ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.

[-JKP-]

The text anomalies are very interesting, but really, let's not draw to conclusions from any visual presentation.

I can create visuals for any other letter and picture in the manuscript. 
Placing them in a particular order will not suddenly "reveal" how a character has evolved. In particular not if the anomalies are not on the same page.

Nor does it show anything for other characters that resemble the anomalies! There is no founded basis for that.

It does show what could be possible with imagination and a graphic editor, but it certainly does not show any chronological or other logical sequencing for the characters.

We can't make very many assumptions about chronological sequencing because:

1. We don't know the original intention as far as binding is concerned.
2. We don't know in which order the pages were written (many big projects like this one are not done in sequence).

For some things, if there is a significant evolution between consecutive pages on the same folio sheet, it might be possible to make some guesses about sequencing, but that happens rarely.


But I assumed it was obvious that we don't know the sequence. That doesn't mean we can't point out interesting patterns. In time, it might help sort out which marks are significant and which are not.