+- 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: Crossbowman (/thread-695.html)
RE: Crossbowman - Davidsch - 09-01-2017
perhaps already added, but better be sure.
Paris, Bibl. Sainte-Geneviève, ms. 1029, f. 000Hv - vue 3
![[Image: crossbow.jpg]](http://ms.webpoint.nl/img/vn/crossbow.jpg)
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.=
RE: Crossbowman - -JKP- - 28-06-2017
Very cool picture, I had to post it. It's Assyrian and may be the first depiction of a SCUBA diver.
What I'm curious about is the instrument top left. At first glance, it's shaped like a crossbow, but there are some aspects to it that are unique and perhaps not practical for a crossbow. It appears that the corded part is ahead of the supports rather than behind. Even if it had just been fired, a crossbow cord wouldn't be that far in front of the support structure and the part on top is too large and too far forward for a trigger. And what are those bumps? Parts of it look like an anchor, but the bumpy part doesn't seem to fit with the idea of an anchor either. Anyone know or have some good ideas?
![[Image: c769aea4f3635c7fef67ae9bfd6d0486--man-sw...otamia.jpg]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c7/69/ae/c769aea4f3635c7fef67ae9bfd6d0486--man-swimming-ancient-mesopotamia.jpg)
RE: Crossbowman - Koen G - 28-06-2017
Awesome image.
Part of the object certainly looks like an anchor. In some other thread I posted a picture of an anchor that looks exactly like a stringless crossbow - because of the two arms and stirrup. They are pretty common.
But like you say, this thing is more complicated, if.not something else altogether.
The diver is lying on top of a large bag filled with air. Normally this would float and he wouldn't be able to dive. So either the bag is weighted with stones inside, or he needs some external method. Maybe that's what the thing is about? Note that there's also something at his foot. Both objects seem to converge towards the same point.
It may be necessary to find a larger image of the relief.
RE: Crossbowman - Koen G - 28-06-2017
![[Image: 2169-assyrian-soldiers-ferrying-a-chario...BP28GB.jpg]](http://c8.alamy.com/comp/BP28GB/2169-assyrian-soldiers-ferrying-a-chariot-across-a-river-on-a-skin-BP28GB.jpg)
Still not too sure, but it's part of a ship.
RE: Crossbowman - -JKP- - 28-06-2017
(28-06-2017, 10:50 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Still not too sure, but it's part of a ship.
I wonder if it's a ratchet-style mechanism for securing and tightening the sail?
RE: Crossbowman - Diane - 08-12-2017
Koen - just btw, the 'bag' used as the swimmer's support is an inflated skin. Apropos of which I have seen a theory that the reason that bulls and cows were treated differently in Egypt (one being thrown into the river, but the other not, according to Herodotos) was to provide the less affluent river-dwellers downsteam - where the river was wider - with the means of crossing.
RE: Crossbowman - Diane - 08-12-2017
Also, more generally, I'm sorry not to have been around at the time responses were made to my analysis of the archer figure. I appreciate the fact that there were questions asked, and I should very much have liked a chance at last to engage with those who asked them.
As it is, I'm months too late.
RE: Crossbowman - Diane - 08-12-2017
On second thoughts, I will respond since it is so pleasant and fairly rare to have questions asked.
The longest response was from Rene Zandbergen. Since it was in August, I'll quote it all to save people scrolling back.
Quote:Since the crossbow sagittarius has always been an illustration of special interest, I have read the blog entry in question:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
more than once. Following is why it has not convinced me.
First of all it is postulated that the position of the right hand is intentional. This is possible but not at all certain, and if we look at the left hand (that really isn't there at all) one may doubt that this is something that the draughtsman paid a lot of attention to. However, that's also just a guess. It is not certain either way, but it already makes it clear that the conclusion is also going to be uncertain.
The special part of the Spanish maritime crossbow seems to be an extra lock. The blog post has some figures, but they don't say which of the parts belong to a "normal" crossbow, and which are special for the maritime crossbow. It is suggested that the maritime bow "had a hitherto-unknown feature: an additional locking device which required a notched nut’s being inserted into the topside of the stock, about halfway down its length".
However, the nut is needed in all crossbows. The extra lock seems to be the safety wedge indicated in figure 7.
This is a guess because it is not clearly explained.
In any case, the location of the nut, on the top of the stock, is clearly at the point where the string crosses the stock. It would have to be handled before charging, not after, and the bow in the Voynich MS is already charged.
The right hand of the Voynich archer is way behind this point (a good idea by the way), so the argument that he is handing a special Spanish maritime bow is not confirmed at all.
If there is a misinterpretation of the mechanism from my side, it would be good to have this clarified, because the way it is described now is not at all clear.
Breaking it down..
Rene said "it is postulated that the position of the hand is intentional"
I can see no reason not to assume the position of the hand is intentional, any more than the form given the hat, or depiction of the bow as a crossbow, or he provision (within that tiny space) of a faint beard for the archer. I cannot see why anyone would think everything but the position of the arm and its hand intentional, nor why it should be supposed that a draughtsman able to draw the hairs of a beard within so small a compass would place a limb 'unintentionally'. It is an objection, but one without sufficient pause for reflection, I think.
Rene said "if we look at the left hand (that really isn't there at all) one may doubt that this is something that the draughtsman paid a lot of attention to.
Of course, one may doubt. I do not see that there is any reason to doubt it. To suppose the draughtsman paid more interest to one part of the drawing than another is anachronism; in fact the picture is drawn with equal care for detail (equally great or equally little) whatever part of it is drawn. By considering the relative importance which medieval Latin limners placed on one or another element in a drawing, it is clear that the the first priority was always the human figure, and that if anything was treated dismissively or obtusely it was an object. But even there - as for example in imagery of persons playing musical instruments - one tends to find that if an artist is careless in showing the placement of a hand, he will also be careless about physical proportions, the design of the instrument and so on. It is the quality of the artisan, not any personal scale of 'importance' which allows us to decide whether or not a detail is accurately drawn. Again, an objection, but an instinctive one, which doesn't accord with our understanding of medieval practice.
Rene then rightly adds that he was just guessing: "However, that's also just a guess. It is not certain either way, but it already makes it clear that the conclusion is also going to be uncertain".
I think there's a confusion in these sentences between Rene's uncertainty and inability to decide either way, and an objective impossibility to decide whether the body is drawn with care. I see no evidence of carelessness in it; on the contrary when one considers the scale to which this figure is drawn, the care and precision are admirable.
Rene is perfectly right in noticing that my description was flawed. Although the diagrams and photos made the point clear, I had only spoken of " a hitherto-unknown feature: an additional locking device which required a notched nut’s being inserted into the topside of the stock, about halfway down its length".
Quote:Rene said: In any case, the location of the nut, on the top of the stock, is clearly at the point where the string crosses the stock. It would have to be handled before charging, not after, and the bow in the Voynich MS is already charged.
The right hand of the Voynich archer is way behind this point (a good idea by the way), so the argument that he is handing a special Spanish maritime bow is not confirmed at all.
I am very grateful to Rene for having been so clear that readers were having difficulty with the content. I find the failure is mine, thanks to a happy thought I had while discussing various matters to do with medieval history and the history of industry and technologies.
Saying that I thought it was a pity that even solid information tended to be ignored or waved aside when it ran counter to a preferred theory, I whether he thought the matter in the 'Archer' page was arguable.
He then made the same observation which - as I learned today - Rene had made months ago: to wit that I had not explained well enough why that sort of bow and its lock were unusual, nor exactly why it was necessary for no other sort of bowman to manually roll the cross-bow's nut once the weapon was loaded.
So let me re-phrase it in the way he suggested I do.
Where a normal crossbow's nut rolled to hold the string when the weapon was first primed, (as Rene knows) and was then fired simply by being triggered, the unique feature of the Padre Island maritime crossbow was its including a wedge which positively prevented the weapon's release if one pulled the trigger.
In ordinary landsmen's crossbows, the nut engaged automatically when the arrow or bolt was primed, and then released automatically when the trigger was pulled. This wasn't so with the maritime crossbow in question, and the difference explains why Rene had difficulty understanding how an archer's hand would need to be above an already-primed bow.
The archer could not use the trigger alone to release the arrow or bolt; the wedge-and-nut was designed to prevent that happening; the finders believe the whole idea was to ensure no premature release in the turbulent conditions of the sea.
The archer had to manually roll the lock-nut and engage the wedge after the bow was primed. It was the combination of wedge-and-nut which was unique, and that is why you would never see an ordinary cross-bowman with his hand 'twiddling' something in the stock, but it would be the distinctive movement of men carrying bows of that sort.
An 'iconic' gesture which speaks volumes and is just the sort of thing to add to make the message clear.
In fact, the reason my colleague, an archaeologist thought to send me the details of the Padre Island bow, and has always stood by his opinion of the Voynich archer's gesture is precisely because of that hand-movement.
Rene says the 'opinion has not been confirmed' but of course it has: the person whose opinion it first was is a specialist in a relevant field; so am I and so, by the way is the person to whom I spoke more recently.
But if by 'confirmed' Rene means that other Voynicheros generally accept, or don't accept the evidence, then I confess I take responsibility. I see that I conveyed the information very badly, and few had time to read the article in that archaeological journal.
Sincere thanks to Rene for troubling to ask me to clarify, and for being so specific about the points he had difficulty understanding. I'm not surprised - they were very poorly explained.
RE: Crossbowman - davidjackson - 08-12-2017
The padre island bow theory is a fascinating aspect. But one question pops out:
If this is correct, then this must be a specially made bow, as the chap is clearly left handed - and so the safety mechanism is on the opposite side of the bow from where you would expect it to be.
Which is an important point. In all cases, a left handed archer would have trouble with the winding mechanism, never mind safety catches.
Of course, the left-handed bit could be an indication that this is zodiacal in nature, and we are referring to the night aspect of the zodiac sign, which was often referred to in mirror form to the day aspect.