No text, but a visual code

[Linda]

It is doubtful that anyone reasoned in terms of zodiacal (precessional) ages in the 15th century.

Given that works of both Plato and Ptolemy (the latter having written about Hipparchus) were being translated into Latin around 1406 in Florence, i think it reasonable to consider the possibility, especially since the progression to nomadic nakedness fits with that idea. 

Please explain the tubs and clothing versus nakedness in relation to plants and signs, because i really have trouble seeing that connection.

Regardless, my point was more along the lines that i have trouble understanding the belief that proof that the two winter signs were never drawn is because they were replaced with duplicates of spring signs in order to bring the number of signs back to twelve. It is not proof, it is not even evidence. The evidence seems to show that the pages used to be there, and the duplicates of the others also seem to have been there from the beginning and were not a later insertion. Even if the posited Capricorn and Aquarius were never there, this would put all the signs out of their usual order. What would be the purpose of that? Even whomever wrote in the month names saw that the duplicated signs were likely indicative of depicting the same months. I can see using a similar argument to mine, that those are signs with high relevance so not all the info fits in one circle (historical times for me, bloom times for Anton.) I can also not understand the belief that the plants would require that this changing of the zodiac is necessary because the plants are generally depicted as being in bloom. I just don't see any logic there.

With regard to Pisces being shown as first, i think it is because today, as it was then, the First Point of Aries, or the vernal equinox, is in the Pisces constellation. The tradition of Aries being first comes from a time when the First Point of Aries was in Aries. Before that, it would have been in Taurus and so on. Soon comes the dawning of the age of Aquarius. But again i don't see the logic of changing the zodiac because that is when plants sometimes bloom. And blooms where? Because my bloom times are different than someone north of me, or south, or higher, or lower, or in some other difference of position or location.(

Are you saying it is like Pisces is depicted as when you have put your seeds in warmth and water and then you pot them up once they sprout, then Aries they start to bloom, so now they are in their pots and getting colourful, then after awhile they lose their colour and run all over the place in order to spread seed? If you agree to that, why is there never a harvest? It just goes on and on the same way after Gemini. How do you explain that?