You state that I have a serious problem...indeed I have and that problem is you and your pathetically antagonistic attitude
I'm offering constructive criticism of the chapter you refered me to...
I claimed, rightly or wrongly but in good faith, as my information was derived from what appeared to us over a decade ago now to be a reliable web source, that the two maps in question, one of which I reproduced, were by Eratosthenes.
According to the statement above...from the source you supplied in an attempt to ridicule me, these same maps were found in the Catarterismi of Eratosthenes which was written by Johann Schaubach. The actually map that I used, according to this source had been very slightly modified and simplified by Johann Buhle.
So what is your problem? Your evidence confirms and in fact clarifies my source as being correct! The statement even carries on to indicate that Ptolemy utilised the same constellations
Yes the maps were found in the Catarterismi of Eratosthenes which was written by Johann Schaubach, but again they were 18th century, projecting the constellations LISTED either by Eratosthenes, Ptolomy and Hyginus onto the cartographic hemispheres of the period.
You state that the maps were 18th century...yes... Buhle's reproductions that had been very slightly modified but not modified to the extent that the info was meaningless...as you well understand. There are NO extant maps from the time of the Greeks all are reproductions irrespective of from which century they are eventually derived. The statement in your evidence that is supposed to contradict me agrees that they originated with Eratosthenes...EXACTLY AS I STATE IN MY WORK.
They are not reproductions of Greek maps, the Greek sources catalogued the asterisms of the constellations, hence catasterismi, Buhle modified an earlier 18th century map, not a Greek one...Eratosthenes did not produce either a map of the Northern or Southern hemispheres as you stated.
What on earth the remainder of your statement is supposed to relate to in the context of these two specific star maps I do not know, its inclusion does not clarify anything about these particular maps and therefore appears to be irrelevant. That the inclusion beneath the maps on the site you cite agrees with their ultimate source as Eratosthenes...as I claim... confirms that you are not paying attention and essentially confirms that I am correct and do not in this context as you so loudly proclaim...have a serious problem...that is except with you.
Again Eratosthenes is not the source of either map, which show the 48 listed constellations according to Ptolomy, and were first included in the Johann Schaubach book.
In any case, as unimportant as this little difference is, all you had to do was to point this out and I would have thanked you for the information and updated the book on CN to make it clear that the maps had been very slightly altered from the originals and give the updated sources...and would have probably even credited you with spotting it in the book...but what do you do? Attack me yet again...will you never learn?
Spin of this nature is extremely suspect, the alteration was from other 18th century maps, the first maps of celestial hemispheres appear around the 14th century in western Europe, and this is not a trivial matter in the context of your work, were you claim Atlantis is the constellation Hercules projected upon concentric circles around celestial North, as by falsely presenting these maps as indicative of the capabilities of the Greeks during the classical period you are using them to support your argument.
Morph I am beginning to think you have a stability problem...we have not met and while I have had disagreement with your interpretations I have not stated anything to cause you any grief so why are you so determined to shoot me down and please do not give the rubbish about opening the debate to other views, sources or anything of that nature because it simply will not work... you are trying for all you are worth to detract from my work...what I want to understand is why? As I have repeatedly told you we can disagree and I can live with that, I wont hold that against you, I will not insult you as you have already insulted me for no apparent reason...and highly respected academics with whom I happen to agree...simply because I do agree with them and you do not...just what is your problem
I don't really see any problem...
You are self evidently not looking at my work from an interested parties viewpoint but are only trying to detract from its value and I wish to understand why it is that you appear to have such dislike for me. Can you answer that? If you cannot supply a reasonable answer then we shall have to assume that you have a mental problem and excuse you on those grounds. Such things do happen, the brain is not infallible and gets its problems just as much as the rest of the body.
Of course i'm an interested party as i also research and discuss ancient history...