Interesting to see another reference to Christine de Pizan in Post #11. And it seems to me that there is a certain point of differentiation that might be getting fuzzed over. The position represented by the character is proposed to be one of examination, of *holding up to the light* as was indicated. This is not the same as the *offering* position, where the person in robes holds forth a container for the man, or the doctor offers medicine to a patient. In this case the is another person expected to take the object. Whereas the examiner's focus is solely on the object.
There they are; the four ambiguities. They could be this or they could be that. Another demonstration that identification based only on visual similarities can be problematic throughout the VMs. So this is a physician examining a specimen? Then what? Figure out the other three. And then? Ambiguous visual similarity, on its own, is not sufficient. Something else is needed. Part of the solution to this problem in the medieval societies was implemented by the use of heraldry, both armorial and ecclesiastical.
The other part of visual evidence is the use of patterns and the creation of certain patterns. Patterns depend on placement. And placement is not subjective. Location in comparison to relevant tradition is an objective determination. The necessary positioning has been built into the VMs. It is the combination of visual similarity (masked), traditional placement, pairing and canting that confirm proposed identification and historical grounding. What number of such complex constructions would be necessary?
There they are; the four ambiguities. They could be this or they could be that. Another demonstration that identification based only on visual similarities can be problematic throughout the VMs. So this is a physician examining a specimen? Then what? Figure out the other three. And then? Ambiguous visual similarity, on its own, is not sufficient. Something else is needed. Part of the solution to this problem in the medieval societies was implemented by the use of heraldry, both armorial and ecclesiastical.
The other part of visual evidence is the use of patterns and the creation of certain patterns. Patterns depend on placement. And placement is not subjective. Location in comparison to relevant tradition is an objective determination. The necessary positioning has been built into the VMs. It is the combination of visual similarity (masked), traditional placement, pairing and canting that confirm proposed identification and historical grounding. What number of such complex constructions would be necessary?