Re: Nabatean, was Re: VMs: Personal Guess

["Jeff" <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

GC glenclaston@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote

> Jeff wrote:
>
> > While the character form comparison may appear to hang on flimsy threads
> > this does not rule out that an offshooot of nabataean script or of some
> > other middle eastern script was not used. When Alexandria was
> > burnt a lot of
> > written text went with it along with the accumulated knowledge. Again in
> > Spain knowledge hung very tenuously through troubled times. In
> > this respect
> > the preservation of knowledge would become a priority. In order
> > to preserve
> > a text it may need to look unimportant and meaningless. A text that was
> > transferred to a culture that could not read it would be guaranteed
> > preservation but not assimilation until the right people could
> > interpret it.
> > Many texts were merely copied and not fully translated through this
time.
> > However, in this case, the right poeple never showed up.
> >
> > One more for the general pot....
>
> What most posts like this essentially suggest is that what "appears" to be
> an herbal is not in fact an herbal.  What "appears" astrological is not in
> fact astrological, etc.  In other words, hidden meaning within an already
> quite well "hidden" text.  There's always one or two chances in Hell that
> this turns out to be true, but in the mean, this is a major jump beyond
> known facts, to a conclusion without current factual support.  If you're
> saying it is a copy of an older manuscript in a current theme, that is one
> thing, but a copy of an original older manuscript is quite another.  What
> conflicts were so important in the early 16th century to warrant the VMS?
>
> With all respect for Steve Eckwall and his "Excitant Spirit", (ES), the
VMS
> cannot, on the evidence, be "older than you think".  One examination
(posted
> on Rene's site, but I can't remember her name, Julie Porter?  I may be
> wrong....), identified clothing and hats at between 1480 and 1520.
> D'Imperio places it (through her own analysis and that of others) to be
> 1450-1550.  O'Neill and a select few botanists have also placed it after
> 1493.  From my own studies, the median date would be 1518-1530, simply by
> the clothing styles and tentative plant identifications, apart from my own
> theories on the author.  Most of this opinion is even high-end for Nick's
> current contentions.  Perhaps Nick hasn't taken into account that it takes
> time for certain ideas to "filter down" to the peons in the field?
>
> The widest time frame is 1450-1550, based on the visual evidence.  Each of
> us uses our own criteria to narrow that marker, but anything earlier or
> later requires a degree of reasonable proof.  My reasoning is simply
this -
> a hat can be drawn years after it became "the style", but not before.
Most
> things about the VMS push it to later dates than "earliest" dates, and the
> shorthand symbols on f57v are one of the most telling of them all in this
> regard.  They say we're not just "early 16th century", but approaching
> "middle 16th century", 1525-1550, and possibly a decade beyond.
>
> Steve keeps saying "It's older than you think", but he hasn't come out and
> given a proper "time frame" to match his statement.  I'd certainly like to
> see any reasonable explanation why our current thinking on time frame
might
> be incorrect.
>
> GC

A script that is copied will never be copied exactly if the person doing the
copying does not understand the labguage the script is in. A sort of written
Chinese whispers. Other differences will creep in. Glyph style might be
misinterpreted and copied to fit with writing styles used during the time of
copying. If it is not a cipher at all but a lost or very rare language none
of the attacks made against it will work. All assumptions will be wrong and
you could keep using the same sledge hammer for a thousand years and the
wall still won't fall. Please tell me now if anyone has ever read even one
word of this manuscript and proved it valid and I will go away. Also feel
free to tell me if anyone is even within the same ball park, or has ever
been within the last 90 or so years. If you will answer these questions
satisfactorily then I will hold my peace. All the statistics applied so far
have failed miserably as far as I can see. So the day you pick up your
retirement check I will be glad to hear that you can finally read it. Until
then all avenues are clearly marked open. Unlike some here I am open to ANY
avenue. I will drop dead leads in an instant if something more likely comes
along. However I will still pursue any and all leads that have not been
discounted or proved absolutely wrong. I will also be behind anyone I feel
has a valid argument. That includes you GC.

Jeff


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list