Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings?
#3
I'm no expert, but in the interests of conversation I would not disagree with that. However, there are some assumptions that may be problematic. Pretty much all of the VMs can be considered problematic. Firstly, there is dating. When is "contemporary"? We have parchment dates. Is the written and artistic dating contemporary, remembered, or copied from some other source - at some unspecified time? Those are all possibilities - more or less. The interesting thing is the number of different investigations that seem to be relevant and compatible within the C-14 dates - and particularly within the latter part of those dates.

The 1404-1438 date range is a statistical average for the four parchment samples. So, 1438 is just a number, not a "cut-off year". 1439 is just a little less likely, or 1440. The margin of error is at least +/- 30 years on the original samples. 

The thing about the VMs is its ambiguity. No single thing is conclusive on its own. It is the combination of different investigations that brings the "contemporary" perspective of the VMs into focus. The VMs Zodiac, and the clothing; Lauber is also connected to the VMs through the mermaid / Melusine investigation, which included Harley 334, which is then connected to the investigations of the uncommon VMs cosmos and the use of a nebuly line as a cosmic boundary.

The matter of the Golden Fleece is an example of something highly ambiguous, difficult to recognize, easily dismissed, and yet very specific in its historical chronology. On its own, it cannot stand. With the support of all the other ambiguous information, it fits right in as an essential part of the interpretation.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - by R. Sale - 25-11-2022, 02:20 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)