26-07-2016, 03:55 PM
[quote pid='4466' dateline='1468328418']
Thanks for saying that
I just wanted to go over your comments again since I lost my reply last time.
For me it is not random, I see the entire quire as discussing relatively large bodies of water. I say relatively because some are indeed not on the same order of magnitude but these are also the largest in the area discussed, if not in the world. Therefore, not just this sea/lake, but others as well, and not only that, but in an order that follows a trip around the known world.
Soundings have been done for millennia, with weights and rope. This is to log depths so as to know one can safely travel without harming the ship, and also sometimes to gauge the character of the bottom of the sea in that area in order to help identify one's location. Sometimes these depths and characters were entered into port logs, but could simply be memorized. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Since the Caspian is not that deep it is entirely possible that its depths were measured and known by the time the manuscript came to be. I would think rivers would be harder to keep records for since the water levels in them, and likely their bottoms too, would change based on rainfall and temperature (i.e. melting or freezing of mountain ice caps)
The Caspian has been included in almost all world maps, although the older ones tend to show it as attached to the outer ocean. Many of them show the bulbous shape shown here, but generally not in as much detail. Given the Ptolemy maps that began to be copied in 1409 circulating about, I could imagine someone thinking, wow, that's pretty much wrong... and wanting to show their knowledge, but maybe were not free to do so. Hence, this drawing came to be because a good likeness was not in fact available.
I believe it's useful to know that you can travel from the Black Sea to the Caspian by following the Don and Volga Rivers, and can then follow the Araxes River to the Euphrates down to the Persian Gulf, which is the context in which I see its place in the quire. If someone were sailing the Caspian in so doing, they might do well to follow the path of the nymphs to avoid possible obstacles closer to shore. The Araxes isn't shown but the floating nymph does sort of point to it with her right hand, and to the Uzboy on the other side with her left, if one wanted to follow the Amudarya or Sydarya and head towards China.
Anthony Jenkinson also did that in 1558, although admittedly his maps aren't the best, but he wasn't intent on charting the Caspian in particular.
It's not hard for me to believe that someone would have known its shape a couple hundred years earlier, especially if they had more intimate knowledge of the area and/or access to maps and descriptions thereof, the latter of which seems more likely. It also seems to me that measurements of mountain peaks were involved in the data, which could explain why the shoreline isn't portrayed so much as the mountain ranges which surround it, at least to the southeast.
Have some of the old maps since posted helped the problematic issues you found in my interpretation? It still seems to me that there are far too many coincidences insofar as the locations of rivers and and other features of the Caspian matching so well with the graphics in the diagram. To me, if my interpretation is correct, it makes this one of the better ancient maps of the Caspian in existence, even in comparison to some 19th century world map versions which for some reason reverted to the Ptolemy shape despite the detailed 18th century charts you mentioned.
[/quote]
Koen Gh. wrote:Linda
I have not yet looked for an explanation for this folio myself, so I can look at your proposal in a relatively neutral way. I also know very little about this sea, its history and the peoples surrounding it.
Well, at first sight I'd say that yes, the Caspian Sea and the surrounding area do offer a possible way to explain this image. I also like your observation that the nymphs appear to imply that the water becomes deeper; I hadn't looked at it that way.
Thanks for saying that
I just wanted to go over your comments again since I lost my reply last time.Quote:I see some problems though:
1) The most frequent remark about any Voynich analysis: much of it seems a bit random. Why include these areas around the sea and not others? Why all the different ways the areas are represented by? I've also received this comment at times, and it makes me think "Hey, I didn't write the Voynich, it's not my fault that they drew things like this!" Still, too much "randomness" undermines the credibility of an argument, and the more you can eliminate, the better.
For me it is not random, I see the entire quire as discussing relatively large bodies of water. I say relatively because some are indeed not on the same order of magnitude but these are also the largest in the area discussed, if not in the world. Therefore, not just this sea/lake, but others as well, and not only that, but in an order that follows a trip around the known world.
Quote:Related to this: you say that the nymphs imply that the sea becomes deeper, but wouldn't that be more useful information for a river? Why would anybody want to know how deep the Caspian sea is at various points?
Soundings have been done for millennia, with weights and rope. This is to log depths so as to know one can safely travel without harming the ship, and also sometimes to gauge the character of the bottom of the sea in that area in order to help identify one's location. Sometimes these depths and characters were entered into port logs, but could simply be memorized. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Since the Caspian is not that deep it is entirely possible that its depths were measured and known by the time the manuscript came to be. I would think rivers would be harder to keep records for since the water levels in them, and likely their bottoms too, would change based on rainfall and temperature (i.e. melting or freezing of mountain ice caps)
Quote:2) In my opinion, for an analysis like this, historical context is absolutely required. Who mapped this sea first? When? What did the map look like? Who had knowledge about this massive area in the early 15th (!) century or before? Keep in mind that Beinecke 408 is three hundred years older than the map you present here. Was anyone at that time able to draw up a map like this? Did they know how deep the sea was a various points? Are the areas that are marked by nymphs or other means the most important ones? Who would have had use for this?
The Caspian has been included in almost all world maps, although the older ones tend to show it as attached to the outer ocean. Many of them show the bulbous shape shown here, but generally not in as much detail. Given the Ptolemy maps that began to be copied in 1409 circulating about, I could imagine someone thinking, wow, that's pretty much wrong... and wanting to show their knowledge, but maybe were not free to do so. Hence, this drawing came to be because a good likeness was not in fact available.
I believe it's useful to know that you can travel from the Black Sea to the Caspian by following the Don and Volga Rivers, and can then follow the Araxes River to the Euphrates down to the Persian Gulf, which is the context in which I see its place in the quire. If someone were sailing the Caspian in so doing, they might do well to follow the path of the nymphs to avoid possible obstacles closer to shore. The Araxes isn't shown but the floating nymph does sort of point to it with her right hand, and to the Uzboy on the other side with her left, if one wanted to follow the Amudarya or Sydarya and head towards China.
Quote:Like I said, I don't know much about the history of this sea and the surrounding area, so I just took this from wikipedia:
"In the 18th century, during the rule of Peter I the Great, Fedor I. Soimonov, hydrographer and pioneering explorer of the Caspian Sea charted the until then little known body of water. Soimonov drew a set of four maps and wrote the 'Pilot of the Caspian Sea', the first report and modern maps of the Caspian, that were published in 1720 by the Russian Academy of Sciences."
This is why, at the moment, your interpretation seems problematic to me - but do correct me if I'm wrong.
Anthony Jenkinson also did that in 1558, although admittedly his maps aren't the best, but he wasn't intent on charting the Caspian in particular.
It's not hard for me to believe that someone would have known its shape a couple hundred years earlier, especially if they had more intimate knowledge of the area and/or access to maps and descriptions thereof, the latter of which seems more likely. It also seems to me that measurements of mountain peaks were involved in the data, which could explain why the shoreline isn't portrayed so much as the mountain ranges which surround it, at least to the southeast.
Have some of the old maps since posted helped the problematic issues you found in my interpretation? It still seems to me that there are far too many coincidences insofar as the locations of rivers and and other features of the Caspian matching so well with the graphics in the diagram. To me, if my interpretation is correct, it makes this one of the better ancient maps of the Caspian in existence, even in comparison to some 19th century world map versions which for some reason reverted to the Ptolemy shape despite the detailed 18th century charts you mentioned.
[/quote]