Searcher:
I know what you mean, but I don't know why this is relevant to the discussion. The "Flemish lion", the heraldic symbol of Flanders (where I live), originally did not look like a lion at all. Especially in the early middle ages, the names for big cats and what they represented were fluid and interchangeable.
Most zodiac Leos, however, are actual lions. The fact that this beast appears to point towards a different species is not something that can be ignored by showing bestiary illustrations.
No! That is the point, it does not relate to the Zodiac. Nor do usually two bulls with baskets or two browsing goats or two lobsters or whatever critter is meant by the "Scorpio". The whole point of this thread is to attempt to uncover what the original nature of these images was, before they became adapted. Even those experts who favor a medieval European origin for these figures, agree that they are very peculiar.
Instead of saying "yeah this is weird but whatever", we gather pieces of the puzzle that explain their origin and might illuminate their original purpose.
Most of the images you gather are from non-Zodiac sources as well.
Edit: right, technically the griffin I posted is medieval - sorry. But still it is like Sam says - nobody argues that it actually is a griffin.
Like these guys (just a random example):
![[Image: 510px-Snow_leopard_portrait.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Snow_leopard_portrait.jpg/510px-Snow_leopard_portrait.jpg)
Quote:1. I don't see big difference between these: lion, tiger and panther below.
I know what you mean, but I don't know why this is relevant to the discussion. The "Flemish lion", the heraldic symbol of Flanders (where I live), originally did not look like a lion at all. Especially in the early middle ages, the names for big cats and what they represented were fluid and interchangeable.
Most zodiac Leos, however, are actual lions. The fact that this beast appears to point towards a different species is not something that can be ignored by showing bestiary illustrations.
Quote:My second point:
If this image of Leo relates to ancient Greek or Assyrian and so on depictions/ mosaics/ zodiacs, how it relates to the whole VMs Zodiac, including the Sagittarius-crossbowman and the Scorpio-lizard? Does it relate to this Zodiac at all?
No! That is the point, it does not relate to the Zodiac. Nor do usually two bulls with baskets or two browsing goats or two lobsters or whatever critter is meant by the "Scorpio". The whole point of this thread is to attempt to uncover what the original nature of these images was, before they became adapted. Even those experts who favor a medieval European origin for these figures, agree that they are very peculiar.
Instead of saying "yeah this is weird but whatever", we gather pieces of the puzzle that explain their origin and might illuminate their original purpose.
Most of the images you gather are from non-Zodiac sources as well.
Quote:My third point:Nobody has proposed that it can be a transformed medieval Griffin. Or did I miss that?
Why can it be a transformed medieval Griffin
Edit: right, technically the griffin I posted is medieval - sorry. But still it is like Sam says - nobody argues that it actually is a griffin.
Quote:My fourth point (last, not least):I see what you mean - there appears to be a circle of hairs around the neck. However, these longer hairs are also visible in other parts of the (front) body, lige behind the front leg and on the back under the neck. This seems to indicate more of a rough pelt than an actual full mane.
The Leo of the VMs Zodiac has a mane, but it is too thin and obscure.
Like these guys (just a random example):