View Single Post
Old 3rd January 2015, 01:29 PM   #22
David
Keris forum moderator
 
David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 5,252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian
The carvings are not anatomically correct if the bird is in flight or at rest. I cannot see an anatomical equivalent to the well defined circle or spiral in the position shown, whether the bird is at rest or with the wings extended.

Furthermore, if you look at the soft tissues of the bird in the X-ray I showed, you will see that the shoulders and chest are the broadest part of the body and it tapers towards the tail. The folded wings are thinnest towards the tail end. I'm not sure what to make of your observation, which seems to suggest the opposite.

Ian, i am not fully committed to any conclusion here, but you do seem to be continuing along this line without acknowledging Ron's point on this, that there is absolutely no reason why this depiction should be "anatomically correct" in the first place and that in fact it would be somewhat counter to Islamic law if it were. As a form of okir/ukkil any actual real-life forms would be highly stylized, wouldn't they? I don't think we can expect realism is such design and i can't see how we can use such false expectation as a debate point. What i believe Ron was attempting to point out about the thickness of the "wing" section being wider towards the tail is that it is a stylized form that implies the wings are outstretched in flight, not resting at the bird's sides, so in that scenario the wings must appear further out from the body of the bird nearer the tail.
David is offline   Reply With Quote