Law Atlas

How The Law Decides
Sign In
Text size
100%
Theme

Switch Atlas

The Inner World

The Civil World

The Natural World

Law Atlas

Open Questions

Things this atlas does not know. Each entry is a question that specialists have posed and not settled, recorded with what would actually resolve it and which expertise the answer needs.

These are kept deliberately, rather than quietly omitted. An atlas that shows only what it is sure of implies a confidence it has not earned, and the gaps are often where the interesting work is. Several sit exactly where two fields fail to meet: identifying the hyssop of the Hebrew Bible needs a botanist and a philologist of Biblical Hebrew, and neither one settles it alone.

Grouped by the expertise recorded on each question, in the words the question itself uses. Most of these are held by a single question.

Filter By Specialty 99 fields
Fields With More Than One Question
Show All Specialties 66 more, one question each
One Question Each

Showing 21 to 40 of 608 open questions, page 2 of 31.

Palaeography and codicology of late medieval Latin manuscripts, history of the early modern printed book, history of Renaissance occultism 26
Theban U U Where does the Theban sign for U come from, and does Trithemius's ascription of the script to Honorius of Thebes rest on anything but his own word?

Open Theban U U

Why It Is Open The three attributed-author facts recorded on Theban U are all marked unknown, and this is the question they leave open. Trithemius published the script in Polygraphiae libri sex in 1518, crediting Honorius of Thebes on the authority of Pietro d'Abano, but the credit has never been corroborated. The ascription is not known to appear in any writing attributed to d'Abano, the script is not known to appear in any manuscript of Honorius except British Library Sloane 3853, which names Agrippa as its own source, and no publication before 1518 has been found to carry it. A Trithemius era invention is widely assumed but has never been demonstrated, and no rival candidate has ever been named, which is why this is unknown rather than debated. It is one question about the whole Theban script rather than about this letter alone, and it is recorded on each of the twenty six letters because the atlas stores the attribution separately for every letter.

What Would Settle It A codicological survey of pre-1518 manuscripts in the ars notoria and Solomonic grimoire traditions for any script matching the Theban letterforms, together with archival work on Trithemius's own circle, including his students and correspondents such as Agrippa, and a collation of the Polygraphiae chart against the earliest surviving impressions. One dated witness earlier than 1518 would settle the priority; a draft, a letter or a working paper would settle the authorship.

Expertise Needed Palaeography and codicology of late medieval Latin manuscripts, history of the early modern printed book, history of Renaissance occultism

Codicology History of Renaissance Occultism History of the Book Palaeography

Question posed in Theban alphabet (reference article), Wikipedia contributors, Origin and attribution: the ascription is not known to be mentioned in any writing attributed to Pietro d'Abano, nor the script in any Honorius manuscript except Sloane 3853, which names Agrippa..

Theban V V Where does the Theban sign for V come from, and does Trithemius's ascription of the script to Honorius of Thebes rest on anything but his own word?

Open Theban V V

Why It Is Open The three attributed-author facts recorded on Theban V are all marked unknown, and this is the question they leave open. Trithemius published the script in Polygraphiae libri sex in 1518, crediting Honorius of Thebes on the authority of Pietro d'Abano, but the credit has never been corroborated. The ascription is not known to appear in any writing attributed to d'Abano, the script is not known to appear in any manuscript of Honorius except British Library Sloane 3853, which names Agrippa as its own source, and no publication before 1518 has been found to carry it. A Trithemius era invention is widely assumed but has never been demonstrated, and no rival candidate has ever been named, which is why this is unknown rather than debated. It is one question about the whole Theban script rather than about this letter alone, and it is recorded on each of the twenty six letters because the atlas stores the attribution separately for every letter.

What Would Settle It A codicological survey of pre-1518 manuscripts in the ars notoria and Solomonic grimoire traditions for any script matching the Theban letterforms, together with archival work on Trithemius's own circle, including his students and correspondents such as Agrippa, and a collation of the Polygraphiae chart against the earliest surviving impressions. One dated witness earlier than 1518 would settle the priority; a draft, a letter or a working paper would settle the authorship.

Expertise Needed Palaeography and codicology of late medieval Latin manuscripts, history of the early modern printed book, history of Renaissance occultism

Codicology History of Renaissance Occultism History of the Book Palaeography

Question posed in Theban alphabet (reference article), Wikipedia contributors, Origin and attribution: the ascription is not known to be mentioned in any writing attributed to Pietro d'Abano, nor the script in any Honorius manuscript except Sloane 3853, which names Agrippa..

Theban W W Where does the Theban sign for W come from, and does Trithemius's ascription of the script to Honorius of Thebes rest on anything but his own word?

Open Theban W W

Why It Is Open The three attributed-author facts recorded on Theban W are all marked unknown, and this is the question they leave open. Trithemius published the script in Polygraphiae libri sex in 1518, crediting Honorius of Thebes on the authority of Pietro d'Abano, but the credit has never been corroborated. The ascription is not known to appear in any writing attributed to d'Abano, the script is not known to appear in any manuscript of Honorius except British Library Sloane 3853, which names Agrippa as its own source, and no publication before 1518 has been found to carry it. A Trithemius era invention is widely assumed but has never been demonstrated, and no rival candidate has ever been named, which is why this is unknown rather than debated. It is one question about the whole Theban script rather than about this letter alone, and it is recorded on each of the twenty six letters because the atlas stores the attribution separately for every letter.

What Would Settle It A codicological survey of pre-1518 manuscripts in the ars notoria and Solomonic grimoire traditions for any script matching the Theban letterforms, together with archival work on Trithemius's own circle, including his students and correspondents such as Agrippa, and a collation of the Polygraphiae chart against the earliest surviving impressions. One dated witness earlier than 1518 would settle the priority; a draft, a letter or a working paper would settle the authorship.

Expertise Needed Palaeography and codicology of late medieval Latin manuscripts, history of the early modern printed book, history of Renaissance occultism

Codicology History of Renaissance Occultism History of the Book Palaeography

Question posed in Theban alphabet (reference article), Wikipedia contributors, Origin and attribution: the ascription is not known to be mentioned in any writing attributed to Pietro d'Abano, nor the script in any Honorius manuscript except Sloane 3853, which names Agrippa..

Theban X X Where does the Theban sign for X come from, and does Trithemius's ascription of the script to Honorius of Thebes rest on anything but his own word?

Open Theban X X

Why It Is Open The three attributed-author facts recorded on Theban X are all marked unknown, and this is the question they leave open. Trithemius published the script in Polygraphiae libri sex in 1518, crediting Honorius of Thebes on the authority of Pietro d'Abano, but the credit has never been corroborated. The ascription is not known to appear in any writing attributed to d'Abano, the script is not known to appear in any manuscript of Honorius except British Library Sloane 3853, which names Agrippa as its own source, and no publication before 1518 has been found to carry it. A Trithemius era invention is widely assumed but has never been demonstrated, and no rival candidate has ever been named, which is why this is unknown rather than debated. It is one question about the whole Theban script rather than about this letter alone, and it is recorded on each of the twenty six letters because the atlas stores the attribution separately for every letter.

What Would Settle It A codicological survey of pre-1518 manuscripts in the ars notoria and Solomonic grimoire traditions for any script matching the Theban letterforms, together with archival work on Trithemius's own circle, including his students and correspondents such as Agrippa, and a collation of the Polygraphiae chart against the earliest surviving impressions. One dated witness earlier than 1518 would settle the priority; a draft, a letter or a working paper would settle the authorship.

Expertise Needed Palaeography and codicology of late medieval Latin manuscripts, history of the early modern printed book, history of Renaissance occultism

Codicology History of Renaissance Occultism History of the Book Palaeography

Question posed in Theban alphabet (reference article), Wikipedia contributors, Origin and attribution: the ascription is not known to be mentioned in any writing attributed to Pietro d'Abano, nor the script in any Honorius manuscript except Sloane 3853, which names Agrippa..

Theban Y Y Where does the Theban sign for Y come from, and does Trithemius's ascription of the script to Honorius of Thebes rest on anything but his own word?

Open Theban Y Y

Why It Is Open The three attributed-author facts recorded on Theban Y are all marked unknown, and this is the question they leave open. Trithemius published the script in Polygraphiae libri sex in 1518, crediting Honorius of Thebes on the authority of Pietro d'Abano, but the credit has never been corroborated. The ascription is not known to appear in any writing attributed to d'Abano, the script is not known to appear in any manuscript of Honorius except British Library Sloane 3853, which names Agrippa as its own source, and no publication before 1518 has been found to carry it. A Trithemius era invention is widely assumed but has never been demonstrated, and no rival candidate has ever been named, which is why this is unknown rather than debated. It is one question about the whole Theban script rather than about this letter alone, and it is recorded on each of the twenty six letters because the atlas stores the attribution separately for every letter.

What Would Settle It A codicological survey of pre-1518 manuscripts in the ars notoria and Solomonic grimoire traditions for any script matching the Theban letterforms, together with archival work on Trithemius's own circle, including his students and correspondents such as Agrippa, and a collation of the Polygraphiae chart against the earliest surviving impressions. One dated witness earlier than 1518 would settle the priority; a draft, a letter or a working paper would settle the authorship.

Expertise Needed Palaeography and codicology of late medieval Latin manuscripts, history of the early modern printed book, history of Renaissance occultism

Codicology History of Renaissance Occultism History of the Book Palaeography

Question posed in Theban alphabet (reference article), Wikipedia contributors, Origin and attribution: the ascription is not known to be mentioned in any writing attributed to Pietro d'Abano, nor the script in any Honorius manuscript except Sloane 3853, which names Agrippa..

Theban Z Z Where does the Theban sign for Z come from, and does Trithemius's ascription of the script to Honorius of Thebes rest on anything but his own word?

Open Theban Z Z

Why It Is Open The three attributed-author facts recorded on Theban Z are all marked unknown, and this is the question they leave open. Trithemius published the script in Polygraphiae libri sex in 1518, crediting Honorius of Thebes on the authority of Pietro d'Abano, but the credit has never been corroborated. The ascription is not known to appear in any writing attributed to d'Abano, the script is not known to appear in any manuscript of Honorius except British Library Sloane 3853, which names Agrippa as its own source, and no publication before 1518 has been found to carry it. A Trithemius era invention is widely assumed but has never been demonstrated, and no rival candidate has ever been named, which is why this is unknown rather than debated. It is one question about the whole Theban script rather than about this letter alone, and it is recorded on each of the twenty six letters because the atlas stores the attribution separately for every letter.

What Would Settle It A codicological survey of pre-1518 manuscripts in the ars notoria and Solomonic grimoire traditions for any script matching the Theban letterforms, together with archival work on Trithemius's own circle, including his students and correspondents such as Agrippa, and a collation of the Polygraphiae chart against the earliest surviving impressions. One dated witness earlier than 1518 would settle the priority; a draft, a letter or a working paper would settle the authorship.

Expertise Needed Palaeography and codicology of late medieval Latin manuscripts, history of the early modern printed book, history of Renaissance occultism

Codicology History of Renaissance Occultism History of the Book Palaeography

Question posed in Theban alphabet (reference article), Wikipedia contributors, Origin and attribution: the ascription is not known to be mentioned in any writing attributed to Pietro d'Abano, nor the script in any Honorius manuscript except Sloane 3853, which names Agrippa..

Celtic studies, medieval Irish philology 13
Birch (Beth) Do Robert Graves's specific letter-to-month tree pairings in the 13-sign Celtic tree calendar correspond to anything beyond his own argument in The White Goddess?

Open Birch (Beth)

Why It Is Open Graves built the thirteen sign sequence in The White Goddess, 1948, by pairing his own reading of the Beth-Luis-Nion tree names to a thirteen month lunar calendar he reconstructed himself. That the wider tree calendar is his modern invention rather than an attested ancient system is not in dispute, and the tree names match because he took them from Ogham. What nobody has examined is the step after that: whether placing a given tree at a given calendar position reflects anything in the surviving Ogham material, or only his argument. No Celtic studies scholar has tested his month by month assignments either way, which is why this is an unfilled gap rather than a disagreement between camps. One question covers all thirteen signs, because the pairing is one act rather than thirteen.

What Would Settle It A philological comparison of Graves's month-by-month tree assignments against the Ogham letter-name glosses preserved in the Auraicept na nEces and the Briatharogam tracts, by a scholar of medieval Irish, to establish whether any assignment beyond the shared name is supportable.

Expertise Needed Celtic studies, medieval Irish philology

Celtic Studies Medieval Irish Philology

Question posed in A Guide to Ogam, Damian McManus.

Rowan (Luis) Do Robert Graves's tree pairings in the thirteen sign Celtic tree calendar, and the placing of rowan at this position, correspond to anything beyond his own argument in The White Goddess?

Open Rowan (Luis)

Why It Is Open Graves built the thirteen sign sequence in The White Goddess, 1948, by pairing his own reading of the Beth-Luis-Nion tree names to a thirteen month lunar calendar he reconstructed himself. That the wider tree calendar is his modern invention rather than an attested ancient system is not in dispute, and the tree names match because he took them from Ogham. What nobody has examined is the step after that: whether placing a given tree at a given calendar position reflects anything in the surviving Ogham material, or only his argument. No Celtic studies scholar has tested his month by month assignments either way, which is why this is an unfilled gap rather than a disagreement between camps. One question covers all thirteen signs, because the pairing is one act rather than thirteen.

What Would Settle It A philological comparison of Graves's month-by-month tree assignments against the Ogham letter-name glosses preserved in the Auraicept na nEces and the Briatharogam tracts, by a scholar of medieval Irish, to establish whether any assignment beyond the shared name is supportable.

Expertise Needed Celtic studies, medieval Irish philology

Question posed in A Guide to Ogam, Damian McManus.

Ash (Nion) Do Robert Graves's tree pairings in the thirteen sign Celtic tree calendar, and the placing of ash at this position, correspond to anything beyond his own argument in The White Goddess?

Open Ash (Nion)

Why It Is Open Graves built the thirteen sign sequence in The White Goddess, 1948, by pairing his own reading of the Beth-Luis-Nion tree names to a thirteen month lunar calendar he reconstructed himself. That the wider tree calendar is his modern invention rather than an attested ancient system is not in dispute, and the tree names match because he took them from Ogham. What nobody has examined is the step after that: whether placing a given tree at a given calendar position reflects anything in the surviving Ogham material, or only his argument. No Celtic studies scholar has tested his month by month assignments either way, which is why this is an unfilled gap rather than a disagreement between camps. One question covers all thirteen signs, because the pairing is one act rather than thirteen.

What Would Settle It A philological comparison of Graves's month-by-month tree assignments against the Ogham letter-name glosses preserved in the Auraicept na nEces and the Briatharogam tracts, by a scholar of medieval Irish, to establish whether any assignment beyond the shared name is supportable.

Expertise Needed Celtic studies, medieval Irish philology

Question posed in A Guide to Ogam, Damian McManus.

Alder (Fearn) Do Robert Graves's tree pairings in the thirteen sign Celtic tree calendar, and the placing of alder at this position, correspond to anything beyond his own argument in The White Goddess?

Open Alder (Fearn)

Why It Is Open Graves built the thirteen sign sequence in The White Goddess, 1948, by pairing his own reading of the Beth-Luis-Nion tree names to a thirteen month lunar calendar he reconstructed himself. That the wider tree calendar is his modern invention rather than an attested ancient system is not in dispute, and the tree names match because he took them from Ogham. What nobody has examined is the step after that: whether placing a given tree at a given calendar position reflects anything in the surviving Ogham material, or only his argument. No Celtic studies scholar has tested his month by month assignments either way, which is why this is an unfilled gap rather than a disagreement between camps. One question covers all thirteen signs, because the pairing is one act rather than thirteen.

What Would Settle It A philological comparison of Graves's month-by-month tree assignments against the Ogham letter-name glosses preserved in the Auraicept na nEces and the Briatharogam tracts, by a scholar of medieval Irish, to establish whether any assignment beyond the shared name is supportable.

Expertise Needed Celtic studies, medieval Irish philology

Question posed in A Guide to Ogam, Damian McManus.

Willow (Saille) Do Robert Graves's tree pairings in the thirteen sign Celtic tree calendar, and the placing of willow at this position, correspond to anything beyond his own argument in The White Goddess?

Open Willow (Saille)

Why It Is Open Graves built the thirteen sign sequence in The White Goddess, 1948, by pairing his own reading of the Beth-Luis-Nion tree names to a thirteen month lunar calendar he reconstructed himself. That the wider tree calendar is his modern invention rather than an attested ancient system is not in dispute, and the tree names match because he took them from Ogham. What nobody has examined is the step after that: whether placing a given tree at a given calendar position reflects anything in the surviving Ogham material, or only his argument. No Celtic studies scholar has tested his month by month assignments either way, which is why this is an unfilled gap rather than a disagreement between camps. One question covers all thirteen signs, because the pairing is one act rather than thirteen.

What Would Settle It A philological comparison of Graves's month-by-month tree assignments against the Ogham letter-name glosses preserved in the Auraicept na nEces and the Briatharogam tracts, by a scholar of medieval Irish, to establish whether any assignment beyond the shared name is supportable.

Expertise Needed Celtic studies, medieval Irish philology

Question posed in A Guide to Ogam, Damian McManus.

Hawthorn (Uath) Do Robert Graves's tree pairings in the thirteen sign Celtic tree calendar, and the placing of hawthorn at this position, correspond to anything beyond his own argument in The White Goddess?

Open Hawthorn (Uath)

Why It Is Open Graves built the thirteen sign sequence in The White Goddess, 1948, by pairing his own reading of the Beth-Luis-Nion tree names to a thirteen month lunar calendar he reconstructed himself. That the wider tree calendar is his modern invention rather than an attested ancient system is not in dispute, and the tree names match because he took them from Ogham. What nobody has examined is the step after that: whether placing a given tree at a given calendar position reflects anything in the surviving Ogham material, or only his argument. No Celtic studies scholar has tested his month by month assignments either way, which is why this is an unfilled gap rather than a disagreement between camps. One question covers all thirteen signs, because the pairing is one act rather than thirteen.

What Would Settle It A philological comparison of Graves's month-by-month tree assignments against the Ogham letter-name glosses preserved in the Auraicept na nEces and the Briatharogam tracts, by a scholar of medieval Irish, to establish whether any assignment beyond the shared name is supportable.

Expertise Needed Celtic studies, medieval Irish philology

Question posed in A Guide to Ogam, Damian McManus.

Oak (Duir) Do Robert Graves's tree pairings in the thirteen sign Celtic tree calendar, and the placing of oak at this position, correspond to anything beyond his own argument in The White Goddess?

Open Oak (Duir)

Why It Is Open Graves built the thirteen sign sequence in The White Goddess, 1948, by pairing his own reading of the Beth-Luis-Nion tree names to a thirteen month lunar calendar he reconstructed himself. That the wider tree calendar is his modern invention rather than an attested ancient system is not in dispute, and the tree names match because he took them from Ogham. What nobody has examined is the step after that: whether placing a given tree at a given calendar position reflects anything in the surviving Ogham material, or only his argument. No Celtic studies scholar has tested his month by month assignments either way, which is why this is an unfilled gap rather than a disagreement between camps. One question covers all thirteen signs, because the pairing is one act rather than thirteen.

What Would Settle It A philological comparison of Graves's month-by-month tree assignments against the Ogham letter-name glosses preserved in the Auraicept na nEces and the Briatharogam tracts, by a scholar of medieval Irish, to establish whether any assignment beyond the shared name is supportable.

Expertise Needed Celtic studies, medieval Irish philology

Question posed in A Guide to Ogam, Damian McManus.

Holly (Tinne) Do Robert Graves's tree pairings in the thirteen sign Celtic tree calendar, and the placing of holly at this position, correspond to anything beyond his own argument in The White Goddess?

Open Holly (Tinne)

Why It Is Open Graves built the thirteen sign sequence in The White Goddess, 1948, by pairing his own reading of the Beth-Luis-Nion tree names to a thirteen month lunar calendar he reconstructed himself. That the wider tree calendar is his modern invention rather than an attested ancient system is not in dispute, and the tree names match because he took them from Ogham. What nobody has examined is the step after that: whether placing a given tree at a given calendar position reflects anything in the surviving Ogham material, or only his argument. No Celtic studies scholar has tested his month by month assignments either way, which is why this is an unfilled gap rather than a disagreement between camps. One question covers all thirteen signs, because the pairing is one act rather than thirteen.

What Would Settle It A philological comparison of Graves's month-by-month tree assignments against the Ogham letter-name glosses preserved in the Auraicept na nEces and the Briatharogam tracts, by a scholar of medieval Irish, to establish whether any assignment beyond the shared name is supportable.

Expertise Needed Celtic studies, medieval Irish philology

Question posed in A Guide to Ogam, Damian McManus.

Hazel (Coll) Do Robert Graves's tree pairings in the thirteen sign Celtic tree calendar, and the placing of hazel at this position, correspond to anything beyond his own argument in The White Goddess?

Open Hazel (Coll)

Why It Is Open Graves built the thirteen sign sequence in The White Goddess, 1948, by pairing his own reading of the Beth-Luis-Nion tree names to a thirteen month lunar calendar he reconstructed himself. That the wider tree calendar is his modern invention rather than an attested ancient system is not in dispute, and the tree names match because he took them from Ogham. What nobody has examined is the step after that: whether placing a given tree at a given calendar position reflects anything in the surviving Ogham material, or only his argument. No Celtic studies scholar has tested his month by month assignments either way, which is why this is an unfilled gap rather than a disagreement between camps. One question covers all thirteen signs, because the pairing is one act rather than thirteen.

What Would Settle It A philological comparison of Graves's month-by-month tree assignments against the Ogham letter-name glosses preserved in the Auraicept na nEces and the Briatharogam tracts, by a scholar of medieval Irish, to establish whether any assignment beyond the shared name is supportable.

Expertise Needed Celtic studies, medieval Irish philology

Question posed in A Guide to Ogam, Damian McManus.

Vine (Muin) Do Robert Graves's tree pairings in the thirteen sign Celtic tree calendar, and the placing of the vine at this position, correspond to anything beyond his own argument in The White Goddess?

Open Vine (Muin)

Why It Is Open Graves built the thirteen sign sequence in The White Goddess, 1948, by pairing his own reading of the Beth-Luis-Nion tree names to a thirteen month lunar calendar he reconstructed himself. That the wider tree calendar is his modern invention rather than an attested ancient system is not in dispute, and the tree names match because he took them from Ogham. What nobody has examined is the step after that: whether placing a given tree at a given calendar position reflects anything in the surviving Ogham material, or only his argument. No Celtic studies scholar has tested his month by month assignments either way, which is why this is an unfilled gap rather than a disagreement between camps. One question covers all thirteen signs, because the pairing is one act rather than thirteen.

What Would Settle It A philological comparison of Graves's month-by-month tree assignments against the Ogham letter-name glosses preserved in the Auraicept na nEces and the Briatharogam tracts, by a scholar of medieval Irish, to establish whether any assignment beyond the shared name is supportable.

Expertise Needed Celtic studies, medieval Irish philology

Question posed in A Guide to Ogam, Damian McManus.

Ivy (Gort) Do Robert Graves's tree pairings in the thirteen sign Celtic tree calendar, and the placing of ivy at this position, correspond to anything beyond his own argument in The White Goddess?

Open Ivy (Gort)

Why It Is Open Graves built the thirteen sign sequence in The White Goddess, 1948, by pairing his own reading of the Beth-Luis-Nion tree names to a thirteen month lunar calendar he reconstructed himself. That the wider tree calendar is his modern invention rather than an attested ancient system is not in dispute, and the tree names match because he took them from Ogham. What nobody has examined is the step after that: whether placing a given tree at a given calendar position reflects anything in the surviving Ogham material, or only his argument. No Celtic studies scholar has tested his month by month assignments either way, which is why this is an unfilled gap rather than a disagreement between camps. One question covers all thirteen signs, because the pairing is one act rather than thirteen.

What Would Settle It A philological comparison of Graves's month-by-month tree assignments against the Ogham letter-name glosses preserved in the Auraicept na nEces and the Briatharogam tracts, by a scholar of medieval Irish, to establish whether any assignment beyond the shared name is supportable.

Expertise Needed Celtic studies, medieval Irish philology

Question posed in A Guide to Ogam, Damian McManus.

Reed (Ngetal) Do Robert Graves's tree pairings in the thirteen sign Celtic tree calendar, and the placing of reed at this position, correspond to anything beyond his own argument in The White Goddess?

Open Reed (Ngetal)

Why It Is Open Graves built the thirteen sign sequence in The White Goddess, 1948, by pairing his own reading of the Beth-Luis-Nion tree names to a thirteen month lunar calendar he reconstructed himself. That the wider tree calendar is his modern invention rather than an attested ancient system is not in dispute, and the tree names match because he took them from Ogham. What nobody has examined is the step after that: whether placing a given tree at a given calendar position reflects anything in the surviving Ogham material, or only his argument. No Celtic studies scholar has tested his month by month assignments either way, which is why this is an unfilled gap rather than a disagreement between camps. One question covers all thirteen signs, because the pairing is one act rather than thirteen.

What Would Settle It A philological comparison of Graves's month-by-month tree assignments against the Ogham letter-name glosses preserved in the Auraicept na nEces and the Briatharogam tracts, by a scholar of medieval Irish, to establish whether any assignment beyond the shared name is supportable.

Expertise Needed Celtic studies, medieval Irish philology

Question posed in A Guide to Ogam, Damian McManus.

Elder (Ruis) Do Robert Graves's tree pairings in the thirteen sign Celtic tree calendar, and the placing of elder at this position, correspond to anything beyond his own argument in The White Goddess?

Open Elder (Ruis)

Why It Is Open Graves built the thirteen sign sequence in The White Goddess, 1948, by pairing his own reading of the Beth-Luis-Nion tree names to a thirteen month lunar calendar he reconstructed himself. That the wider tree calendar is his modern invention rather than an attested ancient system is not in dispute, and the tree names match because he took them from Ogham. What nobody has examined is the step after that: whether placing a given tree at a given calendar position reflects anything in the surviving Ogham material, or only his argument. No Celtic studies scholar has tested his month by month assignments either way, which is why this is an unfilled gap rather than a disagreement between camps. One question covers all thirteen signs, because the pairing is one act rather than thirteen.

What Would Settle It A philological comparison of Graves's month-by-month tree assignments against the Ogham letter-name glosses preserved in the Auraicept na nEces and the Briatharogam tracts, by a scholar of medieval Irish, to establish whether any assignment beyond the shared name is supportable.

Expertise Needed Celtic studies, medieval Irish philology

Question posed in A Guide to Ogam, Damian McManus.

Biographical research 12
Karen King Where was Karen King born?

Open Karen King

Why It Is Open Her birth date and the fact that she was raised in Sheridan, Montana, are documented across her Harvard biography and press profiles, but every one of those sources describes Sheridan as where she was raised, not where she was born.

What Would Settle It A memoir, interview or public statement from Karen King herself naming her actual birthplace.

Expertise Needed Biographical research

Question posed in Encyclopaedia Britannica (online academic reference), Encyclopaedia Britannica editors.