Diane, part of the problem is that nobody (including you) properly distinguishes between the discussion about "a Zodiac" and "the signs of the Zodiac"
Will anyone still defend the position that this is "a Zodiac", after having read the definitions? This is a matter of format, and the VM section's format does not allow it to be a Zodiac
An entirely different question is whether the central emblems bear any relation to the signs or constellations of the Zodiac. Whatever their history may have been, it seems that in their present form they do. You just don't get a series like this without any connection to Zodiac imagery. Maybe they are just month emblems, but the connection to Zodiac images remains.
The individual problems with each image should certainly be discussed as well, but the overall character of the set makes it extremely likely that a connection to Zodiac imagery was intended.
So I say:
- "A Zodiac": NO
- A standard series of Zodiac images: NO
- Use of Zodiac images: YES
Will anyone still defend the position that this is "a Zodiac", after having read the definitions? This is a matter of format, and the VM section's format does not allow it to be a Zodiac
An entirely different question is whether the central emblems bear any relation to the signs or constellations of the Zodiac. Whatever their history may have been, it seems that in their present form they do. You just don't get a series like this without any connection to Zodiac imagery. Maybe they are just month emblems, but the connection to Zodiac images remains.
The individual problems with each image should certainly be discussed as well, but the overall character of the set makes it extremely likely that a connection to Zodiac imagery was intended.
So I say:
- "A Zodiac": NO
- A standard series of Zodiac images: NO
- Use of Zodiac images: YES