+- 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: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all (/thread-653.html)
RE: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all - ReneZ - 02-08-2017
It's interesting to compare this with the 2004 scan:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
This has no shiny area, and also shows a deep fold, which has been straightened out in the later scan.
The word daldal which is visible in the later scan:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
almost completely disappears in the fold.
RE: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all - Koen G - 02-08-2017
If you take down the brightness all the way, you see that a band of "golden" specks goes over the tower. So whether it's paint or an artifact of the lighting technique used for the scans, I guess we can safely say that it's not an artistic highlight specifically for the tower.
Although on the other hand, whatever it is appears more concentrated on that one spot of the spire...
RE: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all - MarcoP - 02-08-2017
(02-08-2017, 06:37 AM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The yellow spire No. 1 is divided into two cones with blue paint. What is this: - "all-seeing eye" or an attempt to draw a lighthouse (1 and 3?)?
This could be somehow comparable with the bell-tower of the Modena Cathedral known as "la Ghirlandina" (1300 ca) .
RE: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all - -JKP- - 02-08-2017
This does not have those small spires sticking up, but it might be of interest because it's almost round and is 14th century (Milan, which was at the southern border of Lombardy at the time):
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
St. Mary's basilica in Krakow isn't entirely round but it is old and has extra little spires.
Unfortunately, many towers have been destroyed in wars.
RE: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all - Koen G - 02-08-2017
That's a good parallel, Marco, especially the top part of the tower. Also, a domed building is at the appropriate location
The difficulty is, as JKP shows, that these elements were relatively popular in 15thC Europe. I know of several churches around here with a globular decoration in the spire, and it is true that a large amount of towers - especially the spires - have been lost or rebuilt in a different style. These circumstances make the search for similar buildings very difficult.
Based on the similarity alone I'd still say this tower is a good candidate. However, it appears to be standing in the middle of the old town while the VM tower is near or even part of what looks like a fortified wall...
RE: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all - MarcoP - 02-08-2017
(02-08-2017, 02:04 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The difficulty is, as JKP shows, that these elements were relatively popular in 15thC Europe. I know of several churches around here with a globular decoration in the spire, and it is true that a large amount of towers - especially the spires - have been lost or rebuilt in a different style. These circumstances make the search for similar buildings very difficult.
This is certainly true, yet the parallels we proposed are good but could be better. Searching for better parallels still makes sense.
The St.Goffredo tower in Milan posted by JKP has the typical conic top that appears in most medieval churches in Lombardy. Still it is not round (even if octagonal is a good approximation) and it doesn't have the peculiar feature highlighted by Wladimir.
(02-08-2017, 02:04 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Based on the similarity alone I'd still say this tower is a good candidate. However, it appears to be standing in the middle of the old town while the VM tower is near or even part of what looks like a fortified wall...
I agree! This is a major difference and it's very likely to be relevant. I think the author of the illustration was familiar with walls with round towers and conical roofs. He manages to throw in a number of interesting details. I think here one can see three semi-circular towers, an arched city-gate or square tower and (at the bottom) a building with an angular turret (Photos top to bottom: Glorenza/Glurns, Berwick, the Alcazar - I am not sure they are potentially relevant, just to give an idea of what I see in the illustration. I am sure better examples can be found)
RE: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all - Koen G - 02-08-2017
A random thought. The apparent accuracy and architectural detail in these little buildings keeps surprising me. I'm not ashamed to admit that I can't draw like the images on the large foldout. The same goes for the folio with the two birds, those are actually really well drawn and the items on that page seem to have the same DNA as the map. Now compare this to the Zodiac "bulls" for example, quite puzzling.
I wonder whether it would make sense to look for parallels for these buildings on things like portolan charts? Those are surely some of the closest things we know to this foldout...
RE: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all - -JKP- - 02-08-2017
(02-08-2017, 07:01 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A random thought. The apparent accuracy and architectural detail in these little buildings keeps surprising me. I'm not ashamed to admit that I can't draw like the images on the large foldout. The same goes for the folio with the two birds, those are actually really well drawn and the items on that page seem to have the same DNA as the map. Now compare this to the Zodiac "bulls" for example, quite puzzling.
I wonder whether it would make sense to look for parallels for these buildings on things like portolan charts? Those are surely some of the closest things we know to this foldout...
I've always been impressed with the architectural details, as well—even the different styles of crenelations on the walls have been noted, including the shape and spacing of arrow slits.
What I find particularly interesting about the VMS rosettes page is the vantage point from which the details have been drawn. Most medieval maps with buildings were straight on (even if the map was at an angle) or "flattened" in odd ways but the VMS "map" makes you feel like whoever drew it flew over in a hot-air balloon—in other words, drawing many of the buildings from an angle that would have been impossible to see in real life in the 15th century unless one were at a great height.
I have sometimes wondered whether this area were seen from mountain tops, but it would have to be a very high (and impractical) one because the drawing seems to indicate quite a bit of height already, with several prominences and with the path becoming increasingly precipitous toward the top left.
There were a few medieval maps (mostly semi-realistic drawings of small towns in mountain valleys) which have obviously been drawn from partway up a mountain, but the VMS rosettes page seems broader in scale than these and drawn from a steeper angle.
RE: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all - MarcoP - 03-08-2017
(02-08-2017, 07:01 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I wonder whether it would make sense to look for parallels for these buildings on things like portolan charts? Those are surely some of the closest things we know to this foldout...
Hi Koen,
I think the most perspicuous features of portolan charts is their relatively accurate representation of the shape and accidents of coast lines and the extensive use of "windrose lines". They seem to me to be "more scientific" than earlier medieval maps.
On the other hand, the Rosettes foldout is a neatly symmetrical diagram featuring a number of apparently symbolic elements. It is obviously based on circles, which appear in numberless medieval diagrams (rotae) but typically not in portolan charts. For these reasons, I see it as more "medieval" and "abstract" than portolan charts and I also think it possible that, as the thread title says, it "may not be a map at all".
Could you please list a few traits typical of portalan charts (i.e. absent in other medieval charts) that make them "some of the closest things we know to this foldout"?
RE: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all - MarcoP - 03-08-2017
(02-08-2017, 08:21 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What I find particularly interesting about the VMS rosettes page is the vantage point from which the details have been drawn. Most medieval maps with buildings were straight on (even if the map was at an angle) or "flattened" in odd ways but the VMS "map" makes you feel like whoever drew it flew over in a hot-air balloon—in other words, drawing many of the buildings from an angle that would have been impossible to see in real life in the 15th century unless one were at a great height.
Hi JKP, while I agree with your description of typical medieval maps, in the XV Century things were beginning to change, with a more robust approach to perspective and the representation of three-dimensional shapes.
See for instance You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (England, 1st quarter of the 15th century) or Walsperger's world map (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. B, 1448).