VMs: Re: T-maps later than thought?

["Barbara Barrett" <barbarabarrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Elmar Elucidated;
> Lately the presumed existence of T-maps in the VM has been interpreted as
> a  hint to a fairly early creation date of the VM, saying that the T-maps
> had fallen out of use around 1400.

Barbara Babbles;
No, no, no; by the *late* 1400s not _by_ 1400, there's a century of
difference there ;-) (and if you don't mind, just to save bandwidth, I'll
also deal with points raised in the "re re re..." posts too).

> Funny enough, yesterday I went through an exhibition and saw a manuscript
> from 1385 with a zodiac circle and the earth in the center

Most exhibitions have websites these days, did the one you went to have one?
And thanks for the example of a medieval circular star/zodiac chart. As
Rafel pointed out we'd different usages for "chart" which show the problems
we can get into when we don't have a common vocaulary.

> -- where the earth was
> not represented by a T-map, but as a bisectional circle with the top half
> representing the skies, and the lower half representing the oceans. (No
> continents here.)

No surprises there as there are several types of medieval circular world
maps, each of which served different purposes. I'd have to see it myself but
it sounds like a type C map (Zonal) which showed "regions" rather than land
masses. Use of the Zonal persisted until reasonably recently (18th C IIRC).

> So there might be a chance that what we see in the VM is not a
"traditional" > T- map (Europe, Africa, Asia), but a "modernist" one (Skies,
ocean,
> continents).  (This assumes a further development of the two-segment
circle > I have seen into a three-segment symbol.)

As I said, there wasn't just one type of circular world map, but several,
all schematic, representing different aspects of the world. Therefore use of
a circular world map of any type [*except* a type A (T-O and Y-O)] after
1500 would have no bearing upon dating the vms by the T-O maps in it.

A T-O map has 6 points of identification and the Voynich "galaxy page" T-O
map has them all which makes a 100 percent correspondence. This is actually
a higher degree of correspondence than what is necessary to convict on
fingerprint evidence! As a trained artist I'm very aware of what is actually
on the page and what ones eyes want to see. The image on f68v3 of the
Voynich is a T-O map beyond any reasonable doubt. The other 2 have only 5
points of correspondence but that's still over an 80 per cent match!
So no Larry, I'm not seeing what I want to see, I'm seeing what's there and
trying to come to terms with its consequences. I wasn't looking for it (my
specalty is writing systems not cartography, and the whole T-O issue is a
big, and unwelcome, side track for me. And I don't like its consequences
because I emotionally favour a renaissance composition myself) but having
found it I propose to explore its consequences fully.

But don't take my word alone; there's reference to the T-O maps in Imperio
(so either Gabriel or Rene informed me), and IIRC its positive
identification was one of the criticisms (or perhaps "debunking" would be a
better term) of Newbold's decipherment and claim that f68v3 showed a
"galaxy" through a telescope. The positive identification of the T-O maps
also puts in doubt either Wilfred Voynich's expertise or veracity: and
that's an issue we haven't touched on yet!

I'm not the first person to spot and identify the T-O maps, but I am the
first to suggest they can be used to help date the vms. So far my
correspondence with persons better versed in medieval cartography than I
confirms the link I made between the "death" of the T-O map and the upper
limit of the Voynich's possible composition if it is an original
composition. I hope to convince one of them to allow me to present their
findings in this forum, but so far the "dubious provenance" of the Voynich
has them a bit skittish of potential peer reaction.

We can not assume, simply because it dosn't fit another theory, that the vms
T-O is a copy of an earlier work from the time T-O maps were valid. Until we
find the same image (a T-O map as the centre of an 8  wind rota: IE
*evidence* to the contrary) in an earlier work the pressumtion must be that
the vms image is an original. By all means look for *evidence* to the
contrary (I know I am <g>), but supositions, no mater how logical, without
evidence to back them up, are just "explaining away" data that dosn't fit,
and bad science.

> P.S.: Oh yeah, and Scorpio in the zodiac was represented by a four-legged
> critter which looked more like a turtle to me. Just to put the artist's
> credibility into perspective...

Now don't everybody die of shock here, but I totally agree with Larry on
this one! The constellations have been seen as different things by different
folk in different times and places.

For example the Babylonians - who invented astrology - couldn't have seen
Pegasus as a winged horse as that legend came along much later and in
another culture.

Likewise think of Ursa Major; in my lifetime I've heard it called the great
bear, the big dipper, and the plough: in the 18th C it was known as the
wagon, and I know the Ancient Egyptians saw it both as a bull's hind leg and
as an adze! IIRC some Europeans changed constellations' greek/arabic images
from things outside their experience to things they were familier with; so
scorpion to turtle seems to fit with that notion.

I think there's no reason to doubt the artist's credibility  ;-).

Barbara







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