On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:54:52 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:


Chuck,
I had never heard about the map before, but i did find a web site from
the University of Wis. that seemed to provide a realistic review of the map.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/PiriRies.HTM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


And even this ardent critic has this to say about the map:

"For 1513, this map shows an astonishing amount of detail. The notes
on the map explain that the map was synthesized from about 20 maps,
many of which were captured from Spanish and Portuguese ships in the
Mediterranean. It was also supplemented by accounts given by captured
Spanish and Portuguese sailors.

But that's just the point. It's accurate only if you assume a
particular projection based on a particular set of circumstances. The
margin notes have come into some question also - including all the
nonsense about Antartica.

Not a map from some ancient Atlantean civilization, not a map created
by extraterrestrials, but a first class piece of naval intelligence.
Considering that it was created by a sailor whose country never
participated in the age of exploration, and that it's drawn wholly
from second-hand sources, it's an astonishing piece of work. It seems
to contain up-to-the-minute details derived from enemy maps, many of
which would have been tightly-guarded secrets.

Um...how did you develop this gem?

There's a class of crank that hates the idea that other people might
have real accomplishments, because they never accomplish anything
themselves. So Shakespeare didn't write his plays, other people did;
Robert Peary didn't reach the North Pole as he claimed, and so on. And
Piri Reis wasn't a gifted admiral and good intelligence analyst, but
had to get help from ancient lost documents. Get a life, folks."

If you get past Van Daniken's claims, (and those of others) that the
Piri Reis map was some sort of gift to mankind from little green men
from outerspace, it's still a remarkable document.

One of the cheap shots associated with your critical site is that it
examines this document from the early 1500's through the lens of
current cartography capabilities. Compare Piri Reis to nearly any
other map or chart from that era, particularly for an area a vast as
Piri Reis incorporates, and I think most people would agree that Piri
Reis is in a class of its own.

It is - and in some ways it's quite remarkable.

The test is pretty simple. You can excuse errors, even those in
orders of magnitude, if the area is relatively unknown. Maps of the
interior of Africa, for example, weren't accurate until well into the
late 19th and early 20th century - the major features were well known,
but misplaced on most maps. That you can forgive.

What you can't ignore, or forgive for that matter, is if the map has
significant errors in areas with well known position and features.
Piri Reis is fraught with these kinds of errors.

Even the detractors don't claim it's any sort of forgery or hoax- no
serious "Shroud of Turin" controversy surrounds the Piri Reis map.

Our grandkids grandkids will learn, factually, that people were
crossing both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans to North America for a
very long time before Columbus.

To what point? Of course it probably happened - the evidence is
there, but I'll ask again - does that devalue Columbus and his
achievements?