On 3 Oct 2001, at 13:12, Nick Pelling wrote: > His January 2001 comment (on f57v) is *absolutely* spot on. Decoding > the (2nd ring in) sequence of 17 x 4 is so obvious it's *shocking*.
I cannot find that message, perhaps I never received.
I must say that I fail to see the obvious. It seems to me that with so many "stylised forms" (almost all , really) one could swap them around and claim the sequence still makes sense since almost none of them resemble the symbols claimed.