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 +
James Enterline wrote:
The indicia of painful initial fabrication are not in the physical
document, but its contents. It is agreed that the fabricator
specifically picked out parts of the Speculum to illustrate with his
map (its very title and purpose). He did an honestly good job of
this, better than a forger would have had to.
Agreed by whom? As far as I'm aware, a major problem with the Vinland
Map is that as an illustration for "parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Speculum" it
is all-but useless. Most of the captions (even parts of the Vinland
ones) are crudely adapted from the Tartar Relation.
David Bradbury
_______________________________________________
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
