an inscription of Shurgborough
DOUOSVAVVM 10-letter trap
▲ Cover of events — opening records
Underneath the Shepherd's Monument in Shuggborough, England, are inscribed with OOS VAV and D·M on both ends. There was no agreement on the meaning.
The Shuggborough inscription shows the risk of overfitting short strings. Possible sentences and proven sentences are different.
Prologue: Recorded Night
When I unfolded the incident data on the desk, the first thing that caught my eye was not the correct answer, but the imbalance. Some scenes were too clear, and others were empty in their entirety. People try to capture one clear scene and explain the whole incident, but I rather marked the empty section. Mysteries arise because there are many clues, but sometimes the distance between clues is too far.
The 18th century monument places the inscription with relief based on Poussin's 'the shepherds of Arcadia'. The theory of holy grail and secret association spread greatly in later generations.
I did not see this case as a work of confirming a known ending. Records were arranged in chronological order, the path of movement of objects was drawn separately, and sightings and interpretations were marked in different colors. The most famous explanation was then deliberately reviewed at the end. First, reading a famous hypothesis, it seems that all clues exist for that hypothesis.
▲ Reconfiguration on site — Last identified line of movement
Case File: What I Could Believe
243233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616225262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455| Number | Confirmed Record | Current Reliability |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The inscription is short and has a clear vowel and consonant repetition. | High |
| 2 | There is also an interpretation that reads both ends D and M separately from the text. | High |
| 3 | There are numerous suggestions, including acronyms of Latin sentences, family memorial phrases, nominations, and love phrases. | Medium |
| 4 | The definitive key or contemporary commentary left by the producer is unknown. | Medium |
The boundaries of the character bundle, the language used, abbreviations or passwords, and whether it is directly linked to the aid remain.
The sentence 'unexplained' is not the same as the sentence 'supernatural' or 'someone intended'. I didn't use the blanks as evidence.
▲ Timeline — Flow before and after events
Scene Reconstruction: Finally, the place of the certain point
I changed the place where the incident took place to an actual movement, not a stage in my head. The starting point, last check point, and spot of discovery were divided and the time required in between was calculated. In the process, several dramatic descriptions of later generations were missing. Instead, the recorded sound, weather, means of transportation, and the location of objects came forward. The novel atmosphere comes from the texture of the fact. There was no need to add unidentified secret channels or unnamed accomplices.
When I reconstructed the last scene, I didn't make up the character's mind. The same behavior can be caused by fear, planning, error, and fatigue. So I wrote down my actions first and left my emotions only to the extent possible. Thanks to this principle, events have become less spectacular but more specific.
Clue 1. The inscription is short and the vowel and consonant repetition are clear.
I put this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It was divided from who observed when, whether it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a memory in the future. The longer the lead of the unmade case, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
If only this clue is taken away, the conclusion in one direction seems very plausible. However, I immediately confronted the next record, "There is also an interpretation of reading both ends D and M separately from the text." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. In particular, the hypothesis that fails to pass the question "Are D and M the boundaries of the Latin memorial formula?" turns a blind eye to the rest of the record instead of explaining one clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that cannot be chosen without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts close to the first compartment and the parts staying in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. This is because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
▲ Key Clue 1 — Traces left by records
Clue 2. There is also an interpretation that reads both ends D and M separately from the text.
I put this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It was divided from who observed when, whether it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a memory in the future. The longer the lead of the unmade case, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
If only this clue is taken away, the conclusion in one direction seems very plausible. But I immediately confronted the next record, "There are a number of suggestions, including acronyms for Latin sentences, family memorial phrases, place names, and love phrases." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. In particular, the hypothesis that fails to pass the question "Is the Poussaint assistance a key or is it a simple subject background?" turns away from the rest of the record instead of explaining one clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that cannot be chosen without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts close to the first compartment and the parts staying in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. This is because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
▲ Key Clue 2 — Sculptures that don't engage with each other
Clue 3. There are numerous suggestions, including acronyms of Latin sentences, family memorial phrases, place names, and love phrases.
I put this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It was divided from who observed when, whether it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a memory in the future. The longer the lead of the unmade case, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
If only this clue is taken away, the conclusion in one direction seems very plausible. But I immediately confronted the next record, "The definitive key or contemporary commentary left by the producer is unknown." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. In particular, the hypothesis that fails to pass the question "What hypothesis would be strong if similar abbreviations were found in the same family document?" turns a blind eye to the rest of the record instead of explaining one clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that cannot be chosen without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts close to the first compartment and the parts staying in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. This is because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
▲ Key clue 3 — Hypothesis-shattering evidence
clue 4. No definitive key or contemporary commentary left by the producer is known.
I put this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It was divided from who observed when, whether it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a memory in the future. The longer the lead of the unmade case, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
If only this clue is taken away, the conclusion in one direction seems very plausible. But I immediately confronted the next record, "The nasal text is short and the vowel and consonant repetition are clear." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. In particular, the hypothesis that fails to pass the question "Are D and M the boundaries of the Latin memorial formula?" turns a blind eye to the rest of the record instead of explaining one clue. The
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that cannot be chosen without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts close to the first compartment and the parts staying in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. This is because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
Put three hypotheses on the same scale The
hypothesis was not evaluated as a nice sentence. The number of clues to be explained, the number of newly requested assumptions, and the degree to which they endure the opposite evidence were written, respectively. Even if one clue is fully explained, it is not a good hypothesis if you have to discard the other three clues.
Hypothesis A. The first letter of the Latin memorial sentence
The advantage of this explanation is that it accepts the clue, "The sentence is short and the vowel and consonant repetition is clear," as a relatively small assumption. I first assumed this hypothesis to be true and resorted to the time of events from start to finish. Where and what the character saw, what judgment he made and moved to the next place, one sentence at a time, was connected. There must have been a hidden assumption at the point of disconnection.
The biggest weakness is that it does not fully explain "there are numerous suggestions such as acronyms of Latin sentences, family memorial phrases, place names, and love phrases." You can explain anything by continuing to add exceptions to keep the hypothesis alive, but such an explanation predicts nothing. I lowered the hypothesis' score the moment the exception exceeded two. On the contrary, the score was increased only when the two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely abandoned, but it cannot be concluded as it is. If you read an event like a novel, the blanks are filled in naturally. If you read it like an investigation record, the blanks remain. I chose the latter. Even if the blanks left are uncomfortable, the inconvenience protects the extent to which the evidence can speak.
Hypothesis B.Anson's personal phrase or love message
The advantage of this explanation is that it accepts the clue "There is also an interpretation of reading D and M at both ends separately from the text" as a relatively small assumption. I first assumed this hypothesis to be true and resorted to the time of events from start to finish. Where and what the character saw, what judgment he made and moved to the next place, one sentence at a time, was connected. There must have been a hidden assumption at the point of disconnection.
122100123The biggest weakness is that it does not fully explain "the definite key or contemporary commentary left by the producer is unknown." You can explain anything by continuing to add exceptions to keep the hypothesis alive, but such an explanation predicts nothing. I lowered the hypothesis' score the moment the exception exceeded two. On the contrary, the score was increased only when the two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
124101125In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely abandoned, but it cannot be concluded as it is. If you read an event like a novel, the blanks are filled in naturally. If you read it like an investigation record, the blanks remain. I chose the latter. Even if the blanks left are uncomfortable, the inconvenience protects the extent to which the evidence can speak.
126102127Hypothesis C. The decorative abbreviation that created a classical atmosphere rather than hiding the meaning
128103129The advantage of this explanation is that it accepts the clue, "There are numerous suggestions such as acronyms of Latin sentences, family memorial phrases, and place names and love phrases" as a relatively small assumption. I first assumed this hypothesis to be true and resorted to the time of events from start to finish. Where and what the character saw, what judgment he made and moved to the next place, one sentence at a time, was connected. There must have been a hidden assumption at the point of disconnection.
130104131The biggest weakness is that it does not fully explain "the nasal text is short and the vowel and consonant repetition is clear." You can explain anything by continuing to add exceptions to keep the hypothesis alive, but such an explanation predicts nothing. I lowered the hypothesis' score the moment the exception exceeded two. On the contrary, the score was increased only when the two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
132105133In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely abandoned, but it cannot be concluded as it is. If you read an event like a novel, the blanks are filled in naturally. If you read it like an investigation record, the blanks remain. I chose the latter. Even if the blanks left are uncomfortable, the inconvenience protects the extent to which the evidence can speak.
▲ Hypothesis Comparison — Explanatory power and gaps
136108137Conclusions I abandoned
138109139At the start of the investigation, I was also drawn to the most famous explanation. It organized the case into one sentence and gave everything an intention. However, when the data were compared, the explanation required new coincidences for each blank. I erased the conclusion then and started again. Good reasoning was not about adding anything, but about removing unnecessary assumptions.
140110141Ten letters are too short to fit almost infinite sentences into two letters. Deciphering claims require external evidence, such as contemporary documents or repetitions of the same abbreviation.
142111143In particular, later testimony and repeated details on the Internet were separated from the original record. Just because the same sentence appears in multiple places does not mean that there are multiple independent sources. I first checked the possibility that one wrong sentence was duplicated. Through this process, the size of the case decreased, but the weight of the remaining clues increased.
▲ Counterfeit Check — Conclusion I abandoned
146114147Final Reasoning: I Reached
148115149The Shuggborough inscription shows the risk of overfitting short strings. Possible sentences and proven sentences are different.
This conclusion is not a complete final decision. The direction is to demand the least assumptions in the currently disclosed records and explain the most clues at the same time. It can be modified when new evidence comes out. However, it is also clear that what comes out changes the conclusion. Reliable original records, verifiable legal scientific data, and independent evidence directly linking objects and characters are needed.
152117153I don't write that I closed the case. Instead, write down how far you can close it. That boundary is the result of this investigation. The fun of mystery is not that anything is possible. It's about finding out what you can throw away among the possible explanations.
▲ Final Judgment — Description requiring the least assumption
156120157Additional investigation record 1. Redraw timetable
158121159Reopen case table at dawn. This time, the conclusion was covered, and only the record was left: "The nasal text is short and the vowel and consonant repetition are clear." Even events that you thought you already knew reveal a completely different shape when you erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line, and wrote down the minimum time needed to travel. Spaces between records were not filled with imagination but were marked with blank squares. The larger the square, the lower the reliability of the hypothesis explaining the section.
160122161On top of it, I posted the hypothesis that "the first letter of the Latin memorial sentence." At first, everything seemed to fit together. However, when the question "Are D and M the boundaries of the Latin memorial formula?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis has to endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questions, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I used the sense of creation only in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
162123163The result I got in this section is not the name of the confirmed criminal or the complete decoding. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would flip the ranking if newly discovered. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that very narrow boundary.
164124165Additional Investigation Record 2. Disappeared Link
166125167Re-opened the case table at dawn. This time, he only left a record of "There is also an interpretation of reading D and M at both ends separately from the text," covering the conclusion. Even events that you thought you already knew reveal a completely different shape when you erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line, and wrote down the minimum time needed to travel. Spaces between records were not filled with imagination but were marked with blank squares. The larger the square, the lower the reliability of the hypothesis explaining the section.
168126169On top of it, I posted a hypothesis that it was "the personal phrase or love message of the Anson family." At first, everything seemed to fit together. However, when I substituted the question, "Is the Poussaeng assistance a key or is it a simple subject background?" the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis has to endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questions, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I used the sense of creation only in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
170127171The result I got in this section is not the name of the confirmed criminal or the complete decoding. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would flip the ranking if newly discovered. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that very narrow boundary.
172128173Additional Investigation Record 3. Eyewitness Street
174129175Re-opened the case table at dawn. This time, covering the conclusion, he only left a record saying, "There are numerous suggestions, including acronyms of Latin sentences, family memorial phrases, and nominations and love phrases." Even events that you thought you already knew reveal a completely different shape when you erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line, and wrote down the minimum time needed to travel. Spaces between records were not filled with imagination but were marked with blank squares. The larger the square, the lower the reliability of the hypothesis explaining the section.
176130177On top of it, I put the hypothesis that "decoration abbreviations that created a classical atmosphere rather than hiding meaning." At first, everything seemed to fit together. However, when the question "What hypothesis would be strong if similar abbreviations were found in the same family document?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis has to endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questions, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I used the sense of creation only in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
178131179The result I got in this section is not the name of the confirmed criminal or the complete decoding. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would flip the ranking if newly discovered. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that very narrow boundary.
180132181Additional investigation record 4. The route through which the object passed
182133183The case table was re-opened at dawn. This time, the conclusion was covered, and only the record was left, "The definite key or contemporary commentary left by the producer is not known." Even events that you thought you already knew reveal a completely different shape when you erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line, and wrote down the minimum time needed to travel. Spaces between records were not filled with imagination but were marked with blank squares. The larger the square, the lower the reliability of the hypothesis explaining the section.
184134185On top of it, I posted the hypothesis that "the first letter of the Latin memorial sentence." At first, everything seemed to fit together. However, when the question "Are D and M the boundaries of the Latin memorial formula?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis has to endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questions, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I used the sense of creation only in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
186135187The result I got in this section is not the name of the confirmed criminal or the complete decoding. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would flip the ranking if newly discovered. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that very narrow boundary.
188136189Additional Investigation Records 5. Temptation of False Clues
190137191Reopen case table at dawn. This time, the conclusion was covered, and only the record was left: "The nasal text is short and the vowel and consonant repetition are clear." Even events that you thought you already knew reveal a completely different shape when you erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line, and wrote down the minimum time needed to travel. Spaces between records were not filled with imagination but were marked with blank squares. The larger the square, the lower the reliability of the hypothesis explaining the section.
192138193On top of it, I posted a hypothesis that it was "the personal phrase or love message of the Anson family." At first, everything seemed to fit together. However, when I substituted the question, "Is the Poussaeng assistance a key or is it a simple subject background?" the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis has to endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questions, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I used the sense of creation only in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
194139195The result I got in this section is not the name of the confirmed criminal or the complete decoding. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would flip the ranking if newly discovered. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that very narrow boundary.
196140197Additional Investigation Records 6. Reconstruction of the Last Scene
198141199Re-opened the case table at dawn. This time, he only left a record of "There is also an interpretation of reading D and M at both ends separately from the text," covering the conclusion. Even events that you thought you already knew reveal a completely different shape when you erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line, and wrote down the minimum time needed to travel. Spaces between records were not filled with imagination but were marked with blank squares. The larger the square, the lower the reliability of the hypothesis explaining the section.
200142201On top of it, I put the hypothesis that "decoration abbreviations that created a classical atmosphere rather than hiding meaning." At first, everything seemed to fit together. However, when the question "What hypothesis would be strong if similar abbreviations were found in the same family document?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis has to endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questions, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I used the sense of creation only in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
202143203The result I got in this section is not the name of the confirmed criminal or the complete decoding. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would flip the ranking if newly discovered. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that very narrow boundary.
▲ End of Investigation Records — Still Remaining Questions
206146207· National Trust — Shugborough Estate history
209148210 211149212※ This article is a commentary in the form of a personal investigation record based on public records and reliable data. We have distinguished between facts and reasoning, and when a new official announcement is made, we update the judgment.
Image Source and Edit
218154219Wikimedia Commons' public license materials were used by cutting, adjusting, and color-correcting according to the text flow. Circles mixed with generated images are not included in the list below.
220155221- Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 102.jpg — Rembrandt, Public domain 223157224
- Shugborough arcadia.jpg — en:User:Paul Barlow, Public domain 225158226
- Cat's Monument, Shugborough Estate - Staffordshire, England - DSC00206.jpg — Daderot, Public domain 227159228
- Rembrandt - The Artist's Son Titus - WGA19171.jpg — Rembrandt, Public domain 229160230
- Shugborough shepherds monument.JPG — Edward Wood aka. Elephantwood, CC BY-SA 3.0 231161232
- Shugborough Estate.jpg — Jacquiatwiki, CC BY-SA 4.0 233162234
- Anne Margaret Coke, Thomas William Anson (1795–1854), Anne Margaret Anson (1796–1882), and George Anson (1797–1857), as Children , Shugborough Hall.jpg — Anne Margaret Coke, Public domain 235163236
- Shepherd's Monument, Shugborough Estate - Staffordshire, England - DSC00179.jpg — Daderot, Public domain 237164238
- At Shugborough Hall 2021 060.jpg — Photograph by Mike Peel ( www.mikepeel.net )., CC BY-SA 4.0 239165240
- Shepherd's Monument, Shugborough Estate - Staffordshire, England - DSC00182.jpg — Daderot, Public domain