This is a MapHist list message (when you hit 'reply' you're replying to the whole list) o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o +
This is a rather odd argument, that someone trying to forge a medieval document would not be expected to imitate medieval practices: > And even before he could have lifted a pen, the forger > had to sit down and dope out the Latin cryptograms he was going to > incorporate into the inscriptions, an art not practiced since the > middle ages. And to what end nowadays? > Jim Enterline And so, I think, is the following. Tracing a final fair copy in ink is a time-honored drafting-room practice. > McCrone's tale of a forger sitting down and painfully > retracing, almost perfectly, a map he had just painfully fabricated > is too much to swallow. But I admit to lacking context on exactly what properties are peculiarly explained by tracing, or about what indicia of long, painful fabrication might have been observed in the physical document. Doug McIlroy _______________________________________________ MapHist: E-mail discussion group on the history of cartography hosted by the Faculty of Geosciences, University of Utrecht. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Utrecht. The University of Utrecht does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. List Information: http://www.maphist.nl Maphist mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.geo.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/maphist
