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 +
While others on Maphist clash over the Vinland map, here are some
observations about the germane issue of "conclusive evidence" which came in
the
question & answer period during my well-received lecture on the Waldseemueller
map before the New York Map Society in November. It also permits me to
pick up on the prior discussion here about what the European knew about the
New World and when they knew it between Columbus and Magellan which is of
much greater importance than the old Vinland map dispute.
The Issue of Conclusive Evidence
This issue often remains in the mind of the beholder as we can see in
the Vinland map dispute. If someone wants to drift into the domain of
unreasonable doubt about evidence placed before them there is little one can
do about that. Sinclair Lewis once said something like "It is difficult to
get someone to change their understanding if their salary depends on them
not understanding it". Depending on the dispute, for salary one could
substitute "their own prior writings" or "received conventional wisdom" or
payment for a map that many or most now regard as a fake map.
Apropos European knowledge of the New World, I should clarify that my
remark earlier on Maphist about a secret log was buried with King Manuel
of Portugal regarding a clandestine, treaty-violating circumnavigation of
South America was only a joke to underscore the difficult but legitimate
issue of what is a threshold for conclusive evidence. In any case, a few
Maphisters actually took seriously the idea of a log hidden in a royal tomb.
Of
course, if there had been such a precious log, surely few persons other
than the King would have had access to it. But if such a log was never kept
or lost, does that mean that there is no conclusive evidence for such a
path-breaking expedition? No it does not.
Conclusive Evidence: Nordenskiold's Threshold
Baron Erik Adolf Nordenskiold who is a major figure in the history
of cartography came to the conclusion in his famous work Periplus -- An
Essay on the Early History of Charts and Sailing Directions (1897) -- that
there had to have been a circumnavigation of South America long before
Magellan, and even before Balboa.. Nordenskiold came to this conclusion
without
ever seeing the Waldseemueller map. Ironically, he died on August 12, 1901,
only a few weeks after Fischer discovered the map in July which was not
publicized for some months.
Nordenskiold's firm conclusion was based in large part on four
pieces of evidence -- all cartographic --
the discovery of the Lenox globe and the Hauslab globe gores (later
attributed to Waldseemueller),
his own discovery of a similar globe gores known as the Nordenskiold globe
gores and last but not least the stunning discovery in the 1890s of two of
Glareanus sketch maps circa 1510 based on or derived from Waldseemueller's
1507 creations with one of Glareanus' maps showing a strait as well as a
cape (the one found in Munich by Anton Elter) which I reproduced on the
front cover of my book, The Magellan Myth.
Also Nordenskiold was aware of the discovery of the Fugger
newsletter Newen Zeytung referring to the discovery of a strait by an
expedition
backed by the Lisbon Fugger-based agent Cristobal de Haro (about whom more
below) dated variously between 1504 and 1514. Schoener quotes or cribs from
this Fugger account in a supplement he published for his 1515 globe which
like his 1520 globe shows South America with a strikingly true likeness.
In Periplus, Nordenskiold on page 185 asserted that undocumented
"freebooting expeditions" were part of the explanation for the more
sophisticated geographical knowledge about South America one sees in these
cartographic works. I should point out that we know for example of a French
expedition down the east coast of South America in 1503 though the French
supposedly should not have been there given the Treaty of 1494. The lure was
great even for those sailors not from Portugal or Spain.
I argue in my book that if Nordenskiold had lived longer, then
given his ongoing disagreement with von Wieser about a pre-Magellan knowledge
of the Pacific, the debate over the Waldseemueller map would have risen to a
more serious level than it did after von Wieser and Fischer cleverly
advanced the notion in 1903 that this amazing map did not represent much
beyond
Caverio/Cantino. This is a dubious argument which Toby Lester is more or
less recycling in his book geared (as he told me) not for serious scholars
but for general readers. Only about 11 percent of his book deals directly
with the Waldseemueller map.
In any case, Nordenskiold was not alone in his conclusion or
suspicions which is why I took great pains to reconstruct the historiography
of
the sharp debate among scholars concerning this issue following von
Wieser's book in 1884 in defense of the Magellan First orthodoxy -- something
which you will not find in Lester's book or any other book for that matter.
There were other scholars in the late 1800s such as Francis Henry
Hill Guillemard (famous RGS member who published a still classic work on
Magellan in 1890) who questioned the idea that the Europeans were in the
complete dark about the Pacific/the strait before Magellan. Also Benjamin De
Costa, Henry Stevens Sr., Archibald Freeman, Emerson Fite, were all scholars
who placed the Lenox Globe well before Balboa and even before
Waldseemueller/1507 -- which is more than enough to transform our
understanding of the
historical context for the creation of the Waldseemueller map. In fact, I
know of only one scholar in 150 years who ever tried to argue that the Lenox
Globe could be post-Balboa.
The Cartographic Surge Beyond Caverio/Cantino
Now, in addition to the Lenox globe, we have -- thanks to my
observation originally on Maphist no less -- the Rosselli map made in Florence
circa 1508 which offers a third depiction of South America as an island-like
continent with a cone shape in the narrow time frame of 1505-1508 into
which the Lenox Globe and the Waldseemueller map also fall. In fact, the
shape of the west coast in the Rosselli map seems better than Waldseemueller
but more study is needed.
The bottom line: This distinctive imagery of new island-like
cone-shaped southern continent had emerged in three different European
locales
because the three items are not derivative from one another. Indeed
neither the Lenox globe nor the Rosselli map have the name "America" on them
though a later version of the Lenox Globe did have "America" placed on it
(see the Jagellonian-Krakow variant dated to between 1507 and 1511).
There is an internal consistently among these independent
depictions -- Lenox, Waldseemueller and Rosselli -- of South America in the
same
time frame 1505-1508. It is not a question of there being only one alleged
piece of evidence for the conclusion of Nordenskiold and my theory which
argues the how and why intense curiosity drove the Portuguese to find the
truth about whether there was second passage to Asia before the Spanish.
It is extremely difficult to reconcile all this evidence with the
old story about Balboa being the first European to see the Pacific Ocean.
He was perhaps the first Spaniard to see it. But he was not the first
European, any more than Ponce de Leon was the first in 1513 to see Florida
which is clearly depicted on the Cantino and Caverio maps of the 1502-1504
period. The same is true on these maps regarding the striking depiction of
Cuba as an island long before 1508 which is when Las Casas claimed
circumnavigation took place
Furthermore, there is a lot more evidence from many different kinds
of documentation pointing toward a discovery of the strait and at least one
circumnavigation by 1507 -- all of which I have discussed in my book and
laid out systematically in my PowerPoint presentation for the New York Map
Society on November 14.
Here below is a brief summary, essentially a multidisciplinary
dossier of at least 15 dots of evidence from my book and New York lecture
which
made a big impression on the audience and which I believe can be only
connected in the credible fashion that I have.
Dossier of Internally Consistent Evidence
A. the aforesaid Lenox-Waldseemueller-Rosselli Cartographic Troika so to
speak that depicts a new
large island-like southern continent.
B. 15 additional pre-Magellan maps of a similar nature (See Table A in
The Magellan Myth.)
C. the uncanny high accuracy of Waldseemueller's depiction of South
America as originally established
in my publications in Exploring Mercator's World in 2002-2003.
D. Vespucci's claim in an early letter to Medici and also in another
published as Mundus Novus that
they had reached 50 degrees along the coast in 1501-1502 which would
have been just short of the strait.
His later assertion about being way out in the South Atlantic at 50
degrees south was Vespucci's
ex post facto attempt to limit the potential damage of his earlier
disclosure of sensitive information to
Medici (see the Ridolfi Letter fragment). This self-censorship came
too late because one earlier letter
to Medici had leaked and appeared as Mundus Novus while he was on his
final voyage for Portugal.
E. Vespucci's remark in his oldest surviving letter to Medici (1502)
about how King Manuel was sending
more expeditions down this eastern coastline for exploration plus
some Portuguese documentation
referring to some of these voyages and captains such as Coelho,
Cristobal Jacques, Joao de Lisboa.
F. Valentine Fernandez' legal deposition in Lisbon (May 1503) in which he
expresses pride that one of the
King's fleet has pushed exploration to 53 degrees latitude south --
which would be right there at the
eastern opening to the Strait which would have been hard for the
competent Portuguese to miss.
G. Magellan's own emphatic statements which appeared in print in
Pigafetta's book on the famous voyage
about a Beheim map depicting a strait. Beheim died in Lisbon in 1506.
H. The highly salient fact that that King Manuel had banished the young
Magellan (heretofore a royal
page) to the position of a clerk in the Casa de Mina/India where all
the charts and maps were kept
and where Magellan worked from about 1496 to 1505. That was a
ringside seat for Magellan
.
I. Matthias Ringmann's empathic statements about the new southern
continent being surrounded on all
sides by water or an immense ocean in Cosmographiae Introductio and
in his little 1505 poem which
he updated in 1507 to make clear this specific geographical feature.
This rewrite was a calculated
action and in this poem he makes clear (as Gauthier Lud did
elsewhere) that the source of information
that had come to Saint-Die was Portugal and concerned on-going
Portuguese exploration of the new
southern continent to which Vespucci also referred in his 1502 letter
to Medici.
J. Heinrich Loritti (Glareanus) and his 9 sketch maps dating to 1510
based directly on Waldseemueller and
all of which show a southern water passage (as does Waldseemueller's
globe gores) and with one polar
centric map containing Glareanus' inscription as follows: "Finis
Am'rigis m't in Austru mer ad
occidentu ominino lustrata y" -- "The End of America in the Southern
Sea to the west entirely
explored." Translation provided by Classic Professor Emeritus William
McCulloh, Kenyon College
(Ohio).
K. The Fugger-related Newen Zeytung newsletter referring to the discovery
of a strait to reach the other
ocean to the west by an expedition financed by Cristobal de Haro.
Again all scholars date this
newsletter account to before Magellan and some date it to as early as
1504.
L. De Haro's large role in financing many Portuguese expeditions down the
east coast of South America
in the 1501-1507 period. (eg. see Paul Gallez' biography of
Cristobal de Haro).
M. The highly revealing fact that de Haro entirely on his own financed
Magellan's expedition in 1519
for Emperor Charles V. What businessman would take on such
financial risk entirely on his own unless
he was certain that the Moluccas could be reached via a strait?
unless he was certain that
Magellan could relocate the southern water passage from an earlier
discovery for which there is evidence
(see above)? Andrew Rossfelder who purchased my book made this
observation to me about de Haro's
high revealingly decision as a businessman to finance it all out of
his own pocket in 1519.
N. The curious refusal of the Spanish to name the strait in honor of
Magellan in manuscript maps
in the 1520s. Instead we find -- the Strait of all Saints or the
Strait of San Antoni or even the Strait of
Martin Bohemi found on two maps as late as the 1580s. And during
this period de Haro served as
head of the Casa de Espericias (Board of Spices) in Seville in the
1520s.
O. Last but not least, the salient fact that Beheim, de Haro, Vespucci
and the young Magellan were all in
Lisbon in the 1500-1506 time frame in the wake of Cabral's discovery
of the Brazilian coastline on the
Portuguese side of the Treaty line in 1500. All of these four men
were familiar and passing through the
Casa de Mina/India given the focus of their work and assignments as
mapmakers, navigators and
financiers. It was a very small world, small phone book to speak in
which all these men were
working in Lisbon at this time. They were tripping over one another
so to speak.
Connecting the Dots
If someone can come up with different dots of evidence that refute my
analysis or connect all these dots A-O via a different interpretation that
has superior explanatory power and intellectual credibility than what I
have advanced since 2002, then they need to put that on the table.
The preponderance of the internally consistent evidence is heavily
in favor of my analysis and conclusion that the Portuguese disregarded the
legal or treaty implications of what they were doing to satisfy their need
to know for certain whether and where a second water passage might fall with
regard to that treaty demarcation line given the huge stakes involved.
The potential threat to their established African route to Asia was
serious if a second passage to Asia in the West belonged to the Spanish.
Ultimately, it proved to be on the Spanish side of the line (hence the
silence in Lisbon). However, that alternative route to the Moluccas was much
longer and so arduous that King Manuel could breath more easily. This
silence in Lisbon, however, did not prevent knowledge of the Portuguese
discoveries relating to South America from seeping or leaking into some early
maps
or globes such as Lenox, Rosselli, Waldseemueller et al. This is the
central message of my book and lectures.
In any case, I believe fair minded or open-minded persons will
agree that I have connected very important dots of solid evidence in a
careful,
reasonable and even compelling fashion and that the burden of proof is now
heavily on those who would try to provide alternative dots of evidence
for some alternative theory.
I do not think there is other different evidence out there pointing in
another direction such as Gavin Menzies tried to argue in favor of the Chinese
in 2002-2003.
Finally, I believe that those who argue that what was said or
written or depicted with regard to this new southern continent (See A-O above)
was still only rooted in imagination, speculation or represent just a
serendipitous stream of unconnected developments that never took the Europeans
beyond what we see in the Caverio/Cantino maps lack all credibility at this
point given the pattern and preponderance of evidence points in the
direction of an early Portuguese circumnavigation of South America not too
many
years after Da Gama's circumnavigation of Africa in 1498.
If someone wants to take me on in a public debate to refute my
position, then I look forward to such a debate.
I should observe that I agreed in principle to the suggestion to speak
jointly with Lester but that fizzled no doubt because he preferred it
otherwise, He spoke also at the New York Public Library only 3 days after I
spoke
there. I look forward to joint presentations or full-blown public debates
with Lester or anyone else about which book has or is closer to the true
story behind the Waldseemueller map which I think most will agree is of much
greater importance now than the old Vinland map dispute.
Peter
_______________________________________________
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
