10-09-2016, 10:27 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2016, 10:44 AM by Diane.
Edit Reason: cut
)
Don,
Yes, the designs are all fairly normal ones.
If you look a little further than the narrow confines of Latin Europe, you will find every element in those designs - including the unusual 'knife-blade' legs. The out-turned sort of legs are not actually part of a vessel, but the stands on which they were set. You might also notice that none of the vessels have handles, and many have no 'belly' either; absence of both on the more ornate forms is another pointer to non-Latin European (and indeed non-Mediterranean) custom.
The real divide in studying the manuscript and its imagery is, I guess, that while some people are looking for explanation of what the images actually contain (call it 'object-based' research); others have preferred to form an idea, and then see what they can find within limits determined by that idea, that might (at whatever stretch) be applied to a given detail.
I don't see any resolution for this constant divide in the methodology. I've argued with Nick Pelling about this too. He thinks of theory-making as a useful tool for the historian, but I find it positively counter-productive when an artefact is as problematic as this.
Theories in such a case are by nature pre-emptive, and I've too often seen a theory which is less enlightening of the object than of the theorists' predilictions and attitudes.
Still, I expect the two approaches will continue, each along it own way.
At least we needn't fear here that anyone will become such a wide-eyed fanatic that they would try to 'nobble' all other lines of investigation.
About the jars - the knife-blade legs are characteristic of the roads of inner Asia. The example I used is a very early one, but the same sort of legs occur later too.
Here's a link to Part 2 of the post - a very brief survey
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- hope the edits haven't caused annoyance. Our lines are constantly dropping out -
Yes, the designs are all fairly normal ones.
If you look a little further than the narrow confines of Latin Europe, you will find every element in those designs - including the unusual 'knife-blade' legs. The out-turned sort of legs are not actually part of a vessel, but the stands on which they were set. You might also notice that none of the vessels have handles, and many have no 'belly' either; absence of both on the more ornate forms is another pointer to non-Latin European (and indeed non-Mediterranean) custom.
The real divide in studying the manuscript and its imagery is, I guess, that while some people are looking for explanation of what the images actually contain (call it 'object-based' research); others have preferred to form an idea, and then see what they can find within limits determined by that idea, that might (at whatever stretch) be applied to a given detail.
I don't see any resolution for this constant divide in the methodology. I've argued with Nick Pelling about this too. He thinks of theory-making as a useful tool for the historian, but I find it positively counter-productive when an artefact is as problematic as this.
Theories in such a case are by nature pre-emptive, and I've too often seen a theory which is less enlightening of the object than of the theorists' predilictions and attitudes.
Still, I expect the two approaches will continue, each along it own way.
At least we needn't fear here that anyone will become such a wide-eyed fanatic that they would try to 'nobble' all other lines of investigation.
About the jars - the knife-blade legs are characteristic of the roads of inner Asia. The example I used is a very early one, but the same sort of legs occur later too.
Here's a link to Part 2 of the post - a very brief survey
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- hope the edits haven't caused annoyance. Our lines are constantly dropping out -