Relation between text study and imagery study

[Koen G]

This is a bit of a philosophical question: what comes first, the imagery or the text? Should we try to understand the images better first, or try to crack the text first? Which one will offer the easiest entrance? Which one will help us understand the other better?

There are some arguments that can shoot this thread down, so I would like to get them out of the way already. Let's hypothesize that: 

• the text does contain some meaning (not necessarily plain text)
  
• the text and the images do belong together
  
• the document is genuine
  

This is not necessarily true, but in my opinion very likely. So let's assume for a moment that the text is meaningful and arranged in a way that it complements the imagery.

---

When I started studying the manuscript - after having read some introductory material - I first focused on the text. With some naive enthusiasm, which you probably recognize. I soon realized that there were just too many unknowns to have a go at it without any foothold, so I gradually shifted my attention to the imagery. I am now growing more convinced that a profound understanding of the imagery is required before we can figure out the text. Studying the images can teach us:

• Which cultural background(s) are present, and hence which languages we may expect
  
• When the imagery originated and when it was altered, and hence, again, which languages we may expect
  
• Which subject matter we might look for in the text - specifically in the case of labels. 
  

I notice though, that quite a number of people study mostly or even exclusively the text. So I wonder what your philosophy is about this issue. Can we understand one without the other? Do you focus on one because you think it offers the best chance of a breakthrough? Or rather because you feel more at home with one or the other?