I do not like to transliterate the glyphs because doing so the script loses many of its fundamental features. What we see is a glyph similar to the letter [c] that is repeated and combined to form other glyphs. Anyone can realize that the repetition of this symbol up to three times is a feature of the script: [c] [cc][ccc]. And not only that but two [cc] joined by a horizontal bar above form the benches. And another glyph that resembles the letter s also includes this feature.
All this means something. It tells us something about the author's intention when designing the script. All this is lost when transliterating the glyphs by letters of the alphabet. Information that can help solve the puzzle is lost.
I certainly have no doubt that the different forms of that glyph are nothing more than the Moon in motion.
This manuscript is interesting because you can see the symbols of the planets and the symbols of the zodiac on the same page.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
It can be seen how the symbol of the moon with the horns to the right was already standardized.
This codex is from the second half of the 15th century and therefore we see the zodiacal symbols. It is interesting to know that they did not exist before. At least I haven't seen them. In the years that the Voynich was made they did not exist and that is why we see the drawings and names of the zodiacal signs but not the symbols.
Zodiac symbols were most likely born with the printing press due to the need to reduce work.
(04-06-2024, 02:45 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This manuscript is interesting because you can see the symbols of the planets and the symbols of the zodiac on the same page.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
It can be seen how the symbol of the moon with the horns to the right was already standardized.
This codex is from the second half of the 15th century and therefore we see the zodiacal symbols. It is interesting to know that they did not exist before. At least I haven't seen them. In the years that the Voynich was made they did not exist and that is why we see the drawings and names of the zodiacal signs but not the symbols.
Zodiac symbols were most likely born with the printing press due to the need to reduce work.
All of the astrological symbols were known previously, but they settled into the existing system in the Renaissance. But why? Surely, there is a greater need for symbols, shorthand and abbreviations in handwritten manuscripts on vellum, which are more laborious and expensive to produce than printed texts on paper? Why does the printing press create the need for the symbols? No doubt, it helps standardize them, though. We might speculate that the Voynich is from the phase, prior to the printing press, when there was already a search for a convenient astrological notation. The stimulus is likely to be the increase in astrological information from old and new and exotic sources and from better instrumentation. It is notable that none of the symbols that became standard are prefigured in the Voynich.
[
attachment=8632]
The symbols certainly already existed. Perhaps not as we know them.
The example is from a dwelling cave. I age is estimated to be between 150 BC and 250 AC.
I am very interested in this, but also quite skeptical. Can you provide more details? What is that supposed to represent and what is the source?
Yes, I'll have a look and see if I can find it again.
There is a treatise on it. It was a long time ago, but.
The sun at the top. Pisces and Taurus are clear. The other is rather strange.
Let's see if I can find the report again.
There is also a scientific treatise on the cave. (not found). But it is also mentioned here.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
I am also very skeptical that there were symbols for the zodiac signs in such ancient times. And if it is true that there were them, it is very strange that they were not used during the medieval centuries. I have not seen them until the second half of the 15th century, after the invention of the press. Another thing is the planetary symbols, which do come from ancient times although modified.
(05-06-2024, 02:31 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.what is the source?
You have to look for Sermonti's book which would interpret the cave paintings of the Atlas presented by Frobenius and Obermaier. I didn't find anything free.
(05-06-2024, 01:28 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The symbols certainly already existed. Perhaps not as we know them.
The example is from a dwelling cave. I age is estimated to be between 150 BC and 250 AC.
That's an interesting arrangement. If Aries is at 1 and Pisces at 12 then there is a contrast between the first half of the cycle and the second. The first half, from 1 to 6 (Aries to Virgo) is marked by symbols with diagonal lines. The second half, from Libra to Pisces, is marked by horizontal (rectilinear) symbols. It's the difference between an X and a +. The exceptions are the two solstices, Cancer and Capricorn. It suggests that these symbols began with the binary division of the ecliptic such as the ascending and descending cycles.