The Voynich Ninja

(09-10-2019, 08:59 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A few potential problem that I see with the tent hypothesis.

.....
3) Why has the author drawn tents?

I do not think anyone can answer the question at this point. We are still at a stage of describing what we see. For conclusions it is still too early.
Since undoubtedly already a castle and towers are shown, tents are at least not unreasonable.

They lived on the road (in the sense of constantly traveling).

Conferences were held in tent encampments.
Wars were held in tent encampments.
Salesman stopped in tent encampments.
Performers lived in tent encampments.

There was land in those days, and no trains, buses or cars.

It took time to get from one place to another. A trip to eastern trading regions took two years each way.

Nobility HAD to get on the road or someone else would claim possession of their lands. Plus many of them owned 20 different residences (not counting summer houses and hunting lodges). They had to put in an appearance every once in a while.

Many people did not have furniture in the sense that we have it. They had portable chairs (the kind that fold) and trunks and carpets. Everything went into the trunk when they went on the road.

Students traveled to universities far away... on foot.

Plus, with 20 times as much land per person as we have now, there were still remnants of nomadic people (who lived in wagons and tents).


So, if someone were drawing a map in the middle ages, it MIGHT include places to camp, or it might include places where people were semi-permanently camped (like small villages or modern trailer parks).

(10-10-2019, 01:01 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(09-10-2019, 08:59 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A few potential problem that I see with the tent hypothesis.

.....
3) Why has the author drawn tents?

I do not think anyone can answer the question at this point. We are still at a stage of describing what we see. For conclusions it is still too early.
Since undoubtedly already a castle and towers are shown, tents are at least not unreasonable.

I think it is part of the theory to give a reason for its drawing. So if someone were to say it represents the aerial view if a pyramid and nearby town then I think it is not unreasonable to ask how one reconciles that with everything else. Similarly if someone were to argue that it represents a treasure map and this shows an X that marks the spot where treasure is hidden then I think it is worth asking how this fits with the rest of the page and manuscript.

There are many possible ideas that I can think if off the top of my head like it is a flag (like the Scottish flag) it is a Christian cross on a shield or a disguised letter X part of a hidden code. They could be two tables next to each other with table cloths with designs on them.

However I go with the cloisters and adjoining herb garden theory as it makes most sense to me.

Also I did raise 2 other questions.

@Mark Knowles: What I meant is that you first describe what you see, regardless of a theory. Whether this observation then leads to a theory is initially open. A theory may or may not evolve from observation. In my opinion, this approach is more useful than starting with a theory and then checking to see if it fits (arbitrary example: the scene is a siege of Jerusalem, so there must be tents and cannons around ).

The thing is that you are interpreting what you see.

What I see is a square with lines crossing it and a small circle in the middle with 4 small circles in each corner...... etc.

I think one interprets what one sees and at the same time checks to see if it makes sense with everything else. If one thinks it is a disguised Letter X then does that fit with everything else on the page.

I think it is much easier to create a theory for a small part of the page than a mutually consistent theory for the page as a whole.

I found a second post by Ellie Velinska (2013) in which she also points out the "multiple-knots" and lacing in the South Rosettes that were discussed in the present thread by Wladimir and JPK:.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.


My personal opinion about Mark's first two questions (I agree with bi3mw's point of view about the third one):

(09-10-2019, 08:59 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) Why are the poles much longer than the sides "fringes". Are we saying the tents are only partially covered and open in much of the lower area, so that they really only have a roof?

Yes.

(09-10-2019, 08:59 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.2) What is happening with the central pole of the square tent that connects directly into the the spreading out pattern that I call "fields".

Wladimir has proposed a literal interpretation in the context of tent-like water collectors.
I am not much into grand theories. From what I have seen, the best parallels for the many different spreading / spraying / radiating patterns in the Rosettes appear in cosmological works: some were discussed You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. It seems clear that the pattern is related with  the similar pattern above the left side of the X structure. 
I believe the whole Rosettes diagram has a cosmological meaning (like You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., but with no identifiable Christian content), but I have no definite overall interpretation to offer.

Maybe it is worth pointing out that my intention is not convincing people: images are inherently ambiguous and reaching a consensus is impossible. I was not sure that all were familiar with Ellie's ideas and I wanted to share them because they provide a different point of view from the common 2d interpretations of the SE Rosette.

Thanks for answering my questions.

Yes, I have seen Byrhtferth's diagram.

(09-10-2019, 12:17 PM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Once again I want to draw your attention to the legs of the two tents in the lower right rosette.
To draw racks (including in the form of a hollow pipe), it is enough to draw two vertical lines (forming a cylinder). We see this at the left canopy, while at the right canopy all three legs are drawn in three parallel lines. Moreover, an additional decoration (ornament of strokes) is located only between two lines on all legs. That is, the ornament is located on the outside of the gutter, but on the inside, through which water flows, it is not needed. The gutters can be made of ceramic or large bamboo.
If the central leg of the left canopy ends with something similar to a water flow distributor, then the central gutter of the right canopy ends with a “horseshoe” (red circle). I identify it as a tunnel with water (blue paint).
 
 

I haven't figured out how to post pics on the actual thread  so here are links to the Persian paradise gardens and buildings. I think everyone will find the top picture in this BBC article interesting You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and here 3rd picture down on the right of article. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Into the collection of the tent meanings.
Religious or spiritual meaning:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Most likely, it already was mentioned by me and by other members in the other threads and blogs, but I think it is reasonable to keep relevant things together for easy search.

I just saw this on Pinterest, unfortunately without reference. It combines a tent with a VM style cloudband;