27-06-2026, 09:34 AM
It seems as I found my first thread that I want to follow up ... the beneventian script seems to be a promising track for some glyphs to be identified. 
Look here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
These scripts are all from the same school, the same tradition, same library. They carry the writings of a monastry and their scholars. The language seems to be medical. The scripts are full of recipes, remedies and anatomical information, even registries... Does it look Voynich-like?
And some of the scripts carry "marks" just like the Voynich collection is famous for. Dirty parchments, low quality, wormholes, cuttings, water damages. Nothing that somebody would produce for a sale. Some of those scripts seem to be misbound as well. Is that a coincidence? What do you think?
Shall I check their "provenience" and "later add on"-entries to compare it with what we know about the Voynich collection. Would that help?
Look here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
These scripts are all from the same school, the same tradition, same library. They carry the writings of a monastry and their scholars. The language seems to be medical. The scripts are full of recipes, remedies and anatomical information, even registries... Does it look Voynich-like?
And some of the scripts carry "marks" just like the Voynich collection is famous for. Dirty parchments, low quality, wormholes, cuttings, water damages. Nothing that somebody would produce for a sale. Some of those scripts seem to be misbound as well. Is that a coincidence? What do you think?
Shall I check their "provenience" and "later add on"-entries to compare it with what we know about the Voynich collection. Would that help?