13-04-2016, 08:06 PM
I like the idea of the Zodiac being not a Zodiac, since it is a simple solution of the "Pisces" problem.
But actually you then need to match the beginning of a calendar year (which was in force in the particular time and place) with Pisces. I remember when we discussed this problem in 2014 or in 2015 in Pelling's blog, there were certain difficulties with that - at least for 15th century European calendars.
If one argues that Pisces is first just because they hold the point of the vernal equinox - that's good for an astronomical chart but perhaps not for a lapidary or something.
But actually you then need to match the beginning of a calendar year (which was in force in the particular time and place) with Pisces. I remember when we discussed this problem in 2014 or in 2015 in Pelling's blog, there were certain difficulties with that - at least for 15th century European calendars.
If one argues that Pisces is first just because they hold the point of the vernal equinox - that's good for an astronomical chart but perhaps not for a lapidary or something.