(06-12-2018, 05:56 PM)-JKP- wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In support of their New World theory, Janick stated: '“Simply put, there is no way a manuscript written on vellum that contains a sunflower and an armadillo could have been written before 1492.”
It most certainly could have been written before 1492 if the vellum derives from bison, a close relative of domestic cattle. In fact, bison and cows can interbreed and produce healthy offspring that can also procreate. One must therefore conclude that bison and cows have similar proteins and, presumably, produce similar vellum.
The bison theory is supported by a VMS drawing that looks more like a native American teepee than anything else recognizable. Note that teepees and bison hunting go hand in hand: the bison were always on the move and the teepee provided mobile housing.
Meanwhile, as far as I know, your evidence for cow vellum consists of nothing more than a very dubious claim that 'mich' means 'milk'.
(06-12-2018, 05:56 PM)-JKP- wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Unfortunately, there is not much support for his idea that the plant and animal are unequivocably a sunflower and an armadillo. Most people familiar with armadillos think the animal looks more like a pangolin (plus there are other possible interpretations) and those who know plants know that sunflower is not the only possible identification.
A serious problem with your pangolin theory is that this animal did not live in Europe (nor even close to Europe) where you are alleging the VMS was compiled. You can lend support to your theory by finding an entry for the pangolin in a medieval zoological catalog from either Europe or the Islamic world.
Many species of armadillo have become extinct, possibly due to people eating them. One species without bands is still extant and there were undoubtedly others. If we remove the bands, would most people still think the VMS depicts a pangolin rather than an armadillo?