its three supports - the pigments (the McCrone 2009 report), the radiocarbon date 1404-1438, and the statistics of the language. Result: the version falls, but not because of the language.REJECTEDCheshire's proto-Romance version: a decipherment that cannot be testedf86vCheshire's proto-Romance version: a decipherment that cannot be testedGerard Cheshire's version of a proto-Romance language in the Voynich manuscript. Why scholars rejected it, what is wrong with the method, and why free substitutions yield no testable predictions.REJECTEDThe East Asian version - and our own mistake, which we had to retractf58rThe East Asian version - and our own mistake, which we had to retractThe hypotheses of Jacques Guy and Zbigniew Banasik say the Voynich manuscript is in a monosyllabic Eastern language or in proto-Manchu. How we tested them, why we had to retract our earlier conclusion, and what still stands against the Eastern version.RETRACTEDThe Etruscan version: why it is closed by the calendar rather than by statisticsf116vThe Etruscan version: why it is closed by the calendar rather than by statisticsCould the Voynich manuscript be written in Etruscan? We go through the dating, the size of the surviving Etruscan corpus, and where the story about a link with the island of Lampedusa came from.REJECTEDHebrew by anagram: why the algorithm named a language and the reading still did not workf77rHebrew by anagram: why the algorithm named a language and the reading still did not workThe 2016 paper by Hauer and Kondrak on Hebrew and anagrams in the Voynich manuscript. Why language identification by letter frequencies is unreliable under a cipher, and why an anagram reading cannot be tested.REJECTEDThe Slavic bukvitsa and Sanskrit: why "one letter, one word" does not workf76rThe Slavic bukvitsa and Sanskrit: why "one letter, one word" does not workThe hypotheses of the Slavic bukvitsa (49 signs, one letter equals one word) and of a Sanskrit abugida in the Voynich manuscript. We count the number of glyphs, word length, entropy and syllable structure - both versions are rejected structurally.REJECTED

Hoax and gibberish

The botanical route

Calendar and zodiac