ageofreason2000

I recently saw a program on the discovery channel about Hapgood's take on the Piri Re'is Map.

I picked his book up in a "bargain basement" store several years back and have since lost it (Doh!). I remember reading it at the time and wondering why on earth a book written in the 60's with such compelling imperical evidence had sunk without trace.

Here's a couple of links I found
<a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/piri/" target="_blank">http://www.sacred-texts.com/piri/</a>
<a href="http://www.wwatching.net/enigma_ancient_maps.htm" target="_blank">http://www.wwatching.net/enigma_ancient_maps.htm</a>

Basically hapgood shows from this 1513 arabic map an outline of antartica without ice!

He then goes on to provide several other medieval maps showing antartica - admittedly too large and of the wrong orientation but the same basic shape.
This raises the question why did they draw antartica and why did so many draw it in a similar way?

Its also telling that when Cook sailed around the cape of good hope, because all the maps showed an antartica joined to S. America (it was drawn too large you see) they decided this was wrong and for the next 100 years drew maps with the south pole free from land masses until antartica was discovered.

To be fair Hapgood raises some leaps of judgement in believing not only are there tetonic plates but the entire earths mantle as a whole is constantly rolling about.

But its compelling that so many maps did draw a relatively accurate map of antartica.

Has anyone else heard anything about this?
Has new evidence come to light or is it just a crock O shite?

Age

Pomp

I know I've seen a good debunking online, but I'm too lazy to go find it right now. The biggest problem I have with his argument is that he will, on the one hand, point to how perfectly one feature of the map mirrors what we now know antarctica to look like beneath the ice and, on the other, resort to stretched explanations involving different sea levels to explain away parts of the map that do not resemble the real antarctica. If he's going to invoke sea level to explain why area A is not perfect, then he can't posit that area B is a perfect representation because a different sea level would have distorted the entire map, unless there's somethgin I'm missing.

lunachick

Maybe it was Australia?

Viti

This might do better in Science and Skepticism

ageofreason2000

I'm remembering a book I read some time ago, but I would agree he was strong on the "if's and buts" however what I find the strangest is the number of maps showing a S Pole land mass of approx the right dimensions to antartica
Could be a case of some civilization mapped it, but who was up to this feat? I can't think of one that would've been able to map a huge slap of ice that we know as antartica. This is why I find Hapgoods idea of an earlier civilization pre Egyptian and Babylonian as fitting the mark.

What ultimately grabs me are all those old maps drawn with an Antartic land mass - what where their sources.

If nothing else the evidence supports somebody visited antartica at an early age.

Age

ageofreason2000

Droll

Could be but it's always shown as off S America

Age

Vorkosigan

The Pi Reis map is an old and long ago debunked object. See DOug Weller's Cult Archaeology site:

<a href="http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk/</a>

which has links to good stuff, and find Paul Heinreich's insightful site on the ancient maps issue. This thing is dead, dead, dead and dead.

ageofreason2000

Well that seems pretty conclusive.
I remember reading the book and wondering why I had never heard anything about this previously, the discovery programme set me a thinking.

What I found most compelling is the ancient maps showing antartica, that still stands and it does point to somebody mapping a (glacial) antartica or (apologies to Lunachick) some even reckon it shows Australia.

Not as fascinating but I wonder who did travel there?

Ooh well another mystery rubbished

Thanks for your time
Age

ohwilleke

I see to recall an NPR story about another map which was allegedly published in about 100 copies in Europe, only one of which remains extant, prior to Cook's exploration, that has a detailed map of the Americas in places where no European explorer had never gone, allegedly in secret missions for some Spanish government or some such. Is anyone familiar with that?

It may be this one (I can't do audio on my computer at work and so can't confirm it). <a href="http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01fm.cfm?prgID=2&prgDate=07/23/2001" target="_blank">http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01fm.cfm?prgID=2&prgDate=07/23/2001</a>

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: ohwilleke ]</p>

lunachick

Hey, no problem. I responded to this question when it was still in Misc. Disc. - I wouldn't have the balls (due to a complete lack of knowledge) to submit an answer in Sci & Skep.

I only suggested it might have been Australia due to the land mass and the fact that it was not glacial. Given a little continental drift, etc, I would've thought that Oz may well have been a sound candidate for ancient maps depicting a warm, sunny land in a near south pole location.

I wasn't intending to be smarmy, honest.