RE: No text, but a visual code
Linda > 03-06-2019, 09:35 PM
I can see your point and had thought similar before, i am just keeping open to possibilities.
I don't trust the page numbering at all, so i don't put much stock in it being meaningful one way or the other except as a glimpse as to the page order at binding. I think a lot has been shuffled and flipped.
With regard to Pisces being first, i think this shows an understanding of precession in that this was and is the age we are currently in. And it is necessary to know this to make use of some of the older data with regard to the first point of Aries and previous pole stars, etc.
Since the zodiac can't really be in any other order than Pisces first, i can only guess that if Aquarius and Capricorn existed, they would cover a time period past 20,000 years ago, so would likely just show more naked nymphs. I think the reason there are two each of Aries and Taurus and that they are mostly clothed and their tubs decorated is that these are the main ages of civilisation. Prior to that, people were nomadic, hence less likely to be involved with architecture or fashion beyond utility, which explains the rest of the zodiac being portrayed without clothing and only rarely with architectural aspects, although usually the tubs are on their sides or piles of stones, ie archealogical finds or caves perhaps.
I cant see how duplicating two of the signs retains the 12 sign structure when the counts on each are halved.
That is just the way i see it. I can see your perspective as well, though, but i can't explain the state of the nymphs and tubs in the month reckoning, which is why i tend toward the ages explanation.
But it is still the same zodiac in either case, just different ways of moving along them, so the months
reckoning may well apply exactly as you have explained.