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 +
I'm curious about whether the answer also involves a reason not yet mentioned: vested interest. My fascination with history is driven primarily by the differences between a historical event and the story that gets told about it. I find that, where the difference is large, one or both of two causes pertain: vested interest, and the human fondness for telling particular types of stories (my two favorite examples are below). Do you think that these causes contribute significantly to the sort of map myths you refer to? -Hugh Yeman Most people who know anything at all about the Spanish Armada of 1588 "know" that it failed primarily because of the Duke of Medina Sidonia's incompetence. Nothing could be further from the truth. People told this story because people love to tell the story of the epic bungler, and because both Spaniards and English had a vested interest: the English in believing in Spanish incompetence, and the Spanish in believing that the King was not at fault. Most people repeat the story about the Hessian defeat at the American Revolutionary battle at Trenton in 1776 for the same reason that they repeat the story of Medina Sidonia. The original story was told by an English writer who, after the battle, had a vested interest in placing blame for the failure directly on the Hessians. ________________________________ From: John Day <[email protected]> To: Discussion group for map history <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, March 18, 2011 4:16:19 PM Subject: Re: [MapHist] How do map-myths get started? 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
_______________________________________________ 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
