+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Tasks (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-28.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich tasks (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-32.html)
+---- Forum: Positions we can agree upon (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-53.html)
+----- Forum: Approved blocks (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-54.html)
+----- Thread: Roots of plants in f33r, f89r1, f101v2 include depictions of anthropomorphic heads (/thread-1069.html)
Roots of plants in f33r, f89r1, f101v2 include depictions of anthropomorphic heads - MarcoP - 11-11-2016
1) The roots of the plant in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. include depictions of two You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. heads.
2) The roots of the second plant of the bottom row of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. include depictions of five anthropomorphic heads.
3) The roots of the fourth plant of the bottom row of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. include the depiction of an anthropomorphic head.
[This thread follows You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Trying to accommodate the suggestions of Anton, David et al.]
RE: The roots of the plant in f33r include depictions of two human heads - Koen G - 11-11-2016
Good idea, Marco. Seeing the way things go, I think it's the best to present statements as little bits and then approve or disapprove them separately. I have very little time at the moment but feel free to divide the initial statement further
Could we perhaps add the two similar roots from the small-plants section to this statement as well?
RE: The roots of the plant in f33r include depictions of two human heads - Anton - 11-11-2016
I would support this statement.
RE: The roots of the plant in f33r include depictions of two human heads - davidjackson - 11-11-2016
Without wanting to seem argumentative, I would quibble with human heads as this limits our options of interpretation.
They could be divine or supernatural; they could be figurative or they could even represent actual people. If we blandly say "human" we are excluding many of these options.
There is also the question of the form of the heads, which is no doubt important. They are well drawn from the mouth up, but ballon-like in form below the chin.
I would suggest a two part statement, something like:
- The roots of the plant in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. include depictions of two humanoid heads drawn realistically from the mouth-up but tapering away under the chin.
- In both cases, their hair is connected to the root structure of the plant and they are orientated to look towards the central root.
Or, if we want to keep it simple, just substitute "humanoid" for "human".
RE: The roots of the plant in f33r include depictions of two human heads - Anton - 11-11-2016
Whatever they represent, the heads are obviously human. For example, if Zeus is depicted as a human, one does not say that that head is not human, notwithstanding that Zeus is a deity, not a human.
RE: Roots of plants in f33r, f89r1, f101v2 include depictions of human heads - MarcoP - 11-11-2016
I have added the other two "human" head plants I am aware of, as suggested by Koen. Do you think this will make the discussion more difficult?
I think that David's argument applies equally to the three images, but please let me know what you think.
In my opinion, a "divine" head is recognizable from a human head only by means of specific attributes (e.g. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., in some Christian art). By saying they are human, we don't rule out that they can be divine as well. As Anton wrote, there are images of gods in human form. But it's important to find a formulation that does not seem misleading to David. I hope that others will point out other potential problems.
RE: Roots of plants in f33r, f89r1, f101v2 include depictions of human heads - MarcoP - 11-11-2016
On You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., a page from Lawrence J. Schoenberg Collection ms LJS 41 is described as "the woad plant (f. 42), which has a blue root with a human face". The page is also described so:
42: 'Isatoris' (Isatis tinctoria, still in use as a dye plant, woad, the colour indicated by the blue root, though the significance of the face in the root isn't clear)
So, even if the significance of the face is not clear, they have no problem in identifying it as "human".
RE: Roots of plants in f33r, f89r1, f101v2 include depictions of human heads - davidjackson - 11-11-2016
Fair enough, I withdraw my objection.
RE: Roots of plants in f33r, f89r1, f101v2 include depictions of human heads - Koen G - 11-11-2016
Excellent.
RE: Roots of plants in f33r, f89r1, f101v2 include depictions of human heads - -JKP- - 11-11-2016
I agree that human head might be too restrictive.
The ones on the left look like monks. The one on the right like a regular person (is it a portrait of the illustrator?).
The one in the middle might be phases of the mooon. It could (for example) represent the mythical lunaria plant, which is sometimes drawn with curved leaves (like quarter-moons) or with moon-like faces. Since the VMS has a slightly different take on almost everything, I wouldn't be surprised to see a mnemonic that is usually applied to leaves end up in the roots.
Because the center one could represent the moon (not saying it does, just that it's possible), I'd be more comfortable with humanoid heads.