The Voynich Ninja

Just the other day I saw that recent article about a Babylonian map. It had the central area enclosed in a circular band with various other areas designated outside. The 'self' is always in the center and the 'other' is peripheral. There is a circular band of text in the central Rosette, with a pair of Stolfi's markers, but there are circular text bands throughout. Nevertheless, it seems like a potentially similar structure.

The scale of the walls and the buildings make me think that the representation is not worldly, but more limited and regional, but whether the real estate is real, mythical, religious, or otherwise is still open to interpretation.

When I look at the details on the causeways as well as the other details all over the page I ask:

Are these details artistic flourishes of the author with no real meaning or interpretation as non-map theorists seems to imply?

Or are they very meaningful geographical/architectural features of a map?

Surely the reason for purchasing a much larger piece of vellum for this illustrated 6 page foldout was that a larger page was needed to fit all the details that the author wanted to include otherwise a smaller page would be sufficient and so all these details are meaningful and necessary not superfluous. A map would require a larger page in the way that some other kinds of illustrations would not. A larger page was more expensive so the author must have had a good reason to want to pay for such an unusually large page.

(18-11-2024, 08:02 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Personally, I don't expect a map. Not even from a journey. Simply because the right-hand side of the drawing is too different from the left-hand side. I don't even need to talk about the centre.
Nevertheless, I assume that the illustrator has seen everything somewhere. And if he hasn't travelled, then everything must be true to the place. So pictures show that everything can be done in one place.
The wall doesn't have to be in Bellinzona. Yellow roofs have also been drawn elsewhere. The forecourt to the gate also appears in other paintings. A city gate would also be present. There are plenty of barriers. Crowns and other references in the book fit just as well.
Even how to read something correctly can be deduced from the surroundings.
Just no map for me, but plenty of clues.

But I think the question remains that if the page is not a map what do all the details mean in general? As I highlighted when referring to the causeways what is the purpose of those illustrations and what do they show? Why draw so many distinct specific architectural and geographic features if it isn't a map? What better interpretation is there?

(18-11-2024, 08:47 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(18-11-2024, 08:02 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Simply because the right-hand side of the drawing is too different from the left-hand side. I don't even need to talk about the centre.

What do you mean by that? Can you be more specific?

@Mark
I can still do something with the pictures on the right. I see walls, castle, gate, and below field and garden. But on the left ?
Hole with hooks or teeth. Clouds, lakes or even mountains at the bottom.
The left says nothing. Interpretation is more important here.

I was thinking about the buildings on the Rosettes page. These buildings are some of the most important pointers to it being a map.

What is noteworthy is that if one looks very closely there are many of them and they are varied and distinctively drawn, so they aren't merely generic buildings.

So the first question is: Are the buildings drawings based on real buildings or are they just a product of someone's imagination? Or are they a mixture, partially based on someone's imagination?

If they are based on someones imagination then they are really quite imaginative as they are quite specific and distinctive in many cases.

If they are imaginative then why was it necessary to purchase such a large folio in order to draw lots of specific fantasy buildings?

Surely if they are merely fantasy buildings then they serve no practical purpose in the rosettes illustration? Why was it necessary to draw them in such specific detail?

If they are based on real buildings then does their relative position on the page relate to their relative position in real life? If no then why?

If the drawings are real buildings and their relative positions are based on their relative positions in real life then the rosettes folio must be some kind of map; full or partial map.

Are there any other documents of the time with distributed distinct buildings on it in the way that we see on the Rosettes folio that is not a map?

(18-11-2024, 09:03 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@Mark
I can still do something with the pictures on the right. I see walls, castle, gate, and below field and garden. But on the left ?
Hole with hooks or teeth. Clouds, lakes or even mountains at the bottom.
The left says nothing. Interpretation is more important here.

The Top Left Rosette could be seen as the hardest to interpret as it is the rosette with the least specific detail. In fact it lacks a lot of detail. Really the biggest details are the claws, teeth or hooks as you might call them and which I interpret as crescent moons.

Suppose the VMs artist was a person who had travelled over the Alps to Rome and back or to the Council of Constance. That person would have seen plenty of buildings, and with a bit of artistic skill, could have replicated that experience as well as created a bit of novelty. Given the code shift in the cosmos and the duality of White Aries, the VMs artist has shown the capacity to improvise.

The "generic" proposition does not apply to the nymphs. They are all different. Are they 'generic'? Why should that proposition apply to buildings instead?

If such a person later worked as a scribe, then there would have been access to parchment.

What is the 'limiting factor'? What is it that determines the nature of the Nine Rosettes illustration?

At the moment, it seems to me that the answer is 'text size'. Maintaining circular bands of text with a readable size in the nine-rosette structure takes a larger sheet of parchment.

(18-11-2024, 11:20 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The "generic" proposition does not apply to the nymphs. They are all different. Are they 'generic'? Why should that proposition apply to buildings instead?

I don't know if each nymph/person that the artist draws in the Voynich manuscript is based on a real known person to the author, it is an interesting idea. Maybe they are invented fantasy people purely from the artists imagination. Maybe they are influenced by real people that the artist knew. It is hard for me to give an opinion as I haven't studied them in enough detail. Fundamentally I think it depends on how specific and varied the detail of the illustrations is.

Do other features of the Rosettes page look geographic? There appear the me to be what look like bodies of water as illustrated in other maps. There also appear to be slopes drawn.

What are the blue and white wavy lines? These are drawn in the same kind of way that bodies of water are drawn in maps of that time.

If these are bodies of water then why are they also illustrated in very specific and distinctive specific ways in each case? I mean that they are drawn as bodies of water of different sizes and shapes and separated in places.

The 4 Centre side rosettes are the ones which least fit with the identification of the page as a map. However I think their non-map like appearance can be explained in the context of the page as a whole being a map. I tend to view those circles as magnified, zoomed in and focused on specific drawings related to specific places on the "map". They are almost like inset images within the map as a whole. They are not sub-maps in and of themselves unlike the causeways in my opinion.

---

I think the variable and non-constant scale of the map makes it more confusing when understanding it as a map. Some parts of the map are more zoomed in than others that is unlike our modern maps, but not inconsistent with maps of the time.