9 Rosette - Specific Details

[-JKP-]

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.