02-02-2019, 04:55 PM
“
(01-02-2019, 09:34 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Linda, I may have seen that blog. I believe she has a north European origin of Sami’s? Same person? Thank you for that terrific pic that really added another great pic to this thread!!!!!(01-02-2019, 04:52 PM)Alyx Black Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Taken from website Muslimheritage.com.
I think folks also copied from other books to gain knowledge, but the knowledge was out there. Not every book is going to survive antiquity so we don’t know everything there was out there.
In the 15th century, a Turkish surgeon, Serefeddin Sabuncuoglu (1385-1468), author of the famous manual of surgery Cerrahiyyetu'l-Haniyye, did not hesitate to illustrate the details of obstetric and gynaecologic procedures or to depict women treating and performing procedures on female patients. He also worked with female surgeons, while his male colleaques in the West reported against the female healers.
Female surgeons in Anatolia, generally performed some gynaecological procedures like surgical managements of fleshy grows of the clitoris in the female genitalia, imperforated female pudenda, warts and red pustules arising in the female pudenda, perforations and eruptions of the uterus, abnormal labours, and extractions of the abnormal foetus or placenta. Interestingly in the Cerrahiyyetu'l-Haniyye, we find illustrations in the forms of miniatures indicating female surgeons. It can therefore be speculated that they reflect the early recognition (15th century) of female surgeons with paediatric neurosurgical diseases like foetal hydrocephalus and macrocephalus.
I don't doubt there were those in that time period who may have had knowledge of such things. But how are you going to tie these images to a historical account of same when the drawings are so difficult to trace back to an origin? It is easy to say this looks like this and that looks like that, but to convince anyone that this is what was intended, it has to pull together in a specific way. Like if you could tie each image to drawings in the text you mentioned, or some other one, or various ones of which people in that field would have been aware.
For instance, with my geographical theory, i see connections like making fun of certain repeated map styles over time, so i need to find out if and where one could have seen these things to be able to comment in this way, and build up a backstory of how the whole idea came to fruition. I dont think many people go for my theory, but i just recently realized that while i was focusing on nymphs, i had allowed things drawn alike to stand for different things in reality. So i am now going back over it to resolve this, and in so doing, i found some similarly drawn things that ended up making sense and fitting with where i had put them, so for now i feel like i am still at least partially on track, although i have a lot more to do to pull it together more tightly.
That is not to say you couldn't also be correct in your thinking, i mean, it is called the biological section because many others have had the idea that it shows things similar to what you are suggesting, so in that sense you probably have a head start.
Have you seen Ellie Velinska's blog? It might help you build upon your idea. Here is her composite.