(07-09-2024, 04:29 PM)BessAgritianin Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The reason I am asking is to understand the information the bloggers have till this moment.
I have good news:
The Aquarius Constellation is found and is not missing. It is foil number f57v.
Bess, you have your own way of presenting your findings, getting things off to a flying start, creating suspense and so on.
However, let's not forget that we read several messages a day on different subjects, so for the consideration of your readers and fans, both current and future, it would be better to express your ideas clearly and concisely.
(15-09-2024, 09:58 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If you state a fact that nobody agrees with, chances are it's actually an opinion.
Or in other words: if you remove "I think that..." from a sentence, the opinion doesn't become a fact.
[
attachment=9203]
To be honest for once.
I actually looked at the naming between Taurus and Tirol. Apart from the fact that it's spelt with a ‘d’ and not a ‘t’, it wasn't that far away to come up with ‘die Geber’.
I found this interesting as I know 2 of the donors.
Who was 3+4?
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
(07-09-2024, 08:52 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This means that Capricorn and Aquarius are missing, which would correspond to the months of January and February....
Quote:The first known Roman calendar had ten months of thirty or thirty-one days, and a variable length unnamed winter period. The months were Martius, Aprilis, Maius, Iunius, Quintilis, Sextilis, September, October, November, and December. They’re named after Mars, Aphrodite, Maia and Juno, followed by numbered months, five to ten.
So the names and the numbers matched. September was actually the seventh month, and December was the tenth month of the year, unlike today.
Later the unnamed winter period was split into the months Januarius, Februarius and occasionally a thirteenth intercalary (leap) month to align the calendar with the solar year.
March was therefore the beginning of the year (the first sign of the zodiac in the VMS).
Just for clarity, the 10 month calendar was no longer known by the Middle Ages, right?
At least the tradition of celebrating the New Year on March 1st has survived to some extent. You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
In general, in an era of rediscovery (late Middle Ages / Early Renaissance), I would not be so sure that these calendars were not known (again).
Yeah but I mean there is a big difference between celebrating new year in March or having only 10 months.
The 10 month calendar may have been entirely legendary, and we know that the Romans already had a 12 month calendar in the Republic - basically as long as even they remembered.
(05-01-2025, 03:34 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The 10 month calendar may have been entirely legendary, and we know that the Romans already had a 12 month calendar in the Republic - basically as long as even they remembered.
Hmmm, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
[
attachment=9669]
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Quote:Attributed to Romulus himself, the Roman calendar originally was determined by the cycles of the moon and the seasons of the agricultural year. Beginning in March in the spring and ending in December with the autumn planting, the year then was ten months long....
But that calendar was already gone in the time of Romulus (or whichever real person devised that calendar, since Romulus almost certainly didn't exist in any way that resembles the accounts)'s successor. And this period of the early kings was poorly attested and occurred long before the Roman Republic, as Koen said.
(05-01-2025, 03:56 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.since Romulus almost certainly didn't exist in any way that resembles the accounts
Well, it is of course possible that traditions are not based on facts, but also on legendary stories or people. Of course, this also applies to Numa Pompilius, the (alleged) reformer of the calendar.
As said, a written tradition can also make legends “true” to a certain extent (especially in the Middle Ages with limited or no access to comparative material).