The specific / generic dichotomy is problematic because there are examples of both. Generic buildings, cities, etc. are fairly common. Few European artists of the Middle Ages would have had an accurate picture of Constantinople or Jerusalem, let alone Troy. Specifics need to be proven and that is a great difficulty. The devil is in the details and not all examples are equally devious. Places are difficult, either known or nearly impossible to identify. Plant species should be easier to recognize. Ideas and emblems could be the most obvious. Their intent is to convey meaning.
That is the purpose of heraldry. It was a visual code to convey meaning. That is how heraldry was used in the VMs.
Just think: Blue hats and red stripes. Does the combination have any meaning?? <None that I know.>
Then, countercharged. Does the reader recognize the historical connection? Has the potential for meaning been conveyed?
To encode a visual system requires various methods of disguise, various techniques to create ambiguity, the use of heraldic canting. Has the potential for meaning been conveyed?
That is the purpose of heraldry. It was a visual code to convey meaning. That is how heraldry was used in the VMs.
Just think: Blue hats and red stripes. Does the combination have any meaning?? <None that I know.>
Then, countercharged. Does the reader recognize the historical connection? Has the potential for meaning been conveyed?
To encode a visual system requires various methods of disguise, various techniques to create ambiguity, the use of heraldic canting. Has the potential for meaning been conveyed?