(16-08-2016, 11:57 AM)Koen Gh. wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The answer to this question is very simple. The scribe did not see this mosaic.
Rene mentions just one possibility in his last post: Aratus manuscripts. I learned from Marion Dolan's doctoral thesis about the subject that the Carolingians' intent was to safeguard the knowledge of the Ancients. They copied the texts as far as they were available. And for the imagery, they searched far and wide (including North Africa) for remaining useful images: mosaics, frescos, carvings, public monuments, calendars...
Hence, the Aratean tradition was one way the imagery, concepts and style of the ancients found their way right into the heart of Europe.
There are many, many other ways for ancient imagery to find its way to Europe. Take Baresch' learned traveler who went to Egypt to gather knowledge. Take Diane's wandering traders, who maintained Hellenistic documents just because they were incredibly useful.
R. Sale is right: we should not argue for a one-to-one correspondence. Diane had posted a very similar image before in which it was clear that the tail was originally a palm tree. Now Sam posts a mosaic with much the same palm tree and even more similarities. It is clear that this was a common way of depiction. Moreover, Diane's example was in a coin, and coins travel. But there were likely once dozens of such images found in a wider area, and many dozens more copies of those spread far and wide.
R. Sale is once again right: the head is different. This means that the VM cat was altered or copied from a similar source. Diane has written about the depiction of the eyes which, together with the splash of blood on the hind leg, point to a post-Hellenistic tradition of neutralizing images that were seen as threatening. If I recall correctly, this points towards the Carolingians again.
This way the puzzle of transmission can be assembled. The tail, the blue spots, lack of mane... are likely indications that the original source was classical. The head and other factors point towards another stage of alteration.
We are not looking for the direct source, that is futile. We are looking for pieces of the puzzle. And in my opinion, Sam provided a corner piece
As long as it is understood that, no matter how far the imagery can be traced back in time, it is a matter of transmission through the ages and continuous change, there is no controversy here at all. The problem will remain that the path of transmission will be highly speculative.
I am extremely skeptical about the palm tree story. Leo as a lion with its tail between its hind legs and upwards is a fairly common way to draw the zodiac sign. Were they all derived from an image of a lion with a palm tree in the background? I think the evidence does not allow this conclusion at all.
I am also not convinced about the red spot either. There are many red spots in the MS that seem like spills of paint or wax, but it doesn't seem possible to conclude whether it is intentional or not.
In general, at least some pieces of the puzzle need to be concrete to make it attractive. As long as they are all speculation, the grand total is equally 100% speculation. That doesn't make it definitely wrong, of course. One simply has to be careful with words like 'has (been) shown' etc.
(16-08-2016, 12:56 PM)Sam G wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Perhaps. I would say that her statement isn't quite clear, and it's also not clear whether this is offered merely as a suggestion or something she saw as absolutely certain. Also worth keeping in mind here that we only have her statements in the form of a "translation/summary" by Rafal Prinke. So I still don't see a contradiction, and certainly I don't see any basis for using her statements as a sort of "expert-opinion-in-a-box" that can be used to dispose of any evidence that may surface at any point in the future. It's basically just attributing an opinion to her that she never expressed.
The essence of what she writes is very clear: it's a product of its time. It's an adaptation of a tradition according to the area and time where the MS was produced.
The conclusion is that the similarity with a mosaic that is 1300 years older has to be coincidental.
Suggestions (not from you, certainly) that the Voynich MS 'zodiac' isn't a zodiac, are also strongly contradicted by her.