+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Imagery (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-43.html)
+--- Thread: 9 Rosette - Specific Details (/thread-2952.html)
RE: 9 Rosette - Specific Details - Mark Knowles - 04-10-2019
I thought I would refer again to the following map where some of the blue and white wavy lines represent rivers. By some people it is thought that on the 9 rosettes page the blue and white wavy lines represent the sea, but I think the idea that they represent lakes or rivers should not be discounted. I spent quite a lot of time trying to make sense of the page where these blue and white wavy lines represented sea and this seemed quite impossible to make sense of.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: 9 Rosette - Specific Details - -JKP- - 05-10-2019
(04-10-2019, 10:43 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
A paper on the "map theory" ( Jürgen Wastl and Danielle Feger )
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
1.
--------------
I just read it and you know what? I could be wrong, but it doesn't have the feeling of conclusions that the authors arrived at on their own.
It has the feeling of being cobbled together from all the different things people have been writing about for years on their blogs (including mine and probably also Diane's) but which are not credited (with the exception of Nick Pelling who is probably only credited because he has a book on the subject).
You know why it feels that way to me? because several of the ideas are not linked to each other in any logical way... here we have the lighthouse idea, here we have the elements idea, here we have the [insert your choice] idea... but the real relationships between them and the logic from which they are connected has not been included.
2.
--------------
VERY strangely, they credit the radiocarbon dating information to Edith Sherwood's site. Why would ANYBODY credit Sherwood for that?
It's very weird (from a scholarly point of view) to reference a third-party site (third-party sites often report inaccurately, one should always get as close to the original materials as possible). Even if they first saw it mentioned on her site, it's their job as researchers to seek out the original report (which has been available online for a few years now), to read it, and to credit that.
3.
--------------
Also, what is the point of statements like this?
"The continuing unsuccessful attempts to unravel the contents even led to a hypothesis that the Voynich manuscript ‘must’ be fake, based on textual and statistical analysis (1). Rugg provided a way and technique to fake-produce a ‘senseless’ manuscript seemingly effortlessly in a very short time in the style of the Voynich manuscript (2)."
There are many hypotheses that the VMS is fake, but the fact that Hyde and Rugg used a grille to produce fast text that is NOT like VMS text doesn't mean a thing. Why quote a study that used bad statistical analysis to produce un-Voynich-like text?
It makes as much sense as saying, "Researcher-A didn't see any sparrows in his walk around the park by using a telescope he made himself and concluded there are no sparrows in this area". Would you put that in a research paper?
4.
----------------
It's an imprecise paper. Statements like this: "Of the multitude of sections with botanical, astrological or pharmaceutical imagery one section did not catch the attention and focus so far: The Rosette Map..."
The researchers who use the terms "botanical section" "astrological section" and "pharmaceutical section" usually do so for reasons of communication and Voynich-research tradition. It's so we know right away which section people are talking about. But that does not mean those researchers necessarily link the images in those sections specifically to those topics, as implied by the authors' statement.
One of the things that can sometimes hold back research is bad terminology. There is no evidence yet that there is any "pharmaceutical imagery" in the VMS, even if people call it the "pharmaceutical section" for convenience.
As for the Rosette Map not catching much attention, I don't know where they are looking, but it's been talked about and blogged about more frequently than many sections of the VMS. The fact that D'Imperio said the rosette folio was neglected is irrelevant. We've had decades of research since she said that.
5.
------------------
"Cartographic depiction of geographic locations in medieval maps was achieved with so-called mappae mundi."
This is not at all a good characterization of medieval maps. What characterizes medieval maps is not mappae mundi, but the incredible diversity of map styles and the singular way in which many of them were used for one-time or short-term projects (e.g., battle strategy, building projects, engineering, garden design) or trips (like itinerary and strip maps).
6.
-----------------------
They spelled Diane's name wrong. I haven't seen her analysis of the rosette folio, but she has referred to it enough times that it sounds like she must have put some effort into it. Basically all they said about it was "The possibility of a world map was mentioned in a blog post by Diane O’Donavan[sic] by comparing You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. with Chinese square maps although no comparison with classical sources (e.g. aforementioned Krates) or further details on the identification of the individual continents or landmarks were provided for f86v."
Okay, this might be true, I haven't read Diane's "map" analysis, so I don't know. But it doesn't feel right to me because Diane has frequently mentioned the lighthouse of Alexandria in connection with the rosettes folio, which is obviously a classical source and very obviously not in China. So either they are covering up where they got the lighthouse idea, or they haven't read the NUMEROUS occasions on blogs and on the forum, where she talks about it.
RE: 9 Rosette - Specific Details - Mark Knowles - 05-10-2019
(04-10-2019, 11:21 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The strip map. It's much less regular.
Castle - small castle - castle - river - split:
- tower - tower - tower....
- tower - tower - pyramid? ....
That's its structure, it's variable. But in the VM, there's a strong overarching structure of nine circles, connected in a structured manner.
Both appear schematic, that is true. But the strip map makes the scheme follow the variability of the routes, while in the VM everything is presented in what appears to be a much more symbolic diagram.
And while the VM foldout's structure is less varied, its contents is more so.
It is certainly not exactly the same, but I gave it in part as an idea of what I think the causeways on the rosettes page are like. As I have said I think the individual circles represent locations, except for the central circle. The top right circle looks like the map of a city in it's own right. I think the bottom left circle and the bottom right circle look like illustrations of locations. In my opinion the central side circles symbolise locations or more accurately contain illustrations associated with locations such as a rose window or a ceiling. The top left circle is always annoying as in the circle there is so little detail, just a ring of crescent moons. I think the central circle is in some sense symbolic as I don't think it represents a geographical location. So I think some things are symbolic, but I think a lot is not.
RE: 9 Rosette - Specific Details - Mark Knowles - 05-10-2019
(05-10-2019, 12:00 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(04-10-2019, 10:43 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
A paper on the "map theory" ( Jürgen Wastl and Danielle Feger )
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
1.
--------------
I just read it and you know what? I could be wrong, but it doesn't have the feeling of conclusions that the authors arrived at on their own.
It has the feeling of being cobbled together from all the different things people have been writing about for years on their blogs (including mine and probably also Diane's) but which are not credited (with the exception of Nick Pelling who is probably only credited because he has a book on the subject).
You know why it feels that way to me? because several of the ideas are not linked to each other in any logical way... here we have the lighthouse idea, here we have the elements idea, here we have the [insert your choice] idea... but the real relationships between them and the logic from which they are connected has not been included.
...
In the spirit of declaring influences of Voynich researchers on my thinking about this page, I can only really say that Nick Pelling's ideas had quite a bit of influence on my thinking, though a lot of my thinking is quite my own. It is possible I may have picked up the odd idea elsewhere, but if so they were very minor. Obviously I was influenced by some non-Voynich researchers' work.
RE: 9 Rosette - Specific Details - -JKP- - 05-10-2019
Mark, I know you've been working on this in a dedicated way and you are also honest about crediting which parts of the ideas you got from Nick. I have no doubt you are really trying to solve it, not just trying to get something published that makes it look like you're ahead of the pack (which is the impression I get from this paper which seems superficial and which credits a lot of out-of-date sources and none of the recent ones).
RE: 9 Rosette - Specific Details - Mark Knowles - 05-10-2019
(05-10-2019, 12:36 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Mark, I know you've been working on this in a dedicated way and you are also honest about crediting which parts of the ideas you got from Nick. I have no doubt you are really trying to solve it, not just trying to get something published that makes it look like you're ahead of the pack (which is the impression I get from this paper which seems superficial and which credits a lot of out-of-date sources and none of the recent ones).
Yes, of course, there is a lot of my thinking that I have been quite uncomfortable about making public yet. I was asked as I explained my analysis to Professor Harvey and others if I would write a paper about my theory for a Journal about the History of Cartography, but given that I can't definitively proof my theory I was somewhat cagey about it as I didn't want it to reflect badly on their journal if it ever turned out to be flawed and as we know in the highly publicised world of Voynich research this could be problematic.
RE: 9 Rosette - Specific Details - Linda - 05-10-2019
(04-10-2019, 11:59 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I thought I would refer again to the following map where some of the blue and white wavy lines represent rivers. By some people it is thought that on the 9 rosettes page the blue and white wavy lines represent the sea, but I think the idea that they represent lakes or rivers should not be discounted. I spent quite a lot of time trying to make sense of the page where these blue and white wavy lines represented sea and this seemed quite impossible to make sense of.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I interpret the blue and white wavy areas in the rosettes to denote different types of rock, and or rocky promontories, islands, or local mountains, rather than water bodies, although i think the blue is fresh water, and could denote rivers and lakes along the way, although i have not generally seen specifics of this myself, i can think of one person's theory which does name some of these as specific lakes and rivers.
However, at the same time i do think some of the imagery does double or triple duty and stands for multiple things, usually related in some way, i call it zooming, because there is generally a change in size involved.
For instance, the rosette i mentioned as depicting central europe is also representative of the same ecumene as is represented by the whole page. The spiral i see as the alps becomes similar to Cosmas' mountain and is surrounded by the seven seas (the waves). The inclusion of what appears to be Cappadocia shows the extent of this ecumene, including all of the Mediterranean.
RE: 9 Rosette - Specific Details - Linda - 05-10-2019
(04-10-2019, 10:59 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is a page of Matthew Paris's Strip Map. I think strips like these are what we see with the causeways on the rosettes page. Note the central rosette is not connected by causeways and I would argue not a geographical location, but a theme relating to the page.
I used to think that, and perhaps it is still part of it, for me that theme was religious, because of the inclusion of Jerusalem at the centers of so many Christian maps, except i saw it also to be Cairo, Baghdad, and other places. Now i think it is geographical, including all the data that goes with that, and in amongst the various political relationships and multiculturalism through the ages, there is also a multitheistic aspect to the place i interpret it to be, which is Sicily. I got the idea from a portolan chart centred on Sicily, there were several aspects i could correlate with what is in the rosettes.
![[Image: 61aOCQ0N7IL._SX355_.jpg]](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61aOCQ0N7IL._SX355_.jpg)
I do not see it as a strip map though, to me the causeways are just as much a part of the whole as the rosettes, it just cuts things up into morsels. To me the TO map is up, or top right, depending on which view i am describing. Yours is a new orientation i hadn't seen before. Where do you think the travels occur? Juergen's paper was one of the first i saw, and although i don't completely agree with his placements, the main gist somewhat matched my own ideas about the rosettes as a map, or as a bunch of mnemonics that can be used to draw one.
RE: 9 Rosette - Specific Details - Linda - 05-10-2019
(05-10-2019, 12:36 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Mark, I know you've been working on this in a dedicated way and you are also honest about crediting which parts of the ideas you got from Nick. I have no doubt you are really trying to solve it, not just trying to get something published that makes it look like you're ahead of the pack (which is the impression I get from this paper which seems superficial and which credits a lot of out-of-date sources and none of the recent ones).
Not sure what you consider recent, and I can see some of the points you made in your review, but do remember, Juergen's paper is from early 2014, it could not include more recent info than that.
I don't think this forum was here yet, the old ones hadn't yet been archived, it didn't seem very easy to find voynich info if you came into it new around that time, as i did later the same year.
I found the paper interesting enough, maybe my almost complete lack of voynich knowledge at the time coloured my view of it, but i still consider it of interest, and his other papers too.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: 9 Rosette - Specific Details - Linda - 05-10-2019
(05-10-2019, 12:53 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(05-10-2019, 12:36 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Mark, I know you've been working on this in a dedicated way and you are also honest about crediting which parts of the ideas you got from Nick. I have no doubt you are really trying to solve it, not just trying to get something published that makes it look like you're ahead of the pack (which is the impression I get from this paper which seems superficial and which credits a lot of out-of-date sources and none of the recent ones).
Yes, of course, there is a lot of my thinking that I have been quite uncomfortable about making public yet. I was asked as I explained my analysis to Professor Harvey and others if I would write a paper about my theory for a Journal about the History of Cartography, but given that I can't definitively proof my theory I was somewhat cagey about it as I didn't want it to reflect badly on their journal if it ever turned out to be flawed and as we know in the highly publicised world of Voynich research this could be problematic.
Can you write it for us? I truly do believe the history of cartography is involved, i would be interested in what specifics you are seeing in this regard.