+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich Talk (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? (/thread-3903.html)
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - davidjackson - 26-11-2022
My lay opinion is simply that the style of illustration was popular in the first three decades of the 15th century, and both Lauber and the VM picked up on it. It's very much an evolution of the late 14th century illustrative style and carries onto the middle of the 15th century, until it runs headlong into the printing craze and is dropped.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - davidjackson - 26-11-2022
Years ago I wrote this bit about the human crossbowman of Sagittarius:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Note that since this article was written quite a bit more research has been published!
But if you look at the image provided by MarcoP showing the 8 crossbowmen, all drawn at different stages across the century, you can clearly see how the imagery developed from the late 14th century flowing style to a much more realistic style at the end of the following century.
![[Image: ALL3.jpg]](http://stephenbax.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ALL3.jpg)
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Koen G - 26-11-2022
And the 1425 example has baggy sleeves and a low-slung belt. This is what you get when you don't cherry-pick, as opposed to whatever the intention of this thread is.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - davidjackson - 26-11-2022
Joking aside, you can't possibly go hunting or fire a crossbow wearing those stupid sleeves in 1428. This had been discovered by 1429....
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Koen G - 26-11-2022
(26-11-2022, 11:06 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Joking aside, you can't possibly go hunting or fire a crossbow wearing those stupid sleeves in 1428. This had been discovered by 1429....
This is an interesting aspect of it. JKP noticed that the baggy sleeves are actually often associated with someone in noble circles performing some task. This is supported by the early Italian examples (1390's), where the baggy sleeve look appears to be the result of wide open sleeves tied at the wrist. The implication appears to be that those wide open sleeves are completely unsuitable for manual tasks, so ca. 1390 they came up with tying them at the wrist. From this practice, the actual fashion of the baggy sleeves may have emerged. Probably people liked the way their sleeves looked when they were tied at the wrist, so ca. 1400, garments started being produced to cater specifically to this esthetic. This may also explain why we still see the wide sleeves in women (VM Virgo, Gemini), since they wouldn't typically swing axes or shoot crossbows. But a nobleman could be expected to join a hunting party, so if he still wanted to look fashionable, the baggy sleeves were a step up from the wide open sleeves we still see with the women. It's like a balancing exercise between showing off excess fabric (and thus wealth) vs. still being able to perform manual tasks comfortably.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Mark Knowles - 26-11-2022
(26-11-2022, 09:18 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The whole problem with this thread is that Mark isn't motivated by curiosity, he is motivated by getting the assessment as close to his preferred date as he can. Not content with my repeated assurance that "sure, it can be as late as you want", he now wants the "most likely date range" to be later, and he is muddying the waters in the process by conflating all kinds of different arguments.
It is deeply problematic when you are focused on what you perceive as my motivations rather than analysis of my arguments. You are not a psychologist or psychiatrist.
I could just as easily argue that Koen is hostile, because he doesn't want to admit his arguments might be wrong. I am not interested in psychoanalysing you.
To suggest that I am not motivated by curiosity or the truth is absurd.
Rather than ad hominem attacks focused on my supposed motivations it is better to look at the underlying arguments.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Mark Knowles - 26-11-2022
(26-11-2022, 09:18 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now looking for baggy sleeves in Lauber (which I already marked as an exception, an easy to spot separate case) is redundant.
And this is why I find this thread annoying, because Mark said "let's pick some cherries", and like that we lose track of the bigger picture.
Marking certain things as exceptions is the essence of cherry picking.
If one marks all examples from after 1430 as "exceptions" and then concludes on the basis of the remaining data that the drawing dates from before 1430 then one has engineered one's conclusion.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Mark Knowles - 26-11-2022
(26-11-2022, 09:18 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This was confirmed by expert opinions.There seems to be a tendency here to fall back on claimed expert opinion. What is this opinion and where can it be found?
In this regard specific quotes from specific named experts seems lacking here and also what the precise interpretation of those quotes should be.
It would be useful to know from those experts why they have the opinion that they do. For example, what evidence they would point to.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Mark Knowles - 26-11-2022
(26-11-2022, 09:18 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And then a clear picture emerges: this style belongs to 1400-1430.And yet I have shown that it doesn't. Statistically analysing that very same data does not give that conclusion. It would be interesting to know how you came up with that date range on the basis of data.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Mark Knowles - 26-11-2022
(26-11-2022, 09:18 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Not content with my repeated assurance that "sure, it can be as late as you want"That seems to be implying that you were insincere in your remarks. The words "as you want" seems to imply that you saw yourself as trying to give me a sop, so I would shut up.