Dear Rafal,
You are absolutely right in what you say, and I understand your point.
However, I have formed a different idea about the nature of this manuscript. I do not think it was created as an artwork meant to be displayed on a wall or admired for aesthetic refinement. Instead, I believe it was produced for internal use within a monastery.
To me, it feels more like a practical working document — almost like a photographer who captures images during the workday, not for artistic exhibition, but to document processes and preserve knowledge for herself and for others. In this case, the “images” would function as visual records of daily work: plants, preparation processes, containers, and even ritual bathing at the end of the working day.
In my view, it reads more like a working diary or a practical “how-to” manual, entirely focused on labor and everything connected to it. The end of the working day could have included purification baths; the plants were cultivated and processed; the jars (or cups) had specific functions.
I found one cup that was not painted over, and it still seems to show its codes — one central marking and another below. Most of the other containers were colored later, possibly covering something. As someone here already suggested, the colors may have been applied afterwards. My impression is that in some cases they may even have obscured earlier markings.
On that specific cup, however, the markings remain visible, and I am trying to understand what they could indicate. I see what I interpret as instructions — I call them “recipes” — possibly listing which plants were to be placed in which container.
So for me, this manuscript is not primarily an artistic expression. It is a structured description of work: a visual system to help manage daily tasks, knowledge transmission, and organization within that community — perhaps also for new arrivals who needed to learn the processes.
That is simply how I am currently reading it.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.