Am I just slow?

[Northern Neil]

Sorry, a 16th century map that has information about the Americas and Antarctica, with no reference to the sources, or the ages of said sources is not evidence at all to me. COULD the Carthaginians make it to America, sure...WOULD they or DID they, more than likely not...

 

Fine! No problem - but how did the information get on the map in the first place? The map itself is evidence that parts of the Americas and Antarctica were mapped prior to 1513. How did this happen?

[Kosmo]

I ask again - How did Piri Reis manage to compile a map accurately showing Antarctica and portions of the Americas not yet reached by Europeans?

 

He did not!

Ottomans had a very limited knowledge of the world, but their expansion in the Middle East forced them to gather info for the sustained effort to expand in the Indian Ocean. So, they used many sources, but the most important were the european ones. This map shows the level of knowledge at it's making, but also the fact that neither explorations or map making were at their best level.

 

N.N. Your source it's, obviously, not to be trusted and quoting the claims of misteries fans it's not an evidence in itself.

 

For a critical view see here: http://xoomer.alice.it/dicuoghi/Piri_Reis/PiriReis_eng.htm

[Marcus Caelius]

This thing was drawn in 1513. 20 some years after Columbus. I'm sure an admiral would have heard about Columbus' travels after 20 or-so years.

 

A little context: Panama City was founded in 1519; Havana in 1510; Cortez conquered the Aztecs in 1518. Point being, the conquest of the New World was well underway in 1513, and even illiterate peasants throughout Europe could be expected to have heard something of it.

[docoflove1974]

This thing was drawn in 1513. 20 some years after Columbus. I'm sure an admiral would have heard about Columbus' travels after 20 or-so years.

 

A little context: Panama City was founded in 1519; Havana in 1510; Cortez conquered the Aztecs in 1518. Point being, the conquest of the New World was well underway in 1513, and even illiterate peasants throughout Europe could be expected to have heard something of it.

 

Let alone that Columbus himself had 4 excursions to the New World before his death in 1506.

[ModernMarvel]

This thing was drawn in 1513. 20 some years after Columbus. I'm sure an admiral would have heard about Columbus' travels after 20 or-so years.

 

A little context: Panama City was founded in 1519; Havana in 1510; Cortez conquered the Aztecs in 1518. Point being, the conquest of the New World was well underway in 1513, and even illiterate peasants throughout Europe could be expected to have heard something of it.

 

Let alone that Columbus himself had 4 excursions to the New World before his death in 1506.

 

 

Exactly my point. I believe the Piri Reis map issue is now debunked. Still saying the Vikings

 

As for Panama City and havana, I didn't know that! Thanks for the info!

Marv

[Skarr]

I know, but what research do we have on that subject?

Rameses,

 

My last post had nothing to do with the crackpot theories, it was highlighting the dangers of making rash comments by showing research insight in contrast to your generalize comments made here:

Remember that Carthage mainly traded around the Mediterranian a calm sea. The Atlantic is harsh, rugged, and nearly impossible to traverse.

Basically I was saying that using the right ships the ancients of the Atlantic seaboard did indeed ply the Atlantic so your generalization is rubbish. Forget the image of the war galley trying to make it across the Atlantic but think of a gaulos, i.e. 'tub', merchantman vessel...

 

Although many here believe that the Carthaginians "could" have discovered America by crossing the Atlantic, as of this moment, it is still just a theory with some possibilities that it could be true. However, we need to have conclusive evidence, which is always hard to find. If there was a settlement of some kind, with actual remains that could be tested, including artifacts and other "hard" evidence found on an undisturbed site, that could definitely tip the scales. Until that kind of evidence is found, we could go back and forth on this endlessly, without ever reaching a conclusion.

 

Albeit, this is an interesting discussion even though it is highly speculative at the moment. I've always admired Carthage for their sea faring abilities and although they were at one point the undisputed masters of the Mediterranean, it remains to be seen whether they were also world explorers. Certainly, they did have all the key elements required to make this journey and on paper, we could possibly argue conclusively that they could have made such a journey.

[Northern Neil]

I ask again - How did Piri Reis manage to compile a map accurately showing Antarctica and portions of the Americas not yet reached by Europeans?

 

He did not!

Ottomans had a very limited knowledge of the world, but their expansion in the Middle East forced them to gather info for the sustained effort to expand in the Indian Ocean. So, they used many sources, but the most important were the european ones. This map shows the level of knowledge at it's making, but also the fact that neither explorations or map making were at their best level.

 

N.N. Your source it's, obviously, not to be trusted and quoting the claims of misteries fans it's not an evidence in itself.

 

For a critical view see here: http://xoomer.alice.it/dicuoghi/Piri_Reis/PiriReis_eng.htm

 

But this critical view is in itself flawed from a scholarly point of view and lacks objectivity, as references to 'mystery lovers' demonstrates. The fact that the Piri Reis map shows the orientation of cuba and the coast of antarctica using a specific projection of the globe seems to be omitted in this account. As you can see from the piri reis map and the modern map using the same projection right at the end of my link, the orientations of such landmasses are actually accurate enough to eliminate the possibility of chance. I am not a mystery lover, I just want to know how this accuracy was obtained. To disregard this as co - incidental or meaningless simply because pseudohistorians and mystery lovers have over used such findings and added to them pure fantasy is, like their own findings, a conclusion arrived at emotionally rather than objectively.

[Marcus Caelius]

The fact that the Piri Reis map shows the orientation of cuba and the coast of antarctica...

 

1st, this is not a fact, nor even a theory; this is a hypothesis based upon speculation which, in turn, is inspired by pereidolia (your word for the day).

 

2nd, if that really is Antarctica then, given nautical architecture and construction before Columbus, the original navigators will have had to have made several landfalls during the round trip to reprovision, repair and, possibly, to "recruit." They could not have done so without leaving artifacts (including tales told by the natives). Direct question: Are any out-of-context artifacts known to have been discovered between "here" and there? Is there any independent evidence whatsoever that would place this map in any context other than that assigned by conventional scholarship.

 

And remember, you can't quote the map as evidence of its own authenticity. In legal terms, to do so would make it a self-serving document. In everyday terms, it would be the same thing as saying the Bible is the word of god because it says so.

Edited April 18, 2007 by Marcus Caelius

[Northern Neil]

The fact that the Piri Reis map shows the orientation of cuba and the coast of antarctica...

 

1st, this is not a fact, nor even a theory; this is a hypothesis based upon speculation which, in turn, is inspired by pereidolia (your word for the day).

 

my apologies; you are quite correct, nothing is a fact unless it can be absolutely verified using empirical means. Which includes scientific precepts considered to be 'proven'. In the context of the discussion we have here, as opposed to a scientific journal, it was quicker to phrase it that way. However, I do not believe that the distinct similarity of the Piri Reis map in relation to Tierra del Fuego and the Antarctic land mass using the specific projection of the globe mentioned in the link, and illustrated in the last two maps of the same, has been addressed.

 

With respect to your second point, if artifacts are present in Antarctica, they would be very difficult to recover given the current glaciated state, and there are few natives to consult about their folk tales which might shed any light on this. Further north, in South America, folk tales abound which could indicate pre columbian visitors, and some of the people to whom these tales belong are quite specific that they do in fact refer to visitors from east of the Atlantic; they are, however, considered inconclusive pending further evidence.

 

You are correct; there is no evidence other than this map to say that pre columbians - or even pre - Shakletonians - made landfalls on Antarctica. I am by no means claiming that this one piece of evidence proves that they did - I am simply asking the question: How did this map come to resemble so closely the areas under discussion, using that specific projection of the globe? This is the only question I am asking. I know all about sensationalist writers, pseudo historians and cranks, but their presence and opinions are not in themselves evidence that this map is bogus or incorrect.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Kosmo]

How did this map come to resemble so closely the areas under discussion, using that specific projection of the globe?

 

Our problem it's that you believe that it does looks like that while I dont.

Before finding out how it was done we should check if the map resembles the coastline or not.

And I pointed another flaw before in this thread. If Antarctica is ice fee the earth coastline it's very different because of raising sea levels.

 

For me the critic was convincing especially because it mentioned what enthusiasts ommited: in the "Antarctica" area the map says that the portuguese did not land on the coast because of large snakes. This points to a portuguese recent exploration of the area and portuguese expeditions are documented. Mentioning snakes in the context of "Antactica" it's convincing enough.

[Marcus Caelius]

I am simply asking the question: How did this map come to resemble so closely the areas under discussion, using that specific projection of the globe?

 

You missed the answer, in my Point 1: Pereidolia, the human tendency to recognise familiar objects in random shapes. IE clouds shaped like bunny rabbits, the Man in the Moon, Satan's visage in a column of smoke pouring from the North Tower.

[Northern Neil]

You missed the answer, in my Point 1: Pereidolia, the human tendency to recognise familiar objects in random shapes. IE clouds shaped like bunny rabbits, the Man in the Moon, Satan's visage in a column of smoke pouring from the North Tower.

I didn't miss it; I politely sidestepped it. Whereas a cloud may sometimes be shaped like a bunny rabbit, it is obviously not one, as it is made of condensed water vapour. This on the other hand is a map, with landforms of similar shape and position to other landforms on other maps. Using Kosmo's logic, modern maps sometimes have inaccuracies which render them unlike the actual place mapped. For example, the mercator projection shows Greenland as being almost as big as Africa. Other antique maps show areas which are clearly Europe, or the Americas, but the shape is very inaccurate and unlike the modern day projection. Ptolemy's map of Britain, for example, is obviously britain, but placed next to a modern map and it is as grossly inaccurate as you can get.

Regarding the portuguese and large snakes; were the large snakes actually there or were they told they were there? The portuguese landed in other places like Brazil where there are very large snakes indeed.

 

I think it is time for me to graciously back out of this discussion; the Piri Reis map is of peripheral interest to me and if I am spending a lot of time defending the indefensible so be it. I do not want my colleagues on UNRV to consider me of the ilk of Hancock, Hapgood, Van - Danniken camp etc but I believe this is starting to occur with my friends Kosmo and Marcus! :blowup:

Edited April 19, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Kosmo]

Do not worry NN I did not considered you one of the pseudohistory kind, not only because I know and appreciate your posts, but also in this thread you did what this type never does: have an argumented debate.

[Marcus Caelius]

Don't worry about it. The only real concern I have is that, for someone with only a mild interest in the subject, you appear awfully attached to the idea of the map's accuracy.

[Northern Neil]

Don't worry about it. The only real concern I have is that, for someone with only a mild interest in the subject, you appear awfully attached to the idea of the map's accuracy.

I see your point; most of the romantic stuff attached to this I naturally disregard, and I do not in fact agree that this map resemples Antarctica actually under the ice. I suppose I have hammered on about it because I have a niggling doubt that in amongst the garbage, there may be a little something here, and it would be sad if we overlooked it on account of the mass of garbage which has accreted around the subject. I just feel that the two final maps on my link do show a similarity which deserves closer scrutiny. But then, as Kosmo has stated, it is a matter of opinion wether or not there is a similarity, or to what degree you accept discrepancies.