16-09-2016, 01:57 PM
I have no way to know whether this is relevant, but I would say that throughout the imagery, and most particularly in the map, there is a distinct adjustment evident, as if the makers adjusted their visual language to the region being referred to. It makes good sense, of course, because it made that part of the map (etc.) intelligible to locals when a person needed to ask some question.
What I wonder is whether the same attitude mightn't affect the text. There has grown up a practice of cutting off each of the narratives (pictorial and textual) from the other and treating them according to very different method: the pictorial largely driven by narrative/hypothesis and the text by impeccable focus on the primary source, detailed analysis and so on.
But they are part of one whole and so I thought to mention that the imagery's analysis shows a multilingual, not mono- or bi-lingual outlook.
What I wonder is whether the same attitude mightn't affect the text. There has grown up a practice of cutting off each of the narratives (pictorial and textual) from the other and treating them according to very different method: the pictorial largely driven by narrative/hypothesis and the text by impeccable focus on the primary source, detailed analysis and so on.
But they are part of one whole and so I thought to mention that the imagery's analysis shows a multilingual, not mono- or bi-lingual outlook.