You take an uncompromising and (some would say) dogmatic position, Antonio, but it serves a good purpose. Because you (and you alone) keep insisting that we stop thinking of this text as any kind of language in the ordinary sense. I am certainly willing to suspend that idea and consider the text quite differently.
And, as you insist, this means thinking about the glyphs quite differently.
It is an oddly eclectic assembly of glyphs of various sorts purloined from Latin manuscripts. On what basis have they been selected?
Perhaps, as you insist, on the basis of their shape, appearance, form, rather than their previous linguistic associations.
In that case, I think a word that might be applied is mantic. The glyphs are mantic. Words are mantic formulae.
Leaving aside all linguistic considerations, I propose there are two basic formulae, and all "words" are different arrangements of them. It is possible to give this an astronomical reading.
I think that might be a productive path towards what you have been insisting upon in this thread, Antonio.
My current suspicion, though, is that rather than being astronomical it is, more broadly, calendrical - although this can mean much the same thing as astronomical since it involves cycles of celestial bodies.
If you adjust how you see it just slightly, Antonio, I think a productive line of inquiry opens up.
I think your intiuition is good. Not a text... Images... Astronomical...
I am coming at it differently, but it turns out I'm following much the same hunch at the moment.
New explorations of this at my blog, going through it step by step:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
in the end, we might be in agreement.
R.B.