The Voynich Ninja

For your consideration, here are some matches I see between the imagery on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the Caspian and Aral Seas.




1. The general shape of the Caspian Sea area matches quite well. Not necessarily the water line, but the larger area made up by the surrounding Alborz mountains to the south. See the grey line above approximating this area on the satellite map.  The 1730 map shows that the top part of the extra girth did  look this way up to the first curve after the bend at that time. Consider what it would look like if it were flooded further.

2. In another area where the water line doesn't quite work, at the top, there is a solid line drawn in the f75r diagram which creates a triangle, drawn in blue at the top of the satellite image. Perhaps this wasn't supposed to have been painted in, or was, as a means of hiding the content. Or perhaps this area was flooded too.

3. The rest of the top matches quite well, see the orange line.

4. The Volga and Ural rivers match well with the darkest blue lines in the "umbrella". The nebuly lines seem to me to indicate that the water is known to come from mountains or areas which are not known to be populated.

5. The red lines on the satellite map indicate other areas that don't quite match but could have been done that way for aesthetics or might not have been there at the time. The 1730 map does not show the peninsula to the right.

6. The Kuma river forms the top of the yellow "handle" shape shown in blue on the diagram. You can see the river in the 1730 map above just under the Volga delta, or perhaps it is the Terek, or both and more. The entire area within is also rivers, coming down from the greater Caucasus. This is what I think the imagery represents that is raining onto this line, shown in buff of the satellite map.


7. The bucket the nymph sits in on the bottom, highlighted in green on the satellite image, matches a location of Gorgan bay which is almost fully enclosed.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

8. The nymph with the hands behind her back seems to represent some features in the landscape. There is a break in the mountains corresponding to where her foot is drawn, that matches the location of the Uzboy river entance to the Caspian, now dry.

9. The other nymphs seem to be showing the depth of the Caspian. They keep getting deeper and deeper until the last nymph cannot touch bottom and is floating. The stick held by the one nymph shows the deepest area of the upper part of the sea.



10. The Gorgan river is located at the dark blue highlighted area, which matches where a river has been drawn in the diagram. Or it could be the Quarasu.

11. If the Gorgan is the river depicted, perhaps the other body of water is supposed to be the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. area (didn't know what else to call it) in a flooded state. It's about central in the larger area at the bottom of Turkmenistan, the second bump in the mountain line that makes up the lower limit of the Caspian. The greater area around the gas field mimics the size and shape of the current Aral Sea depression to the north.

12. The Uzboy river also seems similar to the one drawn but would turn in the opposite direction and would be near the bottom, not the top of the Aral Sea.



A speculation on a possible story portrayed if the gas field area is involved: In 1388 Timur created changes in the Amudarya that would send its waters to the Caspian via the Uzboy instead of into the Aral Sea, this would continue until about 1573 when the Amudarya began to flow into the Aral again, and the Uzboy dried up. Evidently the Uzboy couldn't have taken in the full extent of the Amudarya flow, and in1417 it was reported that the Aral Sea had disappeared, which would mean it didn't go there. Perhaps if some of the Amudarya flow went south into the gas field depression, it might seem as though the Aral sea had moved down to be closer to the bottom of the Caspian instead of the top. The same waters would be involved, so it is reasonable to think of it that way.

13. I'll stop with a baker's dozen. Here is f75r's second body of water, the Aral Sea in the mid 1800's and around the early 1970's, and the gas field area. Note the pointy areas to the right on all of them. The dark green line to the right of the last photo is the Amudarya river. But I believe the body of water is meant to portray the Aral Sea, and the nymphs represent the various deltas and bays that have existed. As it is now, only the deltas represented by the middle bottom nymph's foot and the large nymph's arm are flowing, being the mouths of the Amudarya and the Syrdarya respectively.



Thanks for your time taken in reading this. I'd be very interested to hear what others think of this idea. It seems to me there would have to be a large number of similarities put to coincidence if the text proved to be discussing something else.

Linda

I have not yet looked for an explanation for this folio myself, so I can look at your proposal in a relatively neutral way. I also know very little about this sea, its history and the peoples surrounding it.

Well, at first sight I'd say that yes, the Caspian Sea and the surrounding area do offer a possible way to explain this image. I also like your observation that the nymphs appear to imply that the water becomes deeper; I hadn't looked at it that way. I see some problems though:

1) The most frequent remark about any Voynich analysis: much of it seems a bit random. Why include these areas around the sea and not others? Why all the different ways the areas are represented by? I've also received this comment at times, and it makes me think "Hey, I didn't write the Voynich, it's not my fault that they drew things like this!" Still, too much "randomness" undermines the credibility of an argument, and the more you can eliminate, the better.

Related to this: you say that the nymphs imply that the sea becomes deeper, but wouldn't that be more useful information for a river? Why would anybody want to know how deep the Caspian sea is at various points?

2) In my opinion, for an analysis like this, historical context is absolutely required. Who mapped this sea first? When? What did the map look like? Who had knowledge about this massive area in the early 15th (!) century or before? Keep in mind that Beinecke 408 is three hundred years older than the map you present here. Was anyone at that time able to draw up a map like this? Did they know how deep the sea was a various points? Are the areas that are marked by nymphs or other means the most important ones? Who would have had use for this?

Like I said, I don't know much about the history of this sea and the surrounding area, so I just took this from wikipedia:
"In the 18th century, during the rule of Peter I the Great, Fedor I. Soimonov, hydrographer and pioneering explorer of the Caspian Sea charted the until then little known body of water. Soimonov drew a set of four maps and wrote the 'Pilot of the Caspian Sea', the first report and modern maps of the Caspian, that were published in 1720 by the Russian Academy of Sciences."

This is why, at the moment, your interpretation seems problematic to me - but do correct me if I'm wrong.

It's easy to find comparisons between images in the VMS and virtually anything you want if you take things entirely out of context.  In this case you've got a number of these pools of water in this section of the VMS and whatever they are supposed to represent they all seem to form a related class of objects, so if they are not all depictions of large bodies of water then probably none of them are.  It seems pretty unlikely to me that all of the pools are intended to depict large bodies of water, and since the comparison with the Caspian Sea you've shown isn't all that precise, and since there are many bodies of water in the world with various shapes making it likely that at least one of them will be at least roughly similar to a pool in the VMS, probably the similarity you've noted here is simply a coincidence.

Hi Koen,

Rats I just lost a long answer just before I was going to send it, but your questions helped me find some answers along the way that I won't forget. I'll just post the best example for now which is the Fra Mauro map, everything is kinda upside down and on its side, but there is the Caspian with all the rivers I mentioned, and a tiny Aral that only has the Syrdarya attached. 1457-9


                 ^^^Amudarya & Uzboy                   ^^^^tiny Aral w/Syrdarya only, then the Ural
I'll prepare some more examples offline this time so I don't lose it again!     ^^^^^^^ big blue river is the Volga, if that helps orient things, note the green loopy river to the side of the pic. Gorgan on the other side of pic.

---

(12-07-2016, 02:59 PM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's easy to find comparisons between images in the VMS and virtually anything you want if you take things entirely out of context.  In this case you've got a number of these pools of water in this section of the VMS and whatever they are supposed to represent they all seem to form a related class of objects, so if they are not all depictions of large bodies of water then probably none of them are.  It seems pretty unlikely to me that all of the pools are intended to depict large bodies of water, and since the comparison with the Caspian Sea you've shown isn't all that precise, and since there are many bodies of water in the world with various shapes making it likely that at least one of them will be at least roughly similar to a pool in the VMS, probably the similarity you've noted here is simply a coincidence.

Hi Sam,

Actually I think this page was one of the last I figured out, and only because of where they fit into the whole did I finally recognize them, especially due to how they are situated on the page. The bodies of water I think are shown have the distinction of being two of the largest in the world (when not dry), and which are located right between Europe and Asia, which makes it more likely to be talked about or occur on a map than a lake that happens to have that exact shape. I actually got started from the idea of the seven seas from the seven "waves" in the Rosette with the T-O Map attached. You're right, nothing is a precise match, however, I think that's been done on purpose, both as a means of hiding information in plain sight and as a commentary on the fact that all maps are not precise copies of each other, there is evolution both in a forward and backward sense as we move through time, which also hides the fact that things actually change over time while that is happening, which again gets lost and written off as "mistakes" to be corrected with current data. One of the things Strabo says about the Caspian is that is is named after the Caspian tribe which no longer exists. Why not? Because things change. History is lost, even when kept meticulously for hundreds of years. Keep in mind I think you have to look for the whole in the parts that do match, and not a precise match of the whole. Anyway I'll put together some more comparisons for this one and will work on outlining the other pages as well.

I must according to my version to support this idea. However, during the reign of Ivan IV (the Terrible) traders - travelers have reported the king that the Caspian Sea and the Aral Sea is form a single body of water.
Over the past 50 years, the Aral Sea has decreased by 5 times.
Thus, it is possible for the past century due to earthquakes has disappeared an underground replenishment of the seas out of the world ocean.
The Caspian Sea is 28 meters below sea level.

(18-07-2016, 09:17 AM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I must according to my version to support this idea. However, during the reign of Ivan IV (the Terrible) traders - travelers have reported the king that the Caspian Sea and the Aral Sea is form a single body of water.
Over the past 50 years, the Aral Sea has decreased by 5 times.
Thus, it is possible for the past century due to earthquakes has disappeared an underground replenishment of the seas out of the world ocean.
The Caspian Sea is 28 meters below sea level.

Hi Wladimir,

I am still trying to figure out the state of the Aral over time, because yes, many maps show what appears to be a combination of the two, or just something wrong. it's really hard to say because some later maps copy much older maps even though updated maps had since been drawn. Maybe they didn't see them or if they did, did not believe them.

I think the current state of the Aral is due to dehydration due to lack of filling by the Amudarya, due to its waters being purposefully used for irrigation purposes, and that this has also happened in the past.

Here are some maps and times to consider:

1320 Vesconte. (East Up) Bulbous shape. There is a second Caspian shown as well, full Aral? Can't really figure out the rivers though.




1375 Catalan Atlas Bulbous shape, no Aral although it should be there? Or was it already dryng, it seems like the one river is the Uzboy/Amudarya


1414 Pirrus de Noha - Bulbous shape and what looks like a small Aral


1430 Tavola di Velletri (South up) Only one river like the Catalan Atlas


1457 Genoese Map. Different shape, the rivers seem to follow Vesconte



1566 Jenkinson map which shows Caspian oriented differently but what appears to be a prominent Uzboy river and either a dried up Aral or Aral as a much higher lake (near the orange/red rectangles) He was there himself and met with Ivan the Terrible.

1610 Jodocus Hondius. There is the bulbous shape again, no Aral unless it is very small or high up again.


Here is a 1743 map that shows the Aral not full, you can see the empty section to the right.



I was reading this pdf: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
about the Genoese Map and pictured a rival cartographer not agreeing with the choices made and making notes of things found lacking. This is quire 13 perhaps? Maybe 14 as well. Perhaps it wasn't the Genoese Map in particular, but it seems like commentary on the lack of correctness shown in maps of the time, a state which would continue for hundreds of years. Starting in 1409 with the translation of Ptolemy and followed by the sharing of information at the various Councils (Constance 1414-18 in particular) there was a lot of fodder for such opinions to be made and either discussed, or kept private.

Take another look at the Vesconte map, if you take only the lower fork of the river that goes east of the Caspian (which seems to match that shown in the Catalan Atlas) and connect it to what seems to be the Aral, you have a very similar drawing to what is portrayed on f75v. (top left quadrant of map, it is east up so turn it to the right)


[url=http://peregrinations.kenyon.edu/vol4_1/BrunnlechnerPeregrinations41.pdf][/url]

[quote pid='4466' dateline='1468328418']

Koen Gh. Wrote:Linda

I have not yet looked for an explanation for this folio myself, so I can look at your proposal in a relatively neutral way. I also know very little about this sea, its history and the peoples surrounding it.

Well, at first sight I'd say that yes, the Caspian Sea and the surrounding area do offer a possible way to explain this image. I also like your observation that the nymphs appear to imply that the water becomes deeper; I hadn't looked at it that way.

Thanks for saying that I just wanted to go over your comments again since I lost my reply last time.

Quote:I see some problems though:

1) The most frequent remark about any Voynich analysis: much of it seems a bit random. Why include these areas around the sea and not others? Why all the different ways the areas are represented by? I've also received this comment at times, and it makes me think "Hey, I didn't write the Voynich, it's not my fault that they drew things like this!" Still, too much "randomness" undermines the credibility of an argument, and the more you can eliminate, the better.

For me it is not random, I see the entire quire as discussing relatively large bodies of water. I say relatively because some are indeed not on the same order of magnitude but these are also the largest in the area discussed, if not in the world. Therefore, not just this sea/lake, but others as well, and not only that, but in an order that follows a trip around the known world.

Quote:Related to this: you say that the nymphs imply that the sea becomes deeper, but wouldn't that be more useful information for a river? Why would anybody want to know how deep the Caspian sea is at various points?

Soundings have been done for millennia, with weights and rope. This is to log depths so as to know one can safely travel without harming the ship, and also sometimes to gauge the character of the bottom of the sea in that area in order to help identify one's location. Sometimes these depths and characters were entered into port logs, but could simply be memorized. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Since the Caspian is not that deep it is entirely possible that its depths were measured and known by the time the manuscript came to be. I would think rivers would be harder to keep records for since the water levels in them, and likely their bottoms too, would change based on rainfall and temperature (i.e. melting or freezing of mountain ice caps)

Quote:2) In my opinion, for an analysis like this, historical context is absolutely required. Who mapped this sea first? When? What did the map look like? Who had knowledge about this massive area in the early 15th (!) century or before? Keep in mind that Beinecke 408 is three hundred years older than the map you present here. Was anyone at that time able to draw up a map like this? Did they know how deep the sea was a various points? Are the areas that are marked by nymphs or other means the most important ones? Who would have had use for this?

The Caspian has been included in almost all world maps, although the older ones tend to show it as attached to the outer ocean. Many of them show the bulbous shape shown here, but generally not in as much detail. Given the Ptolemy maps that began to be copied in 1409 circulating about, I could imagine someone thinking, wow, that's pretty much wrong... and wanting to show their knowledge, but maybe were not free to do so. Hence, this drawing came to be because a good likeness was not in fact available.

I believe it's useful to know that you can travel from the Black Sea to the Caspian by following the Don and Volga Rivers, and can then follow the Araxes River to the Euphrates down to the Persian Gulf, which is the context in which I see its place in the quire. If someone were sailing the Caspian in so doing, they might do well to follow the path of the nymphs to avoid possible obstacles closer to shore. The Araxes isn't shown but the floating nymph does sort of point to it with her right hand, and to the Uzboy on the other side with her left, if one wanted to follow the Amudarya or Sydarya and head towards China.

Quote:Like I said, I don't know much about the history of this sea and the surrounding area, so I just took this from wikipedia:
"In the 18th century, during the rule of Peter I the Great, Fedor I. Soimonov, hydrographer and pioneering explorer of the Caspian Sea charted the until then little known body of water. Soimonov drew a set of four maps and wrote the 'Pilot of the Caspian Sea', the first report and modern maps of the Caspian, that were published in 1720 by the Russian Academy of Sciences."

This is why, at the moment, your interpretation seems problematic to me - but do correct me if I'm wrong.

Anthony Jenkinson also did that in 1558, although admittedly his maps aren't the best, but he wasn't intent on charting the Caspian in particular.

It's not hard for me to believe that someone would have known its shape a couple hundred years earlier, especially if they had more intimate knowledge of the area and/or access to maps and descriptions thereof, the latter of which seems more likely. It also seems to me that measurements of mountain peaks were involved in the data, which could explain why the shoreline isn't portrayed so much as the mountain ranges which surround it, at least to the southeast.

Have some of the old maps since posted helped the problematic issues you found in my interpretation? It still seems to me that there are far too many coincidences insofar as the locations of rivers and and other features of the Caspian matching so well with the graphics in the diagram. To me, if my interpretation is correct, it makes this one of the better ancient maps of the Caspian in existence, even in comparison to some 19th century world map versions which for some reason reverted to the Ptolemy shape despite the detailed 18th century charts you mentioned.
[/quote]

It had bothered me that the finial in the diagram had no ancient volcanic analogue in the actual terrain as it does in other cases, the land to the north of the sea is flat. But i finally realized that the canopy extends much further, to where all the rivers entering the northern portion of the sea originate, the Ural mountains, which are in fact interspersed with Silurian volcanic rock.



Also came across this 1525 Piri Reis map which includes all the features of those from the 1700s.