• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Historical Context

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Analysis of the text
  • Historical Context
• Historical Context

• Historical Context

  GeoffreySea > 25-02-2022, 06:46 PM

  I'm new here and am prepared to shock you all by announcing that I do NOT have any new translation of the text. `My apologies.
  
  I am a historian with some expertise in Khazar studies. What I do have is new information about the historical context that would support the manuscript being a Khazar alchemical work. My hypothesis is that it was recopied in the 15th century from a much earlier Khazar original.
  
  I'm not prepared to announce my contextual information here as I am preparing that for publication. What I am seeking is any information that would confirm or refute the idea that the text is Khazar language encoded (reversed). I realize there is no consensus on this but perhaps when my contextual information is made public, there could be consensus.
  
  I am familiar with the Yokubinas interpretation that it is Khazar but I have not seen any other opinions about that. I have also seen the announcements about the "Old Turkic" interpretation and am wondering if Khazar would fit the meaning of "Old Turkic." (I do have some expertise in classifying Khazar language.)
  
  I will say that assumptions that the text came through Byzantine channels are wrong and the context I have discovered is non-Byzantine.
  
  I will add, if it's helpful, that there is new information that Khazar language was close to Crimean Tartar and Karachay language but ancestral to both of those. It would not be very close to Turkish except in general structure.
  
  I'm very willing to work with other scholars on this.
  
  Feel free to e-mail me at GeoffreySea@gmail.com

• RE: Historical Context

  Koen G > 25-02-2022, 07:33 PM

  It's as good an idea as any, but without concrete arguments it's hard to say much...

• RE: Historical Context

  Emma May Smith > 25-02-2022, 08:16 PM

  There has previously been discussion of Turkic as a potential target language, being both non-Indo-European and yet on the margins of the European cultural sphere. A work like the Codex Cumanicus demonstrates that contact, knowledge, and interest were all present in broadly the correct time period. I seem to recall the suggestion that the context would be Genoese colonies in Crimea.
  
  Please do share whatever can, though I respect if you need to wait until publication.

• RE: Historical Context

  GeoffreySea > 25-02-2022, 09:13 PM

  I am trying to get clear on what they mean when they say "Turkic" or "Old Turkish" -- neither of which is a language. Turkic is a huge language family. Do they mean:
  
  a. an old form of Turkish
  
  b. the Old Turkic language which would correspond to the Gokturk language.
  
  c. some vague form of early Turkic that they have not yet figured out.
  
  The last would be most compatible with Khazar language.  There is a big difference as Turkish would have come from the south while Khazar would have come from the east. I could really help their theory potentially.
  
  Perhaps one of you could put me in touch with Ahmet Ardıç or that team?

• RE: Historical Context

  Emma May Smith > 25-02-2022, 09:37 PM

  I think the name 'Turkic' has been used because nobody has successfully deciphered the text of the manuscript to know exactly which one. This is a broad theory, not a specific one.
  
  I suppose that, historically, you're probably looking at a Kipchak language. But that's just speculation upon speculation. The evidence should lead.

• RE: Historical Context

  cvetkakocj@rogers.com > 25-02-2022, 10:20 PM

  (25-02-2022, 08:16 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There has previously been discussion of Turkic as a potential target language, being both non-Indo-European and yet on the margins of the European cultural sphere. A work like the Codex Cumanicus demonstrates that contact, knowledge, and interest were all present in broadly the correct time period. I seem to recall the suggestion that the context would be Genoese colonies in Crimea.
  
  Please do share whatever can, though I respect if you need to wait until publication.

  
  I am surprised that nobody associated Old Turkish language with the Slavic language spoken in Thessaloniki. According to St. Jerome, the language similar to that spoken in Treveri (and most likely in other three Galias, including Illyria of ST. Jerome's time) was spoken up to the 5th century AD and most likely even later.
  Historically, there was also the peasant revolt in Armenia, led by Thomas the Slav, which means that Slavs were also settled in Armenia. Historians tell us that Slavs were not the same as Scythians, since Romans employed Scythians who settled in Pannonia, to guard northern Roman border from the invading Slavs. And where did the Slavs come: According to Florin Curta, they were settled north of Danube and reinvented themselves as Slavs. To make situation more complicated, according to Jordanes' Getica, the Slavs and Antes originate from the ancient Veneti. 
  According to Paul Deacon, the Wendic March (marca sclaborum) existed in the territory of the present day Slovenia and Carinthia at the time the Langobards moved to Northern Italy.
  
  By the 7th century, the Armenian Paulicians spread their 'heresy' in Europe (in the regions of ancient Galias - there must be some similarity of language still left to facilitate such big missionary work.
  
  In the 9th century, Byzantine Caesar Michael sent two Slavic missionaries from Thessaloniki to Great Moravia to teach Slavs religion in their own language. St. Cyril (Constantine) developed the Slavic alphabet glagolica and various books were translated in Slavic language (known now as Old Church Slavonic). There is also some historical information that prior to that, St. Cyril was sent to try to convert the Khazars, but was unsuccessful.
  
  St. Methodius became the first bishop of the Slavs; his bishopric stretched from present day Ptuj (Slovenia) to eastern Serbia, and is often referred to 'Pannonian bishopic). After Methodius' death, the German bishops succeeded in persuading the Roman pope to forbid the use of Slavic language and Glagolitza in liturgy. The Slavic missionaries were expelled and some found refuge in the present day Macedonia, which at the time was part of Bulgaria. They established Slavic cultural and religious centres in Ohrid and Prespa. I suppose an off-shoot of the OCS was the religious movement of Bogomils, that spread all over Europe, in the same regions as Paulicians three centuries earlier. In the Northern Italy, the Bogomils were known as Patareni, and in France as Cathari.
  The Roman Church persecuted the adherents of these religious movement, but in Bosnia, a special brand of Bogomilsm persisted until the middle of 15th century. They used Glagolitza and the OCS language. Eventually, Croatians adopted the Glagolitic Slavonic rite to Roman and were allowed to use Glagolitza OCS language in liturgy. Slovenians who up until then belonged under religious authority of the Patriarchate of Aquileia were also allowed to use Glagolitza and OCS, but only where there was no other priest. 
  The first attested writing of any Slavic language in Latin letters was the Freising Manuscript from the 10th century AD. 
  
  I would not be surprised in some VM words were found in Khazar and Old Turkish (Galatian) language, however the Turkish theory is based on the subjective translitation alphabet which they are adopting too freely to come up with some unique VM words, while they have not yet been able to translate the most common VM words that should reflect the origin of the language.  
  
  Sorry, I cannot go into more detail about the historical connection of Armenia and the Slavs.

• RE: Historical Context

  GeoffreySea > 25-02-2022, 11:58 PM

  (25-02-2022, 10:20 PM)cvetkakocj@rogers.com Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (25-02-2022, 08:16 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There has previously been discussion of Turkic as a potential target language, being both non-Indo-European and yet on the margins of the European cultural sphere. A work like the Codex Cumanicus demonstrates that contact, knowledge, and interest were all present in broadly the correct time period. I seem to recall the suggestion that the context would be Genoese colonies in Crimea.
  
  Please do share whatever can, though I respect if you need to wait until publication.

  
  I am surprised that nobody associated Old Turkish language with the Slavic language spoken in Thessaloniki. According to St. Jerome, the language similar to that spoken in Treveri (and most likely in other three Galias, including Illyria of ST. Jerome's time) was spoken up to the 5th century AD and most likely even later.
  Historically, there was also the peasant revolt in Armenia, led by Thomas the Slav, which means that Slavs were also settled in Armenia. Historians tell us that Slavs were not the same as Scythians, since Romans employed Scythians who settled in Pannonia, to guard northern Roman border from the invading Slavs. And where did the Slavs come: According to Florin Curta, they were settled north of Danube and reinvented themselves as Slavs. To make situation more complicated, according to Jordanes' Getica, the Slavs and Antes originate from the ancient Veneti. 
  According to Paul Deacon, the Wendic March (marca sclaborum) existed in the territory of the present day Slovenia and Carinthia at the time the Langobards moved to Northern Italy.
  
  By the 7th century, the Armenian Paulicians spread their 'heresy' in Europe (in the regions of ancient Galias - there must be some similarity of language still left to facilitate such big missionary work.
  
  In the 9th century, Byzantine Caesar Michael sent two Slavic missionaries from Thessaloniki to Great Moravia to teach Slavs religion in their own language. St. Cyril (Constantine) developed the Slavic alphabet glagolica and various books were translated in Slavic language (known now as Old Church Slavonic). There is also some historical information that prior to that, St. Cyril was sent to try to convert the Khazars, but was unsuccessful.
  
  St. Methodius became the first bishop of the Slavs; his bishopric stretched from present day Ptuj (Slovenia) to eastern Serbia, and is often referred to 'Pannonian bishopic). After Methodius' death, the German bishops succeeded in persuading the Roman pope to forbid the use of Slavic language and Glagolitza in liturgy. The Slavic missionaries were expelled and some found refuge in the present day Macedonia, which at the time was part of Bulgaria. They established Slavic cultural and religious centres in Ohrid and Prespa. I suppose an off-shoot of the OCS was the religious movement of Bogomils, that spread all over Europe, in the same regions as Paulicians three centuries earlier. In the Northern Italy, the Bogomils were known as Patareni, and in France as Cathari.
  The Roman Church persecuted the adherents of these religious movement, but in Bosnia, a special brand of Bogomilsm persisted until the middle of 15th century. They used Glagolitza and the OCS language. Eventually, Croatians adopted the Glagolitic Slavonic rite to Roman and were allowed to use Glagolitza OCS language in liturgy. Slovenians who up until then belonged under religious authority of the Patriarchate of Aquileia were also allowed to use Glagolitza and OCS, but only where there was no other priest. 
  The first attested writing of any Slavic language in Latin letters was the Freising Manuscript from the 10th century AD. 
  
  I would not be surprised in some VM words were found in Khazar and Old Turkish (Galatian) language, however the Turkish theory is based on the subjective translitation alphabet which they are adopting too freely to come up with some unique VM words, while they have not yet been able to translate the most common VM words that should reflect the origin of the language.  
  
  Sorry, I cannot go into more detail about the historical connection of Armenia and the Slavs.

• RE: Historical Context

  GeoffreySea > 26-02-2022, 12:14 AM

  To be clear -- TURKIC  refers to a large language family which originates from southern Siberia in the area of the Altai Mountains. TURKISH refers to a single language that developed from Ottoman Turkish, which despite being a member of the TURKIC family, is highly divergent and which incorporates many words from Persian and Arabic.
  
  KHAZAR language was an Oghuz Turkic language close to the original Turkic dialects of Altai but very far from TURKISH.
  
  This is why it is very important to distunguish. I have seen the videos of the Canadian Turks and they are always unclear on whether they mean OLD TURKISH, OLD TURKIC, or whether they have not yet figured it out. I seek clarity on what they mean.
  
  While TURKISH may have had some relationship to Greek and other Mediterranean languages, TURKIC languages from the Caspian eastward have no such relationship and are extremely different. There would not be much word borrowing. KHAZAR language, however, borrowed many words from Hebrew.
  
  On the basis of both the subject matter of the Voynich Manuscript and its context -- that being Asiatic alchemy and Tengrist iconography, I suspect that the language is KHAZAR not TURKISH and the distinction is crucial. Some of the iconography is very similar to the iconography of ancient Kazakhstan, which was borrowed by the Khazars. Some Khazar artwork is similar to the iconography of the VM. 
  
  But what I need to make this case is more detail on the textual analysis and what the Canadians mean when they say "OLD TURKISH."

• RE: Historical Context

  GeoffreySea > 26-02-2022, 09:33 AM

  So here is my working theory:
  
  The illustrations in the VM strongly suggest that it is a Turkic alchemical text -- note, NOT Turkish. The VM zodiac is a Hebrew Zodiac. These two things together suggest that it is a Khazar document, for which there is other contextual support. Only the Khazars combined Hebrew and Turkic cultural elements.
  
  The Khazars spoke an Okhuzic Turkic language similar to Crimean Tatar language, however they used Hebrew letters for written language. The Khazars converted to Judaism in the 8th and 9th centuries and gradually adopted more Hebrew language. By the 10th century they were writing fully in Hebrew. It can be inferred that earlier, in the 9th century, they would have used Hebrew letters to write in their own Turkic language, and I think that describes the VM text.
  
  I think Monica Yokubinas has made a start in figuring out the Hebrew-based alphabet, and I think that Ahmet Ardıç has correctly assessed that the language is Turkic but he is wrong in saying it is Turkish -- it is Khazar.
  
  There is nothing Greek, Slavic, Latin, or western European here.
  
  If I am correct then it means the text was probably written in the 9th century in Khazaria. In the 14th century someone copied the text, probably because the original was deteriorating. That copying probably occurred in Hungary, where Rudolph II acquired it.

• RE: Historical Context

  GeoffreySea > 26-02-2022, 09:38 AM

  It follows that the problems they are having in finding a Turkish translation is that the language is Khazar, not Turkish.  Khazar is sufficiently different from Turkish that only a small percentage of words are cognate, which is exactly what they are finding.
• Next Oldest Next Newest