| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 282 online users.
» 10 Member(s) | 266 Guest(s)
Applebot, Baidu, Bing, Facebook, Google, Yandex, A.Weiss, Cuagga, Gregor, JoJo_Jost, Rafal, rikforto, XylonAkau
|
| Latest Threads |
The nymphs are possibly i...
Forum: Imagery
Last Post: R. Sale
1 hour ago
» Replies: 20
» Views: 381
|
Possible related charm fo...
Forum: Marginalia
Last Post: JoeyB
5 hours ago
» Replies: 19
» Views: 706
|
Why and how the text coul...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: JoJo_Jost
9 hours ago
» Replies: 420
» Views: 76,222
|
Dr. Hartlieb's alleged in...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: eggyk
9 hours ago
» Replies: 24
» Views: 2,204
|
The VMS has something to ...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: JustAnotherTheory
9 hours ago
» Replies: 20
» Views: 982
|
The 'Chinese' Theory: Fo...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: ololololo
11 hours ago
» Replies: 847
» Views: 244,384
|
Unknown alphabet - exhibi...
Forum: News
Last Post: jaldki
Today, 07:35 AM
» Replies: 15
» Views: 3,649
|
I need help busting the t...
Forum: The Slop Bucket
Last Post: Koen G
Yesterday, 07:55 PM
» Replies: 13
» Views: 309
|
Voynichese is a numeric c...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: ololololo
Yesterday, 06:41 PM
» Replies: 209
» Views: 30,065
|
Voynich is encrypted ENOC...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: Linda
Yesterday, 03:58 PM
» Replies: 382
» Views: 71,241
|
|
|
| Do Split Gallows have rules? |
|
Posted by: Grove - 26-08-2026, 10:40 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (7)
|
 |
Paragraph initial words primarily, but not always, begin with a plain gallows (K, F, T, P) and almost never a benched gallows - but…
When a paragraph does start with a benched gallows it is most often going to be a split gallows.
Bear with my slight variation of transliteration for the peculiarities of a split gallows.
Not split:
F1r cpho
F65v cphy
F76v cphdar
F101r cphoar
Split:
F8r ctho-cthey
F8v cthod-soocth
F30v: cthscthain
F35r cthoo-r-choly-cthy
F42r stho-ofaiin-cthaihcthy
F80r: cthcthey
F86v6: ctholcthy
F90v2 cphdaithy
F100v: cthdeecthy
F102r2: cthol-dcthody
Not quite a bench:
F101r: etolctheol
F111v: psalar (not split either)
Non-bench split gallows:
F56r: Otchal-chchsty
F68r1: poeeodcthy (label)
F68r2: opol-chcthy (label)
F95v1: polteedy-ctho
F99v: oteol-socthey
The other ‘decorative’ paragraph initials where a P extends over one or more words before returning to cross the leg might also wrap those words into one highlighted segment. Of course, we may never know if they mean something at all, but I still like to think there’s more to these markers than just decoration.
|
|
|
| What if it's a "Lossy Encoder" for 15th-Century Latin? |
|
Posted by: Pointless.. - 24-08-2026, 02:18 PM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (18)
|
|
I have been considering the possibility that the Voynich manuscript uses some form of lossy encoding.
By “lossy,” I mean that the source text may originally have been written in Latin, but that only part of its linguistic information was preserved in writing. Such a system would assume that the intended reader already possessed enough practical knowledge, contextual information, or interpretive tools to reconstruct the meaning. Where the result might otherwise be ambiguous, the system could provide additional cues to guide the reader toward the correct interpretation.
Shannon’s information theory suggests that natural languages contain a considerable amount of redundancy, sometimes estimated at around 50 percent. Latin, as a highly inflected language, carries much of its grammatical information in word endings. Nouns, adjectives, and verbs are marked according to their roles in the sentence, meaning that some structural information is communicated more than once.
In a practical text, however, much of this information may not be strictly necessary. If a practitioner already knows how to prepare a decoction, grammatical case endings and many function words may add relatively little to the basic operational meaning.
To see how this might work in practice, consider a short apothecary-style recipe in Latin:
"Ad dolorem capitis: Recipe radices hellebori, et tere in mortario. Misce cum aceto et oleo rosarum. Ungue frontem patientis ante somnum."
In ordinary English, the passage means roughly:
"For headache: Take hellebore roots and grind them in a mortar. Mix with vinegar and rose oil. Anoint the patient’s forehead before sleep."
If we reduce the Latin words to their basic dictionary forms, we get something like this:
“ad dolor caput recipere radix helleborus et terere in mortarium miscere cum acetum et oleum rosa unguere frons patiens ante somnus”
We can then remove prepositions such as ad, in, cum, and ante, conjunctions such as et, and predictable instructional verbs such as recipere and miscere. What remains is the raw referential payload:
"dolor caput radix helleborus terere mortarium acetum oleum rosa unguere frons patiens somnus"
The result is an awkward, almost “caveman-style” form of Latin. To a modern linguist looking for conventional morphology and syntax, it appears broken. To a trained fifteenth-century apothecary, however, much of the intended meaning would still be recoverable. The practical context constrains the possible relationships among hellebore roots, a mortar, vinegar, rose oil, headache, and the patient’s forehead.
This is important because practical knowledge does part of the interpretive work that grammar would normally perform. The reader does not have to consider every theoretically possible relationship among the words. Existing knowledge of the craft or some other external knowledge narrows the range of plausible interpretations. The system expects that the receiver has sufficient information to handle the context recovery, transmitted beforehand.
The difference between the information carried by ordinary Latin and the apparently smaller capacity of the encoded text might therefore be explained, at least in part, by removing inflectional endings, function words, predictable instructions, and other contextually recoverable material.
Once Latin is reduced in this way, however, the result no longer looks much like Latin. Ambiguities also inevitably arise. For example, simply listing an ingredient and an action does not always tell the reader what is being acted upon, in what order, or under which conditions.
To preserve meaning without ordinary inflections, the encoding system would therefore need an alternative way of organizing the remaining roots or semantic units. One possibility is a rigid positional framework in which an element’s location determines its function. A position might indicate whether a root refers to an ingredient, an action, a quantity, a body part, a preparation method, or some other category.
In effect, position would take over part of the work normally performed by Latin morphology and syntax. The resulting text would not simply be abbreviated Latin. It would be Latin material reorganized within a different information system, one that relies on shared professional knowledge, predictable context, and positional structure to recover what has been omitted.
Any views or comments on this?
Thank you.
-Pointless
|
|
|
|
| Deconstructing the VMS : A positionless ledger (part 1) |
|
Posted by: Dunsel - 24-08-2026, 04:57 AM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (46)
|
|
So, some of you may remember my work where I created a 'statistical' generator using what I called a ledger. You can find it here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Well, I have discovered why it didn't exactly inspire anyone. My logic was way off. I have since been improving on my methods and digging deeper into the possibilities of the ledger and I believe I have something that works MUCH better. Before I bury you in data I'll have to state that I have a LOT of information to impart so it will take several posts to explain all of this. I'll start with the big news first then the explanations.
Before I go any further, I want to give credit where it is due. This work follows and expands on the work of Torsten Timm and Andreas Schinner. Their self-citation model proposes that Voynich words were produced by copying existing words and modifying them. This is the foundation of what I have been calling “copy and mutate.” So if you're hoping for a decoding, TLDR; it's not here.
Positionless ledger
| Prefix | Core midfix | Rare midfix | Suffix |
| A | L, R, I | D, M | L, S, R, M, N |
| O | A, O, D, L, CH, SH, E, S, R, I | — | D, L, Y, S, R, M, G |
| D | A, O, CH, SH, E | D, L, Y | O, L, Y, R |
| L | A, O, D, CH, SH | L, E, Y, S | O, D, L, Y, S, R, G |
| CH | A, O, D, E | L, CH, SH, S | A, O, D, L, E, Y, S, R, G |
| SH | A, O, D, CH, E | L, S | O, D, L, E, Y, S, R |
| E | A, O, D, E | CH, Y, S | O, D, E, Y, S, R, N, G |
| Y | A, D, CH, SH | O, L, S | S, R |
| S | A, O, CH, SH, E | D | O, E, Y |
| R | A, O, CH | D, SH, E, I | O, L, Y |
| Q | O | E | — |
| H | — | — | — |
| M | — | — | O |
| N | — | D | O, Y |
| G | — | — | — |
| X | — | A | — |
| C | S | — | — |
| I | D, R, I | L, N | L, S, R, M, N |
This simple ledger is capable of creating and verifying any word in the Voynich, written by any scribe, with the exception of gallows words and hapax. I have intentionally removed those two categories in order to hopefully simplify and explain how this ledger works.
The first thing you'll notice in that table is likely that I have combined CH and SH into one atomic unit. There's also reasons for that which I'll explain later.
How to use the ledger:
Let's assume you want to create the word daiin.
- Look at the prefix column for the row that contains D.
- In the core midfix column you'll see you can choose A. You now have D→A
- Now look in the prefix column for the row that contains A.
- Look in the core midfix column and you'll see you can choose I. You now have D→A→I
- Look in the prefix column for the row that contains I.
- Look in the core midfix column and you'll see that you can also choose I as a midfix. You now have D→A→I→I
- You'd again look in the I prefix row and in the suffix column you can choose N
- You now have the word D→A→I→I→N
The ledger contains everything needed to reproduce:
- 393 core word types
- 412 rare word types
- 805 total word types
- 12,564 manuscript tokens
That is around 36% of the total Voynich tokens.
Prefix Stacking.
Consider these Voynich words
- aiin
- daiin
- odaiin
- chodaiin
All four appear in the manuscript.
What immediately stands out is that they share the same ending: aiin. The difference is what has been added in front of it:
- aiin
- d + aiin
- od + aiin
- chod + aiin
This is what I mean by prefix stacking. Instead of creating five completely unrelated words, the system appears to reuse the same base while building a longer structure to its left.
The longest word can be written as:
Code: CH → O → D → A → I → I → N
The shorter words reuse parts of that same chain. This gives us transitions such as:
If you look how the ledger works, each time you pick a new midfix, you go back to the prefix column. It is essentially stacking prefixes in front of each new midfix you choose.
The ledger does not need a separate rule for every complete word. The same transitions are reused as prefixes are added to familiar words. This does not prove that the words were created in this exact order. It shows that the words form a clear family built around the same ending, with progressively larger prefixes.
And for those of you who suspect that the Voynich has Hebrew roots, I have good news: the ledger also works from right to left.
Start with a suffix. Find a prefix row that permits that suffix, then continue working backward by adding permitted midfixes until you reach the prefix where you want to stop.
For example:
- N
- I → N
- I → I → N
- A → I → I → N
- D → A → I → I → N
You have now built daiin backward. Every word covered by this ledger can be reconstructed in this direction. Naturally, this proves absolutely nothing about Hebrew. But the joke was sitting there, and I was not going to waste it.
Another example of prefix stacking
Consider this family:
- chedy 500 occurrences
- lchedy 108 occurrences
- olchedy 34 occurrences
- dolchedy 3 occurrences
All four words appear in the manuscript. None is a hapax or gallows word. At each step, one new atom is placed in front of the previous word:
- chedy
- L + chedy = lchedy
- O + lchedy = olchedy
- D + olchedy = dolchedy
In ledger form:
- CH → E → D → Y
- L → CH → E → D → Y
- O → L → CH → E → D → Y
- D → O → L → CH → E → D → Y
The complete chain requires only:
- D→O
- O→L
- L→CH
- CH→E
- E→D
- D→Y
Every one of those transitions appears in the core ledger. This is a particularly clear example of prefix stacking. The word chedy remains intact while L, then O, then D are stacked in front of it.
Thats is exactly the kind of nested word family that prefix stacking would produce and the word families everyone keeps seeing in the Voynich.
Missing Letters?
You may have noticed some dashes in the ledger and some letters with no midfix or suffix and, that is correct. H for example. It has no midfix as it never appears as a prefix. And it has no suffix as it's never the letter before the suffix. Now you would think that choldy would give it a midfix of o. However, H never appears without a C or an H in front of it (keep in mind, no gallows and no hapax tokens). But, it's included because in the full ledger, which I'll describe in the next post, that is going to change.
Which brings me to the next section:
Why I treat CH and SH as atoms
In my earlier ledgers, I treated every transcription character separately. That meant CH was represented as C followed by H, and SH was represented as S followed by H.
For example:
- chedy = C → H → E → D → Y
- lchedy = L → C → H → E → D → Y
- olchedy = O → L → C → H → E → D → Y
- dolchedy = D → O → L → C → H → E → D → Y
This created a problem in my original table. Every time another prefix was stacked onto the word, C and H were pushed one position farther into the midfix:
- chedy H in the first midfix position
- lchedy H in the second midfix position
- olchedy H in the third midfix position
- dolchedy H in the fourth midfix position
I therefore had to keep track of first midfix, second midfix, third midfix and so forth. The ledger became larger and more complicated as words became longer. Eventually I realized that much of this apparent midfix depth was being created by the way I had divided CH and SH. I was splitting units that behaved more cleanly when kept together.
I changed the atomization so that CH and SH are each handled as one ledger atom:
- chedy = CH → E → D → Y
- lchedy = L → CH → E → D → Y
- olchedy = O → L → CH → E → D → Y
- dolchedy = D → O → L → CH → E → D → Y
Now the same word family can be described with a few reusable transitions:
- D→O
- O→L
- L→CH
- CH→E
- E→D
- D→Y
The ledger no longer needs to know whether CH is in the first, second, third or fourth midfix position. It only needs to know which atoms can follow CH and which atoms can lead into it.
SH works the same way.
This does not mean that C, S and H have been removed. They remain separate atoms when they occur separately. Only the exact sequences CH and SH are kept together. “Atom” here simply means that the ledger handles the sequence as one unit. The important result is that once CH and SH are treated this way, the positional midfix columns are no longer necessary. The same information can be represented by a much smaller positionless ledger. What had looked like complicated midfix depth was, in large part, the same units being pushed farther to the right by added prefixes.
Eliminating the first argument: Wouldn't any language look like this?
Yes, a positionless ledger can be constructed from any language. For comparison, I chose Finnish. Finnish is an agglutinative language: it commonly builds words by joining smaller elements together. That makes it a useful control for the kind of word-building process I am proposing for Voynichese.
I used the first 12,564 non-hapax Finnish tokens, the same number of tokens represented by the Voynich ledger above.
| Ledger | Word types | Core midfix transitions | Rare midfix transitions | Suffix transitions |
| Voynich | 805 | 53 | 31 | 63 |
| Finnish | 3,919 | 277 | 20 | 140 |
So yes, Finnish can be placed into the same kind of ledger. But it requires far more word types and far more transitions to describe the same number of tokens. The ledger format itself is not unique to the Voynich Manuscript. What is unusual is how much of the Voynich vocabulary can be described by such a small set of reusable transitions.
Finnish positionless ledger: Seitsemän veljestä
| Prefix | Core midfix | Rare midfix | Suffix |
| A | A, D, E, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, P, R, S, T, U, V | — | A, I, N, R, S, T |
| D | A, E, I, O, Ä | — | A, E, O, U, Ä |
| E | A, D, E, H, I, K, L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, U, V, Y, Ä | J | A, E, H, I, N, R, S, T, Ä |
| F | R | L, Ö | — |
| G | A, I, O | E | — |
| H | A, D, E, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, T, U, V, Y, Ä, Ö | — | A, E, I, O, T, U, Ä |
| I | A, D, E, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, U, V, Ä | — | A, E, H, I, N, O, S, T, Ä |
| J | A, E, I, O, U, Y, Ä | — | A, U, Ä |
| K | A, E, I, K, M, O, R, S, U, Y, Ä, Ö | N | A, E, I, K, O, S, U, Y, Ä, Ö |
| L | A, E, H, I, J, K, L, M, O, P, S, T, U, V, Y, Ä, Ö | — | A, E, I, L, O, U, Y, Ä |
| M | A, E, I, M, O, P, S, U, Y, Ä, Ö | — | A, E, H, I, O, U, Ä |
| N | A, E, G, H, I, K, L, N, O, P, S, T, U, Y, Ä | J, M, V | A, E, I, O, Ä |
| O | A, D, E, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, U, V | — | A, H, I, N, O, S, T |
| P | A, E, I, O, P, S, U, Y, Ä, Ö | L, R | A, I, O, U, Ä |
| R | A, E, H, I, J, K, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, U, V, Y, Ä | Ö | A, I, O, S, Y, Ä |
| S | A, E, I, K, O, P, S, T, U, V, Y, Ä, Ö | M, N | A, E, I, O, S, T, U, Y, Ä |
| T | A, E, H, I, K, O, P, R, S, T, U, Y, Ä, Ö | V | A, E, I, O, U, Y, Ä, Ö |
| U | A, D, E, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, U, V | — | A, E, I, N, O, S, T, U |
| V | A, E, I, O, U, Ä | Y, Ö | A, E, I, O, U, Ä, Ö |
| Y | D, E, H, I, K, L, M, N, P, R, S, T, V, Y, Ä, Ö | — | I, N, S, T, Y, Ä, Ö |
| Ä | D, E, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, P, R, S, T, V, Y, Ä | — | E, H, I, N, R, S, T, Y, Ä |
| Ö | H, I, J, K, M, N, R, S, T, Y, Ö | D, L, P, V | I, N, S, T, Ä |
The hook to read the next post: Gallows are lipstick!
And, I'll also present the full ledger, explain why gallows words and hapax words are omitted from the ledger above and hopefully, give some convincing evidence as to why they were omitted.
Thanks. I have donned my flame retardant clothing, fire away.
|
|
|
|
| New members: trouble registering |
|
Posted by: Koen G - 23-08-2026, 07:39 PM - Forum: News
- Replies (1)
|
 |
Note to new members trying to register. There is currently an issue with confirmation emails not being sent. We are working on this - I will report here when it is fixed.
|
|
|
|
| [split] Measure uncertain spaces? |
|
Posted by: Koen G - 22-08-2026, 04:22 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (8)
|
|
(22-08-2026, 03:59 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But they also report finding that "certain" spaces tend to fall between their study's learned units, while "uncertain" spaces tend to fall within them. That seems potentially more meaningful in terms of supporting the idea of a hierarchy of "strong" and "weak" spaces.
Thank you for your contributions in clear language, Patrick, I find this very informative.
About these uncertain spaces: the phenomenon you describe here could still be attributed to subconscious split-second decisions by the transcriber, right? The manuscript trains your brain to recognize certain patterns, and as soon as something deviates from those patterns, you have to mark it as uncertain. In my opinion, there is a good chance this effect influenced the results. When transcribing regular medieval handwriting, we need to rely on expected sequences to determine spacing all the time, especially in kind of chopped-up scripts like these. Only, in regular MSS this is non-controversial because we understand the meaning of the words.
So I wonder: let's say we take this crucial sequence of [r] followed by [a], and plot them all according to the distance (pixels?) between the [r] and [a]. Will the no-space variants be all on the left, and the space variants on the right, and the uncertain ones neatly in between? How much overlap is there? Is it a continuum? If this could be measured objectively somehow, we would have a better idea of what space, no space and uncertain space actually stand for.
(Edit: this would actually be informative for other reasons as well, like when we split up by scribe).
|
|
|
|
| Dr. Hartlieb's alleged involvement in the creation of the Voynich Manuscript |
|
Posted by: amelkin - 20-08-2026, 12:22 PM - Forum: Theories & Solutions
- Replies (24)
|
 |
I am facing some accusations that the arguments supporting my hypothesis regarding the origin of the Voynich Manuscript are unscientific. This concerns Dr. Hartlieb's alleged involvement in the creation of the Voynich Manuscript. I present here some devastating counterarguments.
(1) Some researchers consider Dr. Hartlieb too young to be connected to the Voynich Manuscript. I hold a different opinion and provide a rationale. Dr. Hartlieb was born in 1400, not 1410; otherwise, he could not possibly have participated in the Hussite Wars in 1419.
(2) Dr. Hartlieb was the only person at the time who possessed the full spectrum of knowledge covered in the Voynich Manuscript. His works and materials contain drawings and diagrams resembling the manuscript's graphic content. Hartlieb's *Medico-Astrological Calendar* features various scripts and cipher systems incorporating up to 70% of the symbols found in the Voynich Manuscript, including the inscription "Michitonese".
(3) Dr. Hartlieb did not write the Voynich Manuscript himself; instead, he commissioned five scribes to produce up to ten different versions based on his drafts, allowing them the freedom to generate words and drawings within certain parameters. This is evidenced by certain duplicated pages that differ in handwriting and detail (f70v1, f71r, f71v, f72r1). Therefore, there is no need to compare the handwriting of Dr. Hartlieb with that of the individuals who wrote the manuscript. The presence of duplicated pages and diagrams also indicates that the Voynich Manuscript is assembled from several surviving fragments belonging to different versions of the manuscript.
(4) Regarding the depiction of the castle in the manuscript, researchers note that the fortress's general layout - four towers connected by walls, a moat or river, and a central building (*Herrenhaus*) - mirrors the original structure of Blutenburg Castle from that era with remarkable accuracy. This has led to the hypothesis that Hartlieb sketched Blutenburg Castle in his draft, while the scribes added the characteristic crenellations to the walls.
|
|
|
|
| I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS |
|
Posted by: JustAnotherTheory - 19-08-2026, 09:55 PM - Forum: Provenance & history
- Replies (71)
|
|
As the title suggests, I'm not convinced by our current understanding of the VMS provenance timeline. I've had this feeling for a while now, but hadn't dared to share it.
I'm sure that at this point in the history of the VMS, certain events and letters are discussed as "facts", however I remain unconvinced. How is it that a 15th century manuscript divides so many medieval history experts to such a degree?
My main argument can be split into three points. I hope, despite the "well-established" provenance of the VMS, it will cast a doubt on you, too.
- None of the alleged previous owners of the VMS mentioned any of the peculiar aspects of the VMS. Baresch, Marci, Kircher talked about an unreadable manuscript with herbal and cosmological diagrams. But everybody failed to mention the hundreds of naked nymphs, though. One would think that this distinguishing feature of of the MS would be the first thing to mention in any correspondence. After all, no other MS exists with so many weird naked ladies. Why didn't anybody write: "Hey, help me decipher this manuscript with... 300 b*tt naked ladies from the 15th century". Let's face it, the VMS is not "only" a herbal. There are thousands of herbals. Not one has this many nymphs. Also, nobody mentioned the tubes and bathing scenes either. If I would describe the VMS to someone, especially an expert, there is no way I would leave those details out. Would you?
- Voynich himself noted the (faded) signature of Jacobus Tepenecz on the front page of the VMS. Yet nobody in the entire known history of the VMS mentioned anything about Tepenecz. For Baresch, Marci, Kircher and others, it would have been obvious that there is a famous signature on the front page. These were not laymen. These were experts. Yet nobody, for some reason, mentions that the personal herbalist of the mighty Holy Roman Emperor himself, Rudolf II, visibly signed the manuscript on the front page.
- Kircher's letter to Moretus in 1639 says that: "I can let you know that the other sheet which appeared to be written in the same unknown script is printed in the Illyrian language in the script commonly called St Jerome's". But Voynichese is nothing like Illyrian (Glagolitic) language. It is totally different, they don't even have the same characters. Either Kircher/Moretus are totally misunderstanding basic linguistic features, of which they are allegedly era-defining experts, or... they are talking about another MS. Not the Voynich MS.
In conclusion, I am not convinced by the currently understood provenance history of the VMS. Not a single link seems to indicate, unambiguously, that they are talking about the VMS. Crucial details are missing from each correspondence.
Are they talking about some other manuscript instead?
If you agree that 99 percent of manuscripts from the middle ages are lost today, then it is vastly more probable that these people are talking about another, lost MS, rather than the Voynich manuscript.
I think we need to revise the history of the VMS.
|
|
|
|
| Rosettes and Astrology |
|
Posted by: ololololo - 18-08-2026, 11:02 PM - Forum: Imagery
- Replies (29)
|
 |
Rosette 1 perfectly matches diagram f67r1. They have the same number of rays = 12.
Rosette has 3 14 rays in total. The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. also has two different types of rays, but there are only 28 of them, whereas on the Rosetta 2 there are only half. In terms of shape, it is very similar to the f70r2. There’s even a sun in the center, but here’s the problem — this rosette is two rays short of 16; that’s exactly how many rays the f70r2 has 
I couldn’t figure out how many rays Rosetta 2 has. If it has 8, then it could correspond to f68v2 and the same f70r2 (it’s similar in shape). If it has 9, then there’s a candidate f70r1 (but there’s no similarity in shape) and f68v3 (9 spirals, but that’s not it at all).
In total, possible matches: Rosette 1 - f67r1, Rosette 2 - f68v2, Rosette 3 - f70r2.
...And that’s it. It’s not enough to call Rosetta’s scheme a cosmological one.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
