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 +
The reason that the BNF say that it dates to 1713 , *or later*, is because it portrays British possession of Acadia following the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) ... despite portraying it somewhat inaccurately (too much of what is now New Brunswick is included, as are Isle Saint-Jean and Isle Royale). In fact, the boundaries of British Acadia are more in line with how they stood in the fall of 1758, after the fall of Louisbourg, but before the Fall of Quebec City the next year. Terry On 11-09-29, Joel Kovarsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that is why I included the BNF record. I wonder if their date should have > been 1731 (not 1713), but they may not respond. > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ 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
