I can't make sense of the shapes in the center and I can't tell if it leans more toward being a drawing or being text (it doesn't look like a scribble and it doesn't look reasonably clear like the color annotations).
Even in other languages (e.g., Arabic) I can't make any sense of it. Arabic has many curves, but they don't go together like that. It doesn't look like Amharic either.
Upside-down, it could be omega-something, but I've looked through a lot of Greek manuscripts and it really doesn't have much in common with Greek text other than the curve. The particular way the curvy shape is drawn isn't usually how they draw omega and the shape that follows isn't very coherent.
Right-side up, the first shape could be g or y but only if we use our brains to fill in the gaps... the bottom "stem" isn't a stem at all, it's not even attached and it comes out of the middle, not the right-hand side. The second shape doesn't match any Latin letters or symbols, they simply didn't write u/v like that in the Middle Ages (at least not that I've seen so far).
They don't look like tradesmen's marks or numbers.
It doesn't even quite look like the start of an inner drawing part, it looks slightly more like text, the way it lines up. It almost has a monogram-like quality (some of which could be quite difficult to read).
Sometimes I wonder, when I look at it, if the Roman numeral IIII was written first, and then the other shapes added. Keep in mind that the last shape in IIII sometimes had a descending tail, just as the last stroke of letters like "n" and "h" often had an extended descender (especially when the letters are in the final position). But... if that last "descender" is a tail, it curves more to the left than normal.
.
So putting the odd marks aside for a moment...
the rayed sun shape of the outline is not like any plant I know and the way it is attached to the stalk is quite unusual as well, so I'm pretty much open to investigating symbolic interpretations.
I do find it interesting that the shapes are not one-for one in terms of the dark-light pattern of the green-painted and unpainted "rays".
Even in other languages (e.g., Arabic) I can't make any sense of it. Arabic has many curves, but they don't go together like that. It doesn't look like Amharic either.
Upside-down, it could be omega-something, but I've looked through a lot of Greek manuscripts and it really doesn't have much in common with Greek text other than the curve. The particular way the curvy shape is drawn isn't usually how they draw omega and the shape that follows isn't very coherent.
Right-side up, the first shape could be g or y but only if we use our brains to fill in the gaps... the bottom "stem" isn't a stem at all, it's not even attached and it comes out of the middle, not the right-hand side. The second shape doesn't match any Latin letters or symbols, they simply didn't write u/v like that in the Middle Ages (at least not that I've seen so far).
They don't look like tradesmen's marks or numbers.
It doesn't even quite look like the start of an inner drawing part, it looks slightly more like text, the way it lines up. It almost has a monogram-like quality (some of which could be quite difficult to read).
Sometimes I wonder, when I look at it, if the Roman numeral IIII was written first, and then the other shapes added. Keep in mind that the last shape in IIII sometimes had a descending tail, just as the last stroke of letters like "n" and "h" often had an extended descender (especially when the letters are in the final position). But... if that last "descender" is a tail, it curves more to the left than normal.
.
So putting the odd marks aside for a moment...
the rayed sun shape of the outline is not like any plant I know and the way it is attached to the stalk is quite unusual as well, so I'm pretty much open to investigating symbolic interpretations.
I do find it interesting that the shapes are not one-for one in terms of the dark-light pattern of the green-painted and unpainted "rays".