Un-stump-like stumps with holes in the stop spewing what looks like it might be some kind of liquid.
I liked the teepee idea better and I didn't especially like the teepee idea.
.
Some parts of the VMS look more naturalistic. Some look more stylized or mythical. Because of the patterns on these bumps, I'm not sure which these are intended to be, but the spewy parts are drawn quite carefully, as though based on actual observations.
Morten, I don't have a problem with people presenting ideas. I think it's good most of the time (I'm very keen on brainstorming as many ideas as possible BEFORE settling on which ones might be better to research).
But that's not really what you do. You prematurely "latch on" to ideas before thoroughly researching them, instead of researching them and THEN deciding which one is best. It may be more emotionally satisfying to convince yourself you've found something, but it's not really more efficient in the long run. It makes it harder to let go of wrong ideas and then you lose more time than you gain (and possibly never reach your goal).
No one KNOWS if these are volcanoes. No one KNOWS where they might be located if they are (although we can make a list of global volcanoes and use that as a reference). There isn't enough corroborating evidence to be sure. I'm kind of hoping they are. Volcanoes are cool, well, hot... actually some are cool, like the ancient ones near Damascus (where mud pots and craters can still be seen).
But they might not be volcanoes at all. They might be something more common to medieval illustrations... they might be water sources. Or they might be cosmic dust (or souls, as you suggested). But don't get too invested in one idea when there are several possibilities.
What's wrong with having a list of possibilities? Less glamorous than a theory? Yes, it is, but it's more likely to lead to good results.
I liked the teepee idea better and I didn't especially like the teepee idea.
.
Some parts of the VMS look more naturalistic. Some look more stylized or mythical. Because of the patterns on these bumps, I'm not sure which these are intended to be, but the spewy parts are drawn quite carefully, as though based on actual observations.
Morten, I don't have a problem with people presenting ideas. I think it's good most of the time (I'm very keen on brainstorming as many ideas as possible BEFORE settling on which ones might be better to research).
But that's not really what you do. You prematurely "latch on" to ideas before thoroughly researching them, instead of researching them and THEN deciding which one is best. It may be more emotionally satisfying to convince yourself you've found something, but it's not really more efficient in the long run. It makes it harder to let go of wrong ideas and then you lose more time than you gain (and possibly never reach your goal).
No one KNOWS if these are volcanoes. No one KNOWS where they might be located if they are (although we can make a list of global volcanoes and use that as a reference). There isn't enough corroborating evidence to be sure. I'm kind of hoping they are. Volcanoes are cool, well, hot... actually some are cool, like the ancient ones near Damascus (where mud pots and craters can still be seen).
But they might not be volcanoes at all. They might be something more common to medieval illustrations... they might be water sources. Or they might be cosmic dust (or souls, as you suggested). But don't get too invested in one idea when there are several possibilities.
What's wrong with having a list of possibilities? Less glamorous than a theory? Yes, it is, but it's more likely to lead to good results.