The Voynich Ninja

iiiii

(14-08-2016, 08:07 PM)don of tallahassee Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Pictured on various VMS pages are what are taken by most to be jars. Others see things like early Fifteenth Century microscopes and telescopes.

There are legs on some of the VMS jar images.

[deleted for brevity]

Does anyone have any proof of the existence and/or knowledge of the composition of such jars or containers with legs in the early Fifteenth Century or before?

This may be a topic someone else has already reported on somewhere. If so, I would appreciate directions to those results.

Only footed jars/vessels/containers/whatever from before 1500 need be reported on. I've got lots of pictures of jars without feet.

Thank you.

Don of Tallahassee

Ornate footed jars were more common in France in the 16th century and beyond than most places and France eventually became world renowned for their ormolu items. Ornate footed jars were not especially common anywhere in the 15th century (production of this kind of item increased in the Renaissance and post-Renaissance periods). In the 15th century and earlier, it was generally the very wealthy who had this kind of item.

Candlesticks in a number of countries had feet and some were quite ornate. When looking at VMS jars, I try not to assume that they are real-life jars (they might be, but we don't know). Since these are drawings, not photographs, they may have been inspired by candlesticks, finials, or other ornamental objects and drawn in a more decorative way than they appeared in life.

I have assumption, that bottom of jars resemble legs of "Russian samovar."  This method of warming waters is attributed to ancient Iran (or China - Hot pot). In figure the ancient “samovar”, made of clay over 2000 years,  that was found in Azerbaijan.

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

i don't know why the links are funky, looks fine when i try to edit.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[url=http://lh4.ggpht.com/-Jn80CrmnxHk/TqABcBPfzRI/AAAAAAAAIr4/RR3uH9LAn3o/d8cb8d00028b462da45c0ef034790847.jpg?imgmax=640]

The following are all 15th century:

Tuscany:

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


Flanders:

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


Germany:

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


------

This is a 19th c French item and doesn't have feet but I've included it due to the resemblance in shape to some of the VMS containers:

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

Don,
Yes, the designs are all fairly normal ones.

If you look a little further than the narrow confines of Latin Europe, you will find every element in those designs - including the unusual 'knife-blade' legs.  The out-turned sort of legs are not actually part of a vessel, but the stands on which they were set.  You might also notice that none of the vessels have handles, and many have no 'belly' either; absence of both on the more ornate forms is another pointer to non-Latin European (and indeed non-Mediterranean) custom.

The real divide in studying the manuscript and its  imagery is, I guess, that while some people are looking for explanation of what the images actually contain (call it 'object-based' research);  others have preferred to form an idea, and then see what they can find within  limits determined by that idea, that might  (at whatever stretch) be applied to a given detail.

I don't see any resolution for this constant divide in the methodology.  I've argued with Nick Pelling about this too. He thinks of theory-making as a useful tool for the historian, but I find it positively counter-productive when an artefact is as problematic as this. 

Theories in such a case are by nature  pre-emptive, and I've too often seen a theory which is less enlightening of the object than of the theorists' predilictions and attitudes.

Still, I expect the two approaches will continue, each along it own way. 

At least we needn't fear here that anyone will become such a wide-eyed fanatic that they would try to 'nobble' all other lines of investigation.   

About the jars - the knife-blade legs are characteristic of the roads of inner Asia. The example I used is a very early one, but the same sort of legs occur later too.


Here's a link to Part 2 of the post  - a very brief survey
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

- hope the edits haven't caused annoyance. Our lines are constantly dropping out -

(15-08-2016, 07:08 AM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have assumption, that bottom of jars resemble legs of "Russian samovar."  This method of warming waters is attributed to ancient Iran (or China - Hot pot). In figure the ancient “samovar”, made of clay over 2000 years,  that was found in Azerbaijan.

Exactly my thought. That's how I call them too.

The idea of telescopes and microscopes seems the product of "visual anachronism" (just invented the term, will explain):

The (in)famous case of the "helicopter" in the Egyptian hieroglyphs (Diane, you will know much more about that one than me) is similar in that aspect. I discussed that with a friend who is convinced it is a helicopter and jumps to conclusions about aliens, foreknowledge, etc.

My argument against his conclusion was that we only "call" that a helicopter, because we know how a helicopter looks like.

If someone from the 14th century would look at that same hieroglyph, he/she would never conclude that because there were no helicopters.

Same so for the "telescopes" and "microscopes". In general I think a poor interpretation, because of:
- indeed the feet/stands
- the drawings are always upright, not inclined like you'd expect from a telescope
- the "samovars" appear in the sections with plants, not with stars
- there are no close-ups/zooms of the plants drawn, which would be expected if they were (primitive) microscopes

Samovar/cooking tubes or pots seem to me the most logical interpretation, but then again logic is maybe not the best tool in getting to understand this mysterious MS... 

Tisquesusa,

That 'thought' about the samovar was presented by one of Rene Zandbergen's co-workers whom he invited to a Voyich conference - I think the person had  a degree in optics, or lense-making or something of that sort.  He also reprised an old idea of the 'bathing ladies' as in an eastern sort of baths.

The difficulty with sudden 'notions' like that is (a) they do not first address existing treatments of the imagery, or explain why they think a different 'notion' is needed at all and (b) they have no historical or other context offered.

For example, you would have to discuss the times and places where samovars were used, and then show why those time, regions or cultures should be considered in relation to any other image, or part of the manuscript.  Was the person trying to argue that the plants in the botanical section all come from samovar-using regions, or that the calendar's roundels are in a distinctively Russian style of drawing?  How does the samovar notion fit in with the red letters on the first folio, or the handwriting style...?

All that is said, really, is that the person looking at the images has consulted whatever he holds already in his memory, that this is the closest thing that comes to the surface.  So what we hear is about the viewer - and not so much about the intentions of the persons who first made the imagery.  That said, I really can see why that notion might have surfaced.

Samovars usually have handles, broader bellies, and four feet (when they have feet), which isn't quite how the VMS containers are drawn, but the context of cooking fits better than many other suggestions.

It's hard to know whether the containers are meant to be literal or are fanciful ideas for containers/candlesticks taken from other similarly shaped items. Many things are shaped this way but I've never seen anything in a museum or antique store that quite matches them.

Apothecary jars have probably been suggested (it's a logical line of thought) but they tend to be very utilitarian, with firmer bases, so they don't tip over and break when in constant use, as they would be in a pharmarcy. Nonetheless, a few are somewhat decorative and, if inspired by and combined with visual ideas from other items such as pillars, candlesticks, glass containers (e.g., Murano or southwest Mediterranean), they might be depicted in a more fanciful way. Glass goblets could be quite ornate and often had lids.

I've also thought that some of them look like architectural finials and others look very much like hookahs without the spout/hose.

(11-09-2016, 06:17 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Tisquesusa,

That 'thought' about the samovar was presented by one of Rene Zandbergen's co-workers whom he invited to a Voyich conference - I think the person had  a degree in optics, or lense-making or something of that sort.  He also reprised an old idea of the 'bathing ladies' as in an eastern sort of baths.

Ah thanks, I didn't know that.

Quote:The difficulty with sudden 'notions' like that is (a) they do not first address existing treatments of the imagery, or explain why they think a different 'notion' is needed at all and (b) they have no historical or other context offered.

For example, you would have to discuss the times and places where samovars were used, and then show why those time, regions or cultures should be considered in relation to any other image, or part of the manuscript.  Was the person trying to argue that the plants in the botanical section all come from samovar-using regions, or that the calendar's roundels are in a distinctively Russian style of drawing?  How does the samovar notion fit in with the red letters on the first folio, or the handwriting style...?

All that is said, really, is that the person looking at the images has consulted whatever he holds already in his memory, that this is the closest thing that comes to the surface.  So what we hear is about the viewer - and not so much about the intentions of the persons who first made the imagery.  That said, I really can see why that notion might have surfaced.

Sure, I realise I am "projecting my own experience/recognition" on what I see. But I am a hobbyist. If I would be a trained iconography expert or an experienced Egyptian art specialist, I probably would interpret different things.

As all the comparisons seem to fall in the same category; it could be A, but also could be C, etc. the spread of possibilities is large.

I've read some blog posts by yourself and Koen and your comparisons to Egyptian/Arabic/Middle Eastern details of course have their own merits and your expertise in those subjects count.

But that doesn't mean an amateur/hobbyist like myself cannot think of other things.

What has been proposed as far as I have seen is:
- a central-European/Italian/Germanic origin (what has been thought early on)
- an English origin (one of the users here, I forget who exactly, was it R.Sale?)
- a Middle-Eastern origin like you and Koen propose as an option

But what about the Russian sphere of influence? Vast areas with access to trade routes (Silk Road but also many others) that give access to exotic plants?
The open areas of Russia where the skies are clear and the stars can be observed?
Another point is the characters in the manuscript; I see a vague resemblance of the gallow characters with the Cyrillic characters of zh, ch, tch, tchch, etc.

I am not claiming I have the solution, and I never will have that, it's just hobby and I really don't care how "valuable" my ideas are. It's for fun, nothing more.

The only area I could add my expertise is on the mineral that is said to have been recognised in the VMS. That is boleite, a blue lead-copper-silver salt: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

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

Questions about that:
- which folio should contain this mineral?
- how could a mineral that has been found first in Mexico late 19th century appear in a pre-Columbian era (if that's true) manuscript?

How the samovars fit into the rest is thus pretty irrelevant. As there is not a single hypothesis presented that integrates everything. The samovars can be taken from location A where the author(s) traveled to or got acquainted with and the nymphs from an earlier document, copied in the VMS (like Koen strongly thinks) and the plants are fantasy anyway and possibly the result of combining the roots of plant A with the stems of B and flowers/fruits/leaves of C.

It is impossible to understand the intentions of the creator(s) at this stage. After all those years of research, essentially not much progress has been made. See the topics discussed here; one thinks it is a (combination of) natural language(s) and doesn't like the term "cipher" and the other thinks the opposite; "it cannot be a natural language because of the low entropy, short words, etc."

The only things we can be sure of, are:
- it's a mystery
- it contained at least so many folios that we have, a lot is missing (even complete quires could be missing
- it is illustrated and the text is unreadable
- the probability of different authors is high (Currier A, B, Hand 1, 2, and more, the bad paint job over a good drawing)

All the rest is speculation. So leaves room for anyone interested.