The Voynich Ninja

This is a modern recreation, but notice how the inside of a church dome has been mimicked on the outside of a tent, including the tracery on the lower part toward the edges where the dome usually meets the side pillars:



See this link for full size:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.




Or, as I mentioned and illustrated in post #11, the "tracery" on the VMS drawing might be the tent tie-downs which have many different patterns. Here is one with five cords coming together in a knot:




However, it seems to me that the curves on the edges of the VMS "dome" are drawn more like architectural tracery than cording patterns (which may nor may not be an indication of what they actually are).

I'm not sure the similarity is sufficient, the VMS structure is very lumpy, which is more similar to the way they drew dirt mounds, mudholes, and mountains, but for the record, here are the smaller Mongol nomadic soldier tents (they weren't always small, sometimes they were huge).

The way the fabric was patterned, the VMS drawing looks more like these Mongol tents than it does the North American teepees that Morten suggested:

[attachment=3510]

Pavilion tents with painted architectural arches (BNF Français 12599, c. 1404):

[attachment=3515]

Coming back to Ellie's page, I see the point about orientation of the lower left (or South-East) circle as the most important point, and just about the only thing we can be reasonably certain about.
Given that (as so often) the text and the drawing are closely integrated, I do not doubt which orientation would have been 'up' for the person or persons creating this circle.

The second important point, which applies to almost all of the MS, is to realise that it could represent many different things: a sky view of something (e.g. a cloister or a garden), a building (church or tabernacle), a tent, but also a church tabernacle (basically a miniature building usually made of, or coated with, gold).

In all cases, such possible representations are based on what it seems to look like. That is inevitable as long as we can't read the text.

It becomes a problem as soon as one wants to decide which of these items it is. What is the criterium to use in order to prefer one or the other?

In most discussions here, this tends to be either: "it looks more like A than like B". This is very subjective and very personal, and cannot be used in my opinion.
Alternatively, it is based on a consideration that "it fits with a theory". This is also not very good.
(Both these points seem to be the basis for the identification of meso-american plants in the MS.)

Just recently, I was wondering to what extent 'sky view' maps were actually drawn in the late middle ages, but I found one in the "libro d'ultramare" about which I posted just a few days ago.
The illustration of the church of Sion that I showed in the same post reminded me exactly of the lower-right circle that is being discussed here. I would expect that other drawings of buildings (or tents) can be found that look much more similar to this.

It's a bit of a problem with terminology perhaps.
Yes, I have seen lots of panorama views, but here we talk about a 'map' of a small area.

I was in fact misremembering. The drawing I meant was not in Poggibonsi's manuscript, but in the one discussed in this paper:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

and looks like this:

[attachment=3517]

I would be interested to see more examples.

Well, schematics were also not uncommon. They used them for garden plans, architecture, mnemonic circle drawings.

I was thinking the combination of seeing things from above and the existence of medieval-style aerial-view blueprints for gardens and buildings would mean that the idea of a sky viewpoint would not be foreign to them.

What is special about the rosettes foldout is that it presents a top-down view with 3D elements. Like when Google maps had this functionality in big cities where you could see the buildings superimposed in 3D. The depth and layering in the various causeways is especially striking. Just like the direction of the text, the viewing angle is always shifting.

(10-10-2019, 05:43 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Coming back to Ellie's page, I see the point about orientation of the lower left (or South-East) circle as the most important point, and just about the only thing we can be reasonably certain about.
Given that (as so often) the text and the drawing are closely integrated, I do not doubt which orientation would have been 'up' for the person or persons creating this circle.

I agree: the fact that Ellie's interpretation depends on the correct orientation is one of the things I like in this idea.

(10-10-2019, 05:43 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The second important point, which applies to almost all of the MS, is to realise that it could represent many different things: a sky view of something (e.g. a cloister or a garden), a building (church or tabernacle), a tent, but also a church tabernacle (basically a miniature building usually made of, or coated with, gold).

In all cases, such possible representations are based on what it seems to look like. That is inevitable as long as we can't read the text.

It becomes a problem as soon as one wants to decide which of these items it is. What is the criterium to use in order to prefer one or the other?

In most discussions here, this tends to be either: "it looks more like A than like B". This is very subjective and very personal, and cannot be used in my opinion.

Alternatively, it is based on a consideration that "it fits with a theory". This is also not very good.
(Both these points seem to be the basis for the identification of meso-american plants in the MS.)

I would add a third criterion: economy. Ellie has identified a tent "theme" that covers several details of the rosettes and (similarly to what Wladimir did) can also be applied to the "umbrellas" in Q13. The meaning of these tents is difficult (or impossible) to explain, but internal coherence is a benefit, all other things being equal.
In the context of the SE Rosette, the two structures are similar, each featuring:
1. a rectangular "area"
2. a band of wavy-loopy "fringes" below the rectangle
3. three vertical "things"
If we interpret them as two baldachins, we have a single concept explaining the entirety of the two structures.
If the rectangle in the left structure represents the four rivers of paradise, what are the "fringes" and "poles"? What is the right structure?

As another example: one can see the six vertical objects in the central rosette as either pillars of "pharma" containers. The second interpretation makes the whole manuscript more coherent. Do I know what the containers mean? No, of course.