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 +
Hello, >know otherwise. Or did these cartographers simply put in what looked good and >plausible, making such 'maps 'more like >paintings. What was in the >cartographer's mind as he drew such things, artistic licence, or copying what >he thought >was really there? We should keep in mind what the cartography (or early cartography) was. We know maps with a little detailed Antarctic, put there just because theoretical deliberations led to the statement that there is a need for a land down there. We also have maps like you've mentioned, originated probably from these more scientific images and just depicting some "why-not-like-this" world. One thing also to remember is that early cartographers depicted not only measurable space, but also ideas. For example "OT" maps which show conception of space instead of this space itself. All this imagined lands (drowing land, why not to draw trees and rivers on it?) are somewhere between measured facts and ortodoxic ideas. That's somewhat general impression, without citations to prove it :). Regards, Kamil Nieścioruk -- __________________________________________________________ | Kamil Niescioruk | www.kamilniescioruk.prv.pl _______________________________________________ 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
