A thought-provoking similarity indeed. I have one major concern about Hapgood's interpretation of the Finaeus map (and therefore the Schoner 1524 map as well), and that is the scale of the map.
Quoting from Hapgood regarding the Finaeus map [Hapgood, pp. 83, 87-88]:
"Examining this map of Antarctica on the grid of latitude lines drawn by Oronteus Finaeus, we observed that he had extended the Antarctic Peninsula too far north by about 15 degrees. At first I thought he might simply have placed the whole continent too far north in the direction of South America. Further examination, however, showed that the shores of his Antarctic Continent extended too far in all directions, even reaching the tropics! The trouble, it would seem, therefore, was with the scale. By using an oversized map the compiler was forced to crowd the Antarctic Peninsula up against Cape Horn, squeezing out Drake Passage almost entirely. Furthermore, the mistake must have been made far back, for we find the identical error in all the Antarctic maps of the period, including that of Piri Re'is. It is possible, indeed, that this mistake may account for the omission at some ancient period, on the source map used by Piri Re'is, of a large part of the coastline of South America: There was simply no room for it!
As our study continued, it gradually began to appear that Oronteus Finaeus' network of parallels and meridians did not fit the Antarctic as shown on his world map. Apparently a projection had been imposed by him on a source map originally drawn with a very different kind of map grid. How were we to discover the nature of this original network of parallels and meridians?
At this point we made another vital discovery. I noticed that the circle we had drawn for the 80th parallel was almost exactly the size of the circle Oronteus Finaeus had drawn on his map and label[l]ed Circulus Antarcticus-Antarctic Circle. The true Antarctic Circle follows a path in the sea off the Antarctic coasts; this Antarctic Circle of Oronteus Finaeus, on the other hand, was in the center of the continent. This suggested that Oronteus Finaeus, or a predecessor, in interpreting some old source map may have mistaken for the Antarctic Circle a circle upon the map intended to represent the 80th parallel. This mistake would have exaggerated the size of Antarctica about four times. Since every Renaissance map of the Antarctic seems to reflect this mistake, it is highly likely that the error goes back to Alexandria, or to some earlier period."
The problem I have with this theory is that if the antarctic continent should be shrunk by a factor of 4, there will be no Australian continent on the map. To me this implies that Australia actually formed part of Terra Australis Incognita, as did Antarctica. Schoner's 1515 map actually shows a remarkable correlation with modern Australia (see my post on Terra Australis elsewhere), which to me suggests that the 1524 map should indeed include Australia as well.
Very confusing indeed! If the libraries of Alexandria and other ancient civilizations had not been destroyed, we would have had a much better idea of how to interpret these maps.
|Discovery of Antarctica's Carney and Siple Islands on Schöner's 1524 World Globe||888||Doug Fisher||25-Nov-09 04:46|
|Re: Discovery of Antarctica's Carney and Siple Islands on Schöner's 1524 World Globe||86||Essan||25-Nov-09 19:38|
|Re: Discovery of Antarctica's Carney and Siple Islands on Schöner's 1524 World Globe||81||Xebec||26-Nov-09 07:15|
|Re: Discovery of Antarctica's Carney and Siple Islands on Schöner's 1524 World Globe||97||Doug Fisher||26-Nov-09 22:43|
|Re: Discovery of Antarctica's Carney and Siple Islands on Schöner's 1524 World Globe||78||Riaan||26-Nov-09 17:33|
|Re: Discovery of Antarctica's Carney and Siple Islands on Schöner's 1524 World Globe||97||Doug Fisher||26-Nov-09 22:53|