27-01-2016, 10:26 PM
This is really a strange point in this Zodiac.
I remember we had an extensive discussion of it some time ago in the comments in Nick's blog.
My opinion is that movement of the equinox point to Pisces is the first and natural explanation. However, other people argued that notwithstanding this, astrology continued to count Zodiac from Aries, not from Pisces. To this, if I remember correclty, I introduced the objection that probably this Voynich Zodiac is not Zodiac at all, but some form of calendar (like German "Volkskalender"'s).
The most appropriate solution would be to find the way in which Zodiac folios could have been accidentally rebound, thus moving Pisces into the beginning. However, I failed to find such way.
I remember we had an extensive discussion of it some time ago in the comments in Nick's blog.
My opinion is that movement of the equinox point to Pisces is the first and natural explanation. However, other people argued that notwithstanding this, astrology continued to count Zodiac from Aries, not from Pisces. To this, if I remember correclty, I introduced the objection that probably this Voynich Zodiac is not Zodiac at all, but some form of calendar (like German "Volkskalender"'s).
The most appropriate solution would be to find the way in which Zodiac folios could have been accidentally rebound, thus moving Pisces into the beginning. However, I failed to find such way.