(Yesterday, 10:36 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just for clarity, I didn't mean hypothetical in a dismissive way. Plenty of ciphers are probably the only attestation of their exact method. But it's still interesting to note that, if it is a cipher, it swims against the tide.
In full and vehement agreement --
if it is a cipher, it is a cipher that was invented by someone looking at the problems frequency anaylsis posed for simple monoalphabetic ciphers and going off on a very different tangent than the early 15th century mainstream null & homophones class of approaches. Nick Pelling disputes that characterization of the motivation behind that class of (European) approaches (You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.), but even if that's the case (and the state of the art in areas outside of Europe does need to be dug into in greater depth) it's hard to avoid concluding that the (supposed) cipher was designed to thwart frequency analysis while generating a text whose character frquency distribution looked facially (and to early 15th century eyes, essentially indistinguishable) from that of a natual language.