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 +
Again without citations, but I would suggest all
of the above. As well as someone reported that
they had seen these features, who were either
mistaken or spinning a yarn. As to the "Great
Southern Continent", there was a theory that the
amount land north of the equator had to balance
the amount south. It is wrong, but it was a
theory. (We should not make the mistake often
made about for example Newton and alchemy. The
fools who like to point out how Newton could at
the same time be the great scientist with
mechanics but be non-scientific about alchemy.
Chemistry is a much harder problem than
mechanics. Newton was a very careful
experimenter. Given how stable manyu compounds
are, figuring out what is "elemental" is a very
hard problem. Alchemy is simply theory that
didn't work out. Not as superstitious silliness.
Looking at the problem from our perspective is a
worse error. Lead can be changed into gold. It
just requires a particle accelerator! And Newton
was a long way from being able to build one!) ;-)
Look how long copies of Durer's rhinoceros continue to appear!
As to maps, it was pointed out to me early in
exposure to maps that the "fanciful monsters" on
maps like Ortelius' map of Iceland are the result
of trying to draw a picture from a bad
translation of a good description of a real
species observed.
There are maps of North America with a large
inland sea in the upper northwest. Not there in
historic times but there was one there. Was this
based on information from the local Indians that
represented knowledge passed down from the time
of the ice ages when it was there?
So are these myths? or are they bad data? We
should not be too quick to speak light of what
people did with less than perfect knowledge.
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 NieÊcioruk
--
__________________________________________________________
| 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
_______________________________________________
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
