Quote:For me it is perfectly possible that the manuscript is a copy or compendium of various older images, and that for some reason someone later added the text with it that we see now.
When one undertakes to defend a proposal, then theses such as "for some reason someone" are not good in terms of substantiation. When one proposes a trip to Mars and is asked how he is gonna to get there, the answer "somehow" would not add credibility to the business plan; one needs to be more specific.
The labeling of graphical objects disproves the idea that the text is not related to imagery; and if the text is related to imagery, then I see no reason why its being added later would be more probable than its being added at the same time. Let alone that it would be a strange old source indeed with so many images and without any text.
Quote:I believe like most people that the script is medieval, though I am not sure if it has to be 15th century. Does it?
When JKP visits the thread he will comment upon this, I suppose, but offhand, I think, two things should be indicative - the l-like sign of four somewhere in the quire numbering, along with the plain text letter shapes in the last line of f116v. The former would set the upper margin for the range, the latter would also suggest the range.
David:
Well maybe... but those "popes" and heraldry patterns? The T-O maps (were they as old as the beginning of CE?)? The surprising success of matching botanical plant identifications to folk plant names by way of mnemonics? Did Arabians place Jerusalem into the centre of the world? &c &c.