(01-04-2019, 10:16 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (01-04-2019, 09:14 AM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.JP, I understand what you are saying. It makes a lot of sense. But it would be more convincing if you could kindly provide a few side-by-side illustrations, that is, show us a few VMS plants side-by-side with a tradition drawing of the same plant. This could potentially confirm that the VMS plants are of European origin, which is surely what you want to accomplish.
No, that's not what I want to accomplish. Why would I care where the VMS is from? My goals are very simple: I want to find out the truth and I want to read it.
I don't doubt that. I can see from your posts in this forum as well as from the material on your blog that you have dedicated a vast amount of time to the VMS. I'd call it an obsession (like for me trying to track down the source of certain prophecies) and I hope you reach your goals.
I have more questions: Do any of those medieval tradition herbals include, like the VMS, astrology and naked-women sections? Are you sure the VMS is even a herbal in the traditional sense?
It's a manuscript full of herbs. They comprise the majority of the folios. "Herbal" is easier to say than, "Manuscript with a lot of pictures of herbs".
Is it an herbal in the traditional sense? If most of the plants were included because they have medicinal value, yes, the sections with plants would be an herbal. If they are there for another reason, then it's still a book of herbs, but not the most common kind of medieval herbal.
If it were a book of plant husbandry, or culinary plants, it would still be an herbal. Technically trees are not herbs, but almost every medieval herb includes a few, so even traditional "herbals" are not quite herbals in the strictest sense.
(01-04-2019, 03:14 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's a manuscript full of herbs. They comprise the majority of the folios. "Herbal" is easier to say than, "Manuscript with a lot of pictures of herbs".
Is it an herbal in the traditional sense? If most of the plants were included because they have medicinal value, yes, the sections with plants would be an herbal. If they are there for another reason, then it's still a book of herbs, but not the most common kind of medieval herbal.
If it were a book of plant husbandry, or culinary plants, it would still be an herbal. Technically trees are not herbs, but almost every medieval herb includes a few, so even traditional "herbals" are not quite herbals in the strictest sense.
I put the following query into my browser: How many of the Voynich plants have been identified? And I got the following response:
Quote:There are 126 drawings of plants in the Voynich Manuscript, the majority of a high enough standard to allow recognition of the plant even though the text is not readable. So far we have been able to assign names to about 124, or ~98% of the drawings.
It was also indicated that many of those 124 plants were found, of course, in Italy, so I imagine you and Koen must now be overjoyed.
For my part, however, I am not ready to concede. My esoteric sources are adamant in pointing to the Americas and, although written as works of fiction, they have not yet been proven wrong on anything.
(02-04-2019, 02:41 AM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It was also indicated that many of those 124 plants were found, of course, in Italy, so I imagine you and Koen must now be overjoyed.
You have this crazy idea that I WANT the manuscript to be European even though I keep telling you I don't care where it's from. I don't! I was hoping it might be from Madagascar or the Canary Islands or Central or East Asia or something interesting like that but the data doesn't point in that direction.
For the record, there is a pocket in the U.S. that has almost the same climatic conditions as sections of Italy where these kinds of plants might be found. But it is not Meso-America.
Quote:For my part, however, I am not ready to concede. My esoteric sources are adamant in pointing to the Americas and, although written as works of fiction, they have not yet been proven wrong on anything.
Concede what? I'm not against your THEORY. I'm against sloppy research and unsupported assumptions. I don't CARE if it turns out to be from the Americas. I don't CARE if it turns out to be Cathars.
I DO CARE about good research. Your
research is full of holes and premature, unsupported assumptions.
Instead of seeking out the data and following it where it leads, you are imposing your theory on the data. A theory is like putting on a pair of red glasses, which tints everything so that it's hard to differentiate the actual colors. Everything looks reddish. But if you take off the glasses (remove the theory and just look at the data), you might see a broader range of colors.
For the record I don't think all the plants are herbs and temperate. I think there are some trees and common tropical plants. Banana, almond, maybe Dracaena... This would just shift it from Dioscorides-like to Tacuinum-like.
I also think it's possible that there are a few trees. Some look like they might be (a very small proportion, but still a few).
Many "herbals" included a few trees, usually nut trees (especially hazelnut, walnut, chestnut, and almond), sometimes acacia, cedar, juniper, beech, sumac, and larch, sometimes lemon, cherry, pear, medlar, quince, and apple. Sometimes cinnamon, a few north African trees, bdellum, jujube, and a couple with names I have trouble remembering. Just off the top of my head, those are the ones I see most often.
There were imports even in the early days, such as sugar cane (which is easier to transport than plants that spoil). Sugar-cane plants had been imported and grown by Roman times. But even though many "herbals" include plants like sugar cane and cinnamon, I still think the great majority of the VMS plants are temperate-zone plants.
.
Edit [addition]: I forgot one (a common one)! gall oak. Often included... for obvious reasons.
Oh bummer, once my mind goes into "seek" mode (rumbling around in my brain for certain kinds of information), it won't stop. Agnus-Castus is commonly included. Also pistacio, arbutus, styrax, ricinus, camphor, olive, laurel, myrtle, mulberry, acer, pine, bombax, tree spurge (many herbals include this one).
I'll stop now even though my mind will keep distracting me by dredging these up for the next 20 minutes. Suffice it to say, trees are quite common to herbals, but each tradition has its own favorites and they are usually the minority portion.
(02-04-2019, 02:52 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You have this crazy idea that I WANT the manuscript to be European even though I keep telling you I don't care where it's from. I don't! I was hoping it might be from Madagascar or the Canary Islands or Central or East Asia or something interesting like that but the data doesn't point in that direction.
For the record, there is a pocket in the U.S. that has almost the same climatic conditions as sections of Italy where these kinds of plants might be found. But it is not Meso-America.
For reasons unknown, you seem to have some type of hangup against the Americas. I think you should revisit the arguments for American plants. Some of those arguments can be found in the following paper (40 pages) from Purdue University:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
It begins with the following words:
Quote:This Chapter is based on three published works: (1) a paper by Hugh O Neall (1944) that identifies
two New World plants (sunflower and chili peppers) in the Voynich manuscript; (2) a paper of
Tucker and Talbert (2013) which identified 39 plants in the Voynich as indigenous to the New
World; (3) a paper by Tucker and Janick (2016) which extended the list to 59 species.
We already know what you and Koen think of the sunflower, but many of the other comparisons are much harder to dismiss.
(02-04-2019, 02:52 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Instead of seeking out the data and following it where it leads, you are imposing your theory on the data. A theory is like putting on a pair of red glasses, which tints everything so that it's hard to differentiate the actual colors. Everything looks reddish. But if you take off the glasses (remove the theory and just look at the data), you might see a broader range of colors.
I won't say what I think of your "tradition" theory, whereupon a depiction of any Old World plant, depending upon the artistic or herbal tradition employed, can come out looking like a VMS plant.
(02-04-2019, 06:54 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For the record I don't think all the plants are herbs and temperate. I think there are some trees and common tropical plants. Banana, almond, maybe Dracaena... This would just shift it from Dioscorides-like to Tacuinum-like.
I don't think native Americans viewed medicinal herbs and trees as two distinct things. Many of the herbal medicines used by them did in fact come from the bark, wood, roots or fruits of trees (pau d'arco is a well-known example). In drawings without measurement scales, it can be virtually impossible to distinguish a small shrub from a large tree.
(02-04-2019, 11:29 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (02-04-2019, 02:52 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You have this crazy idea that I WANT the manuscript to be European even though I keep telling you I don't care where it's from. I don't! I was hoping it might be from Madagascar or the Canary Islands or Central or East Asia or something interesting like that but the data doesn't point in that direction.
For the record, there is a pocket in the U.S. that has almost the same climatic conditions as sections of Italy where these kinds of plants might be found. But it is not Meso-America.
For reasons unknown, you seem to have some type of hangup against the Americas. I think you should revisit the arguments for American plants. Some of those arguments can be found in the following paper (40 pages) from Purdue University:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
..
NO I DON'T HAVE A HANGUP AGAINST THE AMERICAS. I included the Americas in every phase of my plant research. Also Africa, East Asia. I ALWAYS searched the entire globe.
And I've already read those papers. I've read most of what VMS researchers have written about plants. It's garbage research. Poor scholarship.
The Bonolobus chloranthus picture? That's an ATYPICAL picture of the plant. It usually doesn't look like that. They cherry-picked an atypical picture of the plant TO FIT THEIR THEORY. They did NOT include the European plant that looks more like the VMS plant than their example. BAD SCHOLARSHIP.
The Philodendron mexicanum? They picked it to fit their theory. There are a DOZEN European plants that ALSO look like this drawing and they didn't include them. BAD SCHOLARSHIP.
BAD RESEARCH.
When I told you that there is a pocket in the U.S. where the climatic conditions are similar to a region in Italy, I was not putting down the Americas. I was INFORMING you that there are places on the planet where some of the same plants are found or CLOSE LOOK-ALIKES are found.
I have written blogs about the Janick/Talbert/Tucker research. Maybe you should read them before you trust their "evidence" and their conclusions:
Janick/Tucker misinterpretation of medieval characters: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Janick/Tucker questionable interpretation of animal drawings: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Talbert/Tucker questionable identification of plants (tunnel-vision): You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Janick/Tucker HIGHLY questionable identification of fish: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
They're not doing honest research. They are choosing examples that fit their theory and ignoring the ones that contradict their theory.
BAD SCHOLARSHIP.