University of Bristol Backtracks Furiously on Voynich Manuscript Deciphering Claims

5/18/2019

I received the copyedited chapter files for my mound builder book, which means that I now have to review and approve the changes. Because this takes a lot of time, I’m taking this weekend off to work on the review process. Therefore, I’ll leave you with a brief notice that the claim made this week that a researcher using “ingenuity” and “lateral thinking” had deciphered the mysterious Voynich Manuscript in less than two weeks has already descended into recriminations and claims that academics just don’t understand radical new ideas—you know, the standard. It is another case where a sexy claim got overblown through over-ambitious PR and sensational media coverage, aided by a claimant who seems to lack humility about the limits of his own claim.

Gerard Cheshire claimed in a peer-reviewed article in Romance Studies to have proven that the Voynich Manuscript’s indecipherable writing was actually the only example anywhere on Earth of “proto-Romance,” an assumed intermediate stage between Vulgar Latin and modern Romance languages. The University of Bristol issued a triumphant press release celebrating the alleged discovery, but shortly after they deleted their own coverage and now claim to have no relationship with Cheshire after medieval experts through cold water on his claims. “Following media coverage, concerns have been raised about the validity of this research from academics in the fields of linguistics and medieval studies. … The research was entirely the author’s own work and is not affiliated with the University of Bristol, the school of arts nor the Centre for Medieval Studies,” the school now says.

As Lisa Fagin David, executive director of the Medieval Academy of America, tweeted, “proto-Romance” is “not a thing.” “Proto-Romance” is a term sometimes used to describe late Vulgar Latin, and it is sometimes used for a reconstructed hypothetical stage between Vulgar Latin and the separation of Vulgar Latin into the Romance tongues. Either way, the “Proto-Romance” is not known from real life examples but is a reconstruction, much like Proto-Indo-European.

Cheshire told the Guardian that he is sure that future scholars will vindicate him. He dismissed his critics as a recalcitrant minority entrenched in dogma:

“It was inevitable and expected, given the passion that the manuscript arouses, that a marginal group would find it difficult to accept new evidence,” he said.

“The paper has been blind peer-reviewed and published in a highly reputable journal, which is the gold standard in scientific corroboration. Thus, all protocol was followed to the letter and the work is officially supported. Given time, many scholars will have used the solution for their own research of the manuscript and published their own papers, so the small tide of resistance will wane.”

39 Comments

Peer reviewed

5/18/2019 09:31:19 am

Peer reviewed - Meaningless because academics believe in wishful thinking just as much as the Fringe. Academics hold dogmatic views just as much as the fringe. Historical vacuums should be avoided.

An Anonymous Nerd

5/18/2019 09:46:44 am

Misused? Surely, on occasion. I've seen it happen. Meaningless? No. And to equate real academia with the Fringe is just bizarre. Real academia, even at its worst, starts from a better place in terms of expertise, reason, and connection to actual facts.

One of the consistent characteristics of the Fringe is to start with the conspiratorial, the supernatural, or the extraordinary, then see it everyplace. They ignore the contextual, the natural and archaeological, and the ordinary. Where they start from is all wrong and where they end up is either worse or is, more or less, exactly where they start from.

For the most part when academics are close to the Fringe they're either talking outside of their area or exaggerating their findings. I've seen both of those too. So a little skepticism of academia is good but to equate them with the Fringe? No.

-An Anonymous Nerd

5/18/2019 09:54:57 am

>>[fringe] ignore the contextual, the natural and archaeological, and the ordinary.<<

Academia are equally culpable.

Doc Rock

5/18/2019 11:40:23 am

Two types of wishful thinking:

"Hey I think I translated this and it is the instructions for an herbal remedy for gout in proto-romance language."

"Hey I think I translated this and it is written in the language of the Nephilim and gives directions to a pyramid buried under the ice at the North Pole."

Guess who occasionally engages in one and who operates non-stop in the other.

The guy published a controversial article. There will now likely be a published debate about his findings. That's how it's done. Anyone who believes that the peer review process is is supposed to be perfect or that scholars hold it up as such should feel free to contact me to discuss some great investment opportunities with your money.

Hey

5/18/2019 12:30:55 pm

academics are as equally culpable as fringe

5/18/2019 12:41:53 pm

All are equally culpable but some are more equally culpable than others. (With apologies to Orwell).

Nice day to sit on the deck and sip mimosas instead of reading an endless series of rather clumsy efforts at equating academics with the likes of foerster, Hancock, wolter, etc.

But have fun with it.

5/18/2019 06:07:16 pm

Doc Rock's summary of the difference between real academia and the Fringe is really good, and appropriate. Continuing to assert equivalence between them does not make it so. But it does fit how the Fringe usually does business.

Sadly it's a very effective business model. Doesn't actually create or confirm any real knowledge, though.

-An Anonymous Nerd

Drat

5/19/2019 01:34:08 am

Drat
Must remind you all about how Biblical scholars, not Biblical theologians, argue for the historical existence of Jesus Christ, when it has been pointed out for centuries that his "life" is constructed on Old Testament models. The very same Biblical scholars dispute the historical existence of Moses and David.

Of course

5/19/2019 01:39:03 am

Countries like America and France that have embraced secularism do not place emphasis on religion (Christianity is officially called a Cult in France).

But even in those countries Biblical historians, not Biblical theologians, argue for the historical Christ and use the fragments of "Annals" of Tacitus (unknown before the 15th century).

5/19/2019 10:48:09 am

RE: Existence of Jesus. My understanding is that this is the subject of scholarly debate, with well-researched books on both sides, but that the consensus is that such a person existed. It really has nothing to do with the context you're attempting to put it in, anyway.

RE: Christianity as a cult in France. I see no evidence of this, so if you have a link or a reference I'd appreciate it. Religious freedom in Europe is an interesting area, far more interesting than the soundbyte you're spouting. Once again though it has nothing to do with the context you're attempting to put it in.

-An Anonymous Nerd

Not the Comte de Saint Germain

5/19/2019 12:58:40 pm

This guy is just a persistent troll. He's one of those people who think they're smart because they reject Christian dogma but prove profoundly stupid in just about every other opinion they have. Jesus mythicism, Freemasonry as a major force in world history — all his hobbyhorses are moronic.

See no evidence Jesus is a cult in France

5/19/2019 01:58:25 pm

It all began with the French Revolution when the Republic attempted to eliminate Christianity (but guess what, that failed).

Yes, Christianity is designated as a cult by The French Republic. Lots of evidence.

Comte is lacking

5/19/2019 02:01:57 pm

Freemasonry introduced democracy, freedom of belief and rights of man in France and America and got rid of belief being monopolised by the Church and the Bible. Elementary knowledge. Nothing controversial at all about that.

France & Religion

5/19/2019 02:05:37 pm

According to Pew Research Center in 2017, France has a high level of government restrictions on religion. Among the world's 25 most populous nations, France is among the 12 countries with a high level of religious restrictions, according to 2015 data. In Europe, France has the second highest level of religious restrictions, behind only Russia.

5/19/2019 10:24:19 pm

[Christianity is designated as a cult by The French Republic. Lots of evidence.]

By "The French Republic" do you mean present day France? If so, again, link or reference please. Actually, link or reference please no matter what you're referring to. It's no secret that France and the United States don't agree on matters of religion, church, state, etc. However if Christianity were designated as a cult by France I'd expect to hear a lot more about it from Christian sects based in the United States. It's the kind of thing they'd love to talk about. (Again and again.)

[According to Pew Research Center in 2017, France has a high level of government restrictions on religion. Among the world's 25 most populous nations, France is among the 12 countries with a high level of religious restrictions, according to 2015 data. In Europe, France has the second highest level of religious restrictions, behind only Russia. ]

Do you mean this study?

https://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/21/global-uptick-in-government-restrictions-on-religion-in-2016/

Or perhaps you're referring to an earlier version of that study...Either way France ranks pretty high but not as high as you're implying. On the "government restrictions" list they're in the "high" category, not the "very high" category. The USA is in "Moderate," over Kosovo, Italy, and Spain among others. The United Kingdom is in the "Low" category. The ranks in "social hostility" are actually different. Oh, and France's far Right party seems to take the blame in the report for their ranking.

At any rate.....What on Earth is all this about anyway?

Oh, right, increasingly it's clear that folks are tossing out things in order to compensate for their making unsupportable statements.

-An Anonymous Nerd

To An Anonymous Nerd

5/20/2019 01:14:52 am

Check out The French Revolution
Check out The Concordat
Check out Separation from Church and State in France 1905.
Check out MIVILUDES

And so on.

It's obvious that French History, The French Republic and anti-clericalism in France is a GREAT MYSTERY to An Anonymous Nerd. Perhaps that person needs to take out a course on the subject matter at his local college.

Laïcité

5/20/2019 01:30:00 am

Laïcité
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9

5/21/2019 07:54:19 pm

[It's obvious that French History, The French Republic and anti-clericalism in France is a GREAT MYSTERY to An Anonymous Nerd.]

This exchange is a good example of how the Fringe works.

First a specific claim is made -- in France (the implication is contemporary France), Christianity is considered a cult. This is an interesting claim to me and I cannot find any reference. This kind of thing one would expect a reference for as it's a pretty big claim. (This should not be an obscure fact if France has classified one of the two largest religions in the world, one with many variants and sects one of which was the religion of France for a long time going way back in history, as a "cult." Definitely an interesting claim I'd like to read more about.

So I ask for a reference.

Next the language shifts in an ambiguous way. "French Republic." Again no reference. So I ask for clarification. Does this mean current France?

Then it turns out that, to the extent that this was based on anything, it's a broad commentary on anti-clericalism in French history. Not how it was stated at the outset which was a very, very specific claim that should have been easy to verify. And I'm told I'll need to develop a detailed understanding of the history of France, a pretty topic, to be able to understand this claim.

It all spills.

The contrast with folks who debunk Fringe views of the pyramids, wherein a multitude of sources are cited and specific claims reviewed, is stark

-An Anonymous Nerd

Another Nick

6/12/2019 02:58:07 pm

"First a specific claim is made -- in France (the implication is contemporary France), Christianity is considered a cult. This is an interesting claim to me and I cannot find any reference."

This has translation issue written all over it. The loose French term for an organized religion is "culte." Everything is a "culte," Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, whatever. It gets translated over as "cult." Cult of the Supreme Being/Culte de l'Être suprême is a good example. So, it would make sense that France views Christianity as a "cult," but the word *doesn't mean the same thing* as it does to us.

"Secte" (sect) is the term for what an (American) English speaker would call a cult. That's where you see Raelians turn up.

5/27/2019 01:55:15 am

"Peer reviewed" simply means that the paper was gone over to see if it conforms with accepted scientific standards. It says NOTHING about the actual content of any given paper. If you start with garbage, it stays garbage no matter how perfectly you cook it. Saying it's meaningless is like saying a jury trial is meaningless because someone who was guilty escaped punishment. The process is still relevant and pertinent; the prosecutor didn't put in enough evidence to get the desired outcome. Anyone who claims anything else proves their ignorance, that's all.

Crash55

5/27/2019 08:37:54 am

V - sorry but you are wrong. Peer review does take into account content. It does not mean that the reviewers agree with the author but they must at least agree that it is a worthy contribution to the field. So if it is garbage than the reviewers are supposed to realize it and toss it as such.

5/18/2019 09:40:32 am

"Meh" on all sides. I took a look at the article. It bears obvious signs of being, shall we say, exaggerated. And the press release about it even moreso. The research would've been a nice place to start but instead he rushed to publication when, to meet the academic standard, he should've kept digging. He treated a good start as a conclusion.

Having said that, one of the article's critics complained that this notion wasn't really peer-reviewed, but I have every impression that "Romance Studies" is indeed a peer-reviewed journal. Maybe she meant that the "peers" weren't in the right field for what was being claimed? But, without speculating about what she meant, in isolation her remarks come awfully close to suggesting that "peer-reviewed means 'agreed with me.'" A classic academic sin that leaves a lot of room for the Fringe to come in and do what they do.

But yes, overall, this fellow needed to do a lot more and I'm surprised a legitimate academic, in any field, would rush forward like that with so comparatively little.

-An Anonymous Nerd

Voynich article link

5/18/2019 10:03:24 am

Here's the link to the said article
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02639904.2019.1599566?needAccess=true

Machala

5/18/2019 10:13:46 am

" ... I'm surprised a legitimate academic, in any field, would rush forward like that with so comparatively little."<P>
Publish or Perish ?

Dogmatic Politics

5/18/2019 10:26:24 am

There's nothing more dogmatic than politics and nothing more pathetic or docile than supporters of politics
Even EvD is not that bad.

A Buddhist

5/18/2019 02:11:48 pm

medieval experts through cold water
should be
medieval experts threw cold water

El Duderino

5/18/2019 07:18:54 pm

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Kent

5/18/2019 06:07:10 pm

As much as I think peer review is a good thing, google "sociology fake peer review" (without the quotation marks) for some hilarious fails in the process.

My personal take is that the Voynich manuscript is a folly and intrinsically untranslatable.

RiverM

5/18/2019 10:37:39 pm

Google? Ewww.

Research Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay of Portland State University.

T. Franke link

5/19/2019 09:47:40 am

I would not dare to make a judgement on the matter. Maybe he is right? Maybe he is wrong?

I cannot see where the author of the hypothesis makes exaggerated claims and statements. Does the claim "that academics just don’t understand radical new ideas" come from the author? I only see the author's claim that a minority of academics has problems, but this is not the same.

And I find strange the idea of Lisa Fagin David, that Proto-Romance is only (!) a theoretical construction; well, it is a theory, but a theory about a real thing. As well as Proto-Indo-European.

5/27/2019 02:06:23 am

Actually, T. Franke, part of the problem is that we DON'T KNOW if there was actually a "Proto-Indo-European" language ever actually spoken by anyone. It's sort of like how "genetic Eve" and "genetic Adam" are both WAY younger than the species H. sap. Proto-Indo-European traces all the words in the language group to a root word, but we have no evidence that those root words were ever all part of one single, unified language. It is possible that these roots have come about from several different languages that have intermingled over time to form the family group. The same is true of Proto-Romance--there's no actual evidence that a single dialect/language existed with all the features that are "reconstructed" under that label; it's possible for it to have happened in bits and pieces across all of the former Roman Empire without ever having been part of a single, unified whole. They are useful constructs, but that's not the same as saying "they're a real thing." Especially when you're talking about something being WRITTEN in that supposed "real thing" at a specific time and place.

It's possible it did happen that way, and it's possible that these documents prove it...but it DOES come under the category "extraordinary claims," and thus requires extraordinary proof. Until that's provided, skepticism is highly warranted.

Riley V

5/19/2019 02:01:15 pm

Thanks Mr. Colavito.

This topic is fascinating. I understand Bristol University backing off their support of this research. I always think of them as a STEM oriented world leader, not a Liberal Arts bastion. I could be wrong.

I don’t see anything wrong in the process of these events. Some cat looks at a very difficult problem. He reports that he has solved the problem through use of a not well accepted process, or a process based on ideas that are not accepted by mainstream.
OK. So?

A reputable academic journal has used the mainstream method of evaluating the research. On that basis, they have published the research. Three (or more) journal editors evaluated the review of literature, the research methods, and the findings based on the literature and methods.
They don’t have to agree with the findings. Just that the previous research and methods were sound. This is what we do and how we do it. I find the trolls that continuously reject the scientific method tedious.

One thing I love about your blog is the dedicated troll with his multiple sock puppets who invade the space. It keeps me on my toes, and keeps my game sharp. Much more fun (for me anyway) than debating politics or Game of Thrones.

I think there is something between vulgar and romance. It happened a lot in the 1970s, fueled by Rock and Drugs. Just an idea. Not even a hypothesis.

5/19/2019 07:35:11 pm

Peer review just means that two reviewers and the editor thought it was worthy of publication. It is not a very high standard but it usually weeds out the real garbage.

If the scientific process is working properly now we will see either multiple papers supporting him or multiple papers debunking him. Given the other press I am guessing the latter.

This is exactly what is supposed to happen. Even incorrect papers have value in that they can be referenced as to what the incorrect assumptions have been and are supposed to keep other researchers from going down the same incorrect path

Holly Golightly

5/20/2019 04:36:03 pm

I am not certain I have the correct website. Is this the Society for the preservation of Antelope farts?

5/20/2019 06:32:23 pm

Antelope fart systematics is restricted to the third Tuesday of every month. The discussions burn up so much of Mr. Colavito’s space that the frequency must be limited.

Most days we spend out time insulting each other personally, ethnically, questioning each other’s parentage, and dismissing all academic institutions we have not been affiliated with.

Oh for the good old days when the subtle odors and hang time of antelope farts could be debated for days. Technology is both our servant and master. Welcome

Accumulated Wisdom

5/20/2019 06:25:22 pm

England getting an Alien themed Branson, Missouri...Should make a good Griswold Vacation movie.

Russ- Dad. Do they have inbred Hillbillies here too?

Clark- No Russ. They are called "Royalty" here.

Cousin Eddie- If, I hear banjos playing... I'm outta here!

5/20/2019 06:27:24 pm

DAMN!!! Posted to wrong article.

nomuse

5/21/2019 05:28:55 pm

I'll be sad if the Voynich is finally translated, deciphered, or explained. It is so much more fun as a puzzle.

On the other hand, I want to see the Phaistos Script placed in the proper context. So I'm inconsistent.

5/27/2019 08:50:41 pm

Three of the "Phaistos Script" symbols are constellations. The circle with 7 "dots" is the Pleiades.(See: Nebra Sky Disk) This is what the Constellation once looked like before, the stars drifted. This drift has been called, "discord in the House of the Goddess". 6 "Pillars" around a central "Pillar".

Personally, I lean toward the calendar explanation.