Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 9 Dec 1996 23:17:10 GMT
In article <58gamt$lf1@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:.
snip...
>>...throughout most of history, oceans, rivers, canals and barges
>>have moved people around farther, faster, cheaper and safer
>>than land routes.
>
>Most of history perhaps, most of prehistory: I don't think so.
We are agreed. Starting in the 3rd millenium BC actually.
Actually we are agreed about most everything in the way of
details, and just have a few little theoretical obsticals
to surmount to reach complete agreement.
>
>>If I follow your theory correctly; pastoral nomads, shepards, or
>>goatherders, (who might survive the desert conditions especially
>>if they were just improved a bit, say immediately after the last
>>ice age when things were cooler and weter), gradually moved south
>>from say Tehran to Ishafan and then spread out east along the
>>first route we described or west along the other route to reach
>>respectively the proto Dravidians and the proto Elamites.
>
>>Am I correct thus far?
>
>No:
>
>1. Iran is not one big desert like you claim it is. There are two
> big ones, but there are also many places where not only pastoralism,
> but also agriculture is perfectly possible: the Zagros, Fars and
> Baluchistan, for instance. Mountainous lands, but cooler and wetter.
Ok, good, We will put aside the idea of trafic through the
Dasht-e Kayir and the Dast-e Lut and focus on three places,
the Zagros, Fars and Baluchistan. This still allows you to
move south from Tehran to Ishafen through Oom.
>
>2. The gradual spread of Neolithic techniques obviously started
> sometime after 8,000 BC, not immediately after the Ice Age.
Iran was not well represented amongst the neolithic farming community.
For some reason there was a dramatic decline in its population after
c 12,000 BC. There were still people in the north west part of the
Zagros abutting Mesopotamia. Fars and Baluchestan were not populated
c 8,000 BC
> And it started from the Zagros mountains, where very early
> agricultural sites have been found (and wild wheat and barley grew).
Well, that was my point actually. The spread of languages comes
with urbanism. Urbanism comes as a result of an increase in
population in the fertile crescent (including the northwest Zagros).
The increase in population is attributable to neolithic farming.
You can start c 8,000 BC if you want to, but not much happens,
right away. People sort of take a while to get it all sorted out.
You would still have people in Mesopotamia living in the same
places and doing the same things c 4,000 BC as c 8,000 BC.
>
>3. A gradual expansion as by the "wave of advance" model doesn't need
> highways. It is not a conscious, organized invasion or colonization,
> it is just the long term result of small, random movements over a
> long period of time. Like going to next valley to see if you can
> grow some barley there, or graze your sheep. The route taken might
> just have well have led along the slopes of the coastal mountain
> ranges, from the Zagros to Fars to Baluchistan, where there are no
> highways. Sea routes and highways became important much later, when
> there urban centers to be connected, armies to be moved.
The thing of it is that if you were to drive through the Zagros today
you would find pretty much the same thing as if you were to drive
through the Seir. Chains of villages spread out along a road. Every
place the road hits a river you will have a village. Where that river
hits the coast you will have another village. You don't have to call
it a trade route if you don't want to, but that is what it is.
People tend to farm lowlands and inhabit mountainous areas for
other reasons. Some of the things that lead people to mountains
are mining and logging.
I agree with you about the sheep and goats. Although pretty much
any place you let them graze long enough will become a desert,
mountains do seem to stand a better chance with them than flatlands.
>
>4. The most obvious misrepresentation: they did not "reach" the Proto-
> Dravidians or Proto-Elamites, they *were* the Proto-Dravidians and
> Proto-Elamites.
McAlpins idea was that a people intermediate to the Elamites and
Dravidians lived somewhere in between the two cultures so that
both the Elamites and Dravidians were influenced by this contact.
This culture he calls proto elamite-dravidian because he considers
its linguistic influence was strong enough to be considered ancestral.
Lets identify this culture. When did they live and what was their
territory? You can pick the Zagros or Fars or Baluchistan. I pick
Dilmun/Makkan/Tepe Yahya collectively known as the Intercultural
Style or Chlorite Culture.
>
>>If you push the date forward to say the 6th millenium BC then you
>>have to deal with no archaeological or anthropological remains,
>>and desert conditions. Your response is that in the some 2,000
>>years during which man has been domesticating animals he has
>>managed to so overgraze the Dasht-e Lut as to desertify it?
>
>Well, I'm not familiar with research on ancient climatological
>conditions in Iran. Overgrazing especially by goats is often blamed,
>not for the existence of a desert itself, but for its subsequent
>expansion. I don't know if this is the case in Iran, but it might be a
>factor. As to lack of archaeological remains in the 6th millennium, I
>think you're wrong. The Brittanica (article by T. Cuyler Young, Jr.)
>says:
>
>"[discussion of early sites in the Zagros like Asiab, Guran,
>Ganj-e-Dareh, Ali Kosh, Jarmo, Sarab, 8th and 7th millennia].
>By approximately 6000 BC these patterns of village farming were widely
>spread over much of the Iranian Plateau and in lowland Khuzistan. Tepe
>Sabz in Khuzistan, Hajji Firuz in Azerbaijan, Godin Tepe VII in
>northeastern Luristan, Tepe Sialk I on the rim of the central salt
>desert, and Tepe Yahya VI C-E in the southeast have all yielded evidence
>of fairly sophisticated patterns of agricultural life. Though
>distinctly different, all show general cultural connections with the
>beginnings of settled village life in neighbouring areas such as
>Afghanistan, Baluchistan, Soviet Central Asia, and Mesopotamia."
Any parts of Iran neighboring Afghanistan, Baluchistan,
Soviet Central Asia, and Mesopotamia were by definition
on the borders of Iran. Even the Zagros is a border.
Irans border with the Gulf.
Guran,Ali Kosh, Tepe Abdul Hussein and Tepe Sarab
are a cluster of sites on the Simareh, the next river
over from the Tigris and as close to it as the Euphrates.
Jarmo a site associated with Samarra in Iraq, is to their west
on a tributary of the Tigris called the Diya which runs along
the border of Iraq in Iraq and crosses into Iran at Jarmo.
All these sites are to the north and west of Susa. They all
used obsidian which came from Nemrut Dag and Suphen Dag.
Ganj-e-Dareh, is a site in the Zagros with artifacts similar
to those at Nemrik in Northern Iraq.
>There's your connection.
This connection is to Mesopotamia.
> I'm sorry, I haven't seen the site reports, but all the evidence
>I've seen related to Neolithic Iraq, Iran and India seems to confirm
>that there were connections,
Not in the Neolithic.
>and that they are consistent with a wave of advance model to
>explain the Elamite-Dravidian connection that is there, on
>linguistic grounds.
The sites you listed have a ways to go to get as far east as Elam.
>
>The trade in the Persian Gulf connecting Iran, Arabia, Mesopotamia and
>the Indus Valley is an interesting subject in itself, but it is too
>recent and too localized to explain the distances (linguistically and
>geographically) that are involved.
Actually it starts very early, mid third millenium. It is hardly
localized, some of the voyages apparently were direct connections
between Sumer and Mohenjo-Daro both by Harrapans and Dilmunites.
In discussing this with you, the reading I have been doing seems
to indicate the Harrapans may have taken the lead bringing first
the coast of Baluchistan and then Makkan into the fold. Dilmun
was used by the Harrapans as a middle man to bring their goods
north and west to the Zagros and Mesopotamia.
Lets allow that Susa, Anshan and Tepe Yahya are connected
by land based trade and that Tepe Yahya, Dilmun and Makkan
are similarly connected by sea. Makkan, the Baluchestan coast
Mohenjo-Daro and Harrappa are similarly connected by land and sea.
Why force a wave of advance into a pipeline like the Gulf?
Deserts to the North of it. Deserts to the south of it.
It has nowhere else to go but down the pipe. One end is
at Mesopotamia, we have Dilmun/Makkan'Tepe Yahya acting
as a pump and the other end is at Mohenjo-Daro.
>By the time the trade starts, Elam
>and Mohenjo Daro are fully developed and distinct cultures.
The trade begins in the mid third millenium. At that time
Mohenjo-Daro is fully developed and the engine driving the trade.
Elam is not yet developed, but is seen as one of several potential
markets.
>Assuming Brahui in some way represents the language of the
>Indus Valley people, it is impossible to derive Brahui
>directly from Elamite, let alone Kurukh-Malto or the
>South Dravidian languages.
I really don't see Brahui as representing the language of
anyone in the 3rd millenium BC. Am I missing something?
>It's the same argument as with Greek and Tocharian: the
>connection exists, but its roots must lie deeper.
I must be slow. So far I am still sitting in Ali Kosh
trying to get to Elam.
>
>It's like the extensive trade connections that exist now between, say,
>Germany and the USA. The connections are no doubt important, and also
>have a a linguistic impact in both countries (modern German speech is
>full of Americanisms, and people in the US know what Volkswagen means,
>etc.), but they are too late to explain the ancient linguistic
>connection between English and German.
The trade connection between Germany and Britain began with
the Tin trade that flowed along the rivers of Germany carrying
Tin from the Cassites south to the Black Sea and from there
to Anatolia in the fourth millenium BC.
The roots of *that* connection
>lie much deeper, in obscure and not completely understood 5th century AD
>migrations from Saxony and Denmark to Britain. We have historical
>evidence to confirm that, but linguistics also points in that direction
>independently (e.g. the close linguistic ties between English and
>Frisian).
Have you noticed how many connections begin with trade in the
third and fourth milleniums BC? Why on earth would you jump
shift forward to the 5th century AD? Because that is when
Old English emerges with the Anglo Saxon invasions c 450 AD?
Why not start at the beginning?
>
>Trade between the US and Germany affects millions of people, the
>Anglo-Saxon invasion was something that involved just a few boatloads of
>Saxons, Angles, Frisians and Jutes (and of course the Britons who were
>invaded). Which is more important? As a historical linguist, I'm
>biased, but I'm willing to accept that modern trade is historically more
>significant. What I'm not willing to accept is someone telling me that
>the linguistic connection between German and English dates from the
>Marshall-plan period, no matter how many Coke bottles (twentieth c.
>chlorite vessels) future archaeologists might find in post-WWII Germany.
>It just ain't true!
The relations all go back a long way that is true. The intensity
of the interactions increases over time; that is also true.
Does wheeled vehicular traffic date from the invention of the
internal combustion engine? No. Does discussing oxcarts tell me
much about the origins of disc brakes? No. Recent developments
may sometimes send the whole scheme back to the drafting board
if you catch my drift...
>
>And BTW the LBK (Linear Ware) people *did* use slash-and-burn
>techniques for clearing the forest. They also followed the rivers.
We were discussing this in terms of Renfrews wave of advancement
theory as I recall. My point was that technological innovations
such as metal tools or new developments in transportation such as
domesticated horses and boats could increase the rate at which
things happened.
European forests decreased at a rather more rapid rate after the
introduction of metal tools.
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Subject: Egyptian junkie pharaohs
From: heinrich@intersurf.com (Paul V. Heinrich)
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 20:34:49 -0600
In Message <55tr71$8cm@s02-brighton.pavilion.co.uk>
Ms. Helen M amherst@pavilion.co.uk (HM) wrote:
...much discussing omitted......
>I am inclined to be bias toward the site of Atlantis being
>Antartica. Homers tale, having been handed down through
>centuries, is bound to have its inaccuracies. Particularly
>intriguing are the old maps (Piri Reis, Oronteus Finneus,
>Mercator) that have been found depicting the southern tip of
>SA and the coastline of Antartica when it had not yet
>been discovered. Not only that but the maps show the
>outline of Antartica as it would be ice-free - something we
>only know today because of geological/seismological surveys,
>as it is, of course covered in miles of ice. How do YOU
>explain this?
The problem with this claim is that the Piri Reis, Oronteus
Finaeus, and other maps fail to show anything that resembles
an ice-free Antarctica. Details of such claims are given by Mr.
Hancock has at his web site and in his book, "The Fingerprints
of the Gods" (FOG). The material that he gives consists of
rehashed misinformation and unsubstanciated and incorrect
claims first made by Dr. Hapgood (1966, 1979). These maps
fail to qualify as any sort of unanswered question or mystery.
Thus, they require no explanation as there is no mystery to
explain.
Many of the problems with the claims about the Piri Reis and
other maps are addressed at:
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/mom/atlantis.html and
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/mom/oronteus.html .
The original source of the extremely numerous claims that people
make for the Piri Reis map come from Hapgood (1966, 1979)
and cartographic analyses made for Hapgood by the USAF 8th
Recon Squadron and Colonel Harold Z. Ohlmeyer.
According to the Appendix in Hapgood (1966, pp. 244-245),
one of the major claims by the 8th Reconnaissance Technical
Squadron (SAC) USAF in their letter report of August 14, 1961
was:
"b. As stated by Colonel Harold Z. Ohlmeyer in his letter
(July 6, 1960) to you, the Princess Martha Coast of Queen
Maud Land, Antarctica, appears to be truly represented on
the southern sector of the Piri Reis Map. The agreement of
the Piri Reis Map with the seismic profile of this area made
by the Norwegian-British Swedish Expedition of 1949,
supported by your solution of the grid, places beyond a
reasonable doubt the conclusion that the original source
maps must have been made before the present Antarctic
ice cap covered the Queen Maud Land coasts."
However, Lt. Colonel Harold Z. Ohlmeyer, 8th
Reconnaissance Technical Squadron and Dr. Hapgood all made
significant errors that invalidate their conclusions. First,
both Lt. Colonel Ohlmeyer and Dr. Hapgood incorrectly assume
that the subglacial topography of Antarctica is the same as the
ice-free topography of Antarctica. The actual subglacial topography
differs from a hypothetical ice-free topography because of the
293,778,800 cubic kilometers of ice that either lies grounded
on bedrock or stacked as ice rises on bedrock islands (Drewry
1982, sheet 4). The sheer weight of this ice has depressed the
continent of Antarctica and associated crust by hundreds of
meters. Should the weight of the Antarctic ice be removed
form the Antarctic crust, isostatic rebound would raise the
subglacial topography as much as 950 meters (3100 feet) in
the interior to 50 meters (160 feet) along the coast. Furthermore,
melting of all of the world's ice, of which Antarctic ice cap
is 90 percent of the total, would raise sea level by about 80
meters (260 feet)(Drewry 1983, sheet 6). Thus, the modern
subglacial bedrock topography and the modern coastline
differs significantly from the coastline and topography of a
hypothetical ice-free Antarctica. Thus, the topography and
coastline that Lt. Colonel Ohlmeyer and Dr. Hapgood claim
match the Piri Reis Map would be different from the
topography and coastline that would characterize a
hypothetical ice-free Antarctica.
Second, the Piri Reis Map lacks any topographic contours. If
contours are lacking on the Piri Reis Map, the topographic data
needed to compare the topography shown by the 1949 seismic
data with the topography of the Piri Reis Map on a scientific
basis are completely lacking. Without this data, the claims of
Lt. Colonel Ohlmeyer and Dr. Hapgood are nothing more personal
opinions, certainly not proof, that cannot be scientifically tested.
Finally, the single seismic line, i.e. the seismic profile of the
Norwegian-British Swedish Expedition of 1949, is insufficient
evidence to determine if the subglacial bedrock topography of
Antarctica resembles the Piri Reis map. The problem is that
the comparison is being made along one essentially randomly
chosen line. Neither Lt. Colonel Ohlmeyer, Dr. Hapgood, nor
the 8th Reconnaissance Technical Squadron could know whether
the topography outside of this line, a good 99.9 percent of the
area resembled the Piri Reis map because they lacked any
other data in addition to the seismic profile. Even the map of
the bedrock geology of Antarctica compiled in 1972, Heezen
et al. (1972) shows that even by that date the bedrock topography
lying beneath Queen Maud Land was largely unmapped and
unknown. Thus, even in 1961, because of insufficient
information, it would have been impossible for anybody to make
any positive claims about whether the Piri Reis Map and the
subglacial topography show any resemblance.
Since 1949 and 1966, Drewry (1982) compiled the available
data obtained from seismic surveys and radio echo soundings
into what still considered the most comprehensive mapping
that has ever been published. A comparison of the portion
of the Piri Reis map, which they claim to be Antarctica, with
a both more recent subglacial bedrock topography map
(Drewry 1982, sheet 3) and a bedrock surface map isostatically
adjusted for glacial rebound (Drewry 1982, sheet 6) showed
a distinct lack of any striking similarities their coastlines and
that of the Piri Reis Map. The lack of correspondence between
the Piri Reis Map and an ice-free Antarctica is not surprising
given the evidence presented by Linde (1980) that the source
maps for the other parts of the Piri Reis Map are of no great
antiquity.
Further Claims
The 8th Reconnaissance Technical Squadron (SAC) USAF
in their letter report of August 14, 1961 also claimed:
"c. It is our opinion that the accuracy of the cartographic
features shown in the Oronteus Fineaus [sic] Map (1531)
suggests, beyond a doubt, that it also was compiled from
accurate source maps of Antarctica, but in this case of the
entire continent. Close examination has proved the original
source maps must have been compiled at a time when the
land mass and inland waterways of the continent were
relatively free of ice. This conclusion is further supported
by a comparison of the Oronteus Fineaus [sic] Map with
the results obtained by International Geophysical Year
teams in their measurements of the subglacial topography.
The comparison also suggests that the original source
maps (compiled in remote antiquity) were prepared when
Antarctica was presumably free of ice."
The problem with the above claims is that the direct comparison
of the Oronteus Finaeus Map with the most comprehensive
atlas of Antarctica in terms of bedrock and ice sheet geology,
Drewry (1983) and an earlier map and more accessible map in
Sugden and Brian (1976, p. 58) fails to show any such
correspondence. A good part of the problem is that the data
and maps produced by the International Geophysical Year (IGY)
studies, i.e. Bentley and Ostenso (1961), covered only a very
small part of Antarctica. As a result, the 8th Reconnaissance
Technical Squadron (SAC) USAF people could only compare
the Oronteus Finaeus Map with the IGY data for the presence
or absence of a large trench / waterway across Antarctica. Lacking
data for the rest of Antarctica, they may have assumed that the
modern coastline of Antarctica was very much like the bedrock
"coastline" except for the big trench. Thus, they likely noted
the resemblance between a modern ice-covered Antarctica
and the Oronteus Finaeus Map and wrongly assumed that it
also resembled the bedrock topography which they also wrongly
assumed to be related to an ice-free topography.
Real Problems
When the subglacial bedrock topographic map of Drewry (1983,
sheet 3) is compared with the Oronteus Finaeus Map, a person
quickly finds that the Oronteus Finaeus Map resembles the
modern map of ice-covered Antarctica more than it does the
map of Drewry (1983) made from seismographic and radio echo
surveys. For example, Wilkes Land which the Oronteus Finaeus
Map shows as solid land is occupied almost entirely by two large
subsea basins and an _archipeligo_ of bedrock islands (Drewry
1983, sheet 3). In a partially glaciated Antarctica, this solid
land shown on the Oronteus Finaeus Map would also be under water.
Also, the Oronteus Finaeus Map fails to show the Amery Basin,
which in either a partially or completely deglaciated Antarctica
would be occupied by a 700 to 800 km (430 to 500 miles) long
bay lying perpendicular to the coast of Antarctica between
Princess Elizabeth Land and Mac Robertson Land (Drewry 1983,
sheet 3). In addition, because the bedrock surface underlying
West Antarctica lies hundreds of meters below sea level,
except for some bedrock _islands_, the coastline shown by the
Oronteus Finaeus Map for it would have been had to been
the edge of an ice sheet. Yet, the Oronteus Finaeus Map shows
the same features that Hapgood (1966, 1979) claims to be river
mouths and fjords on other parts of the alleged nonglacial
coastline on this glacial coastline. These and many other
problems clearly show that Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1531, like
the Buache Map of 1737 fails miserably to show either the
hypothetical unglaciated or even a speculative partially
glaciated Antarctica. Comparison of the Oronteus Finaeus
Map with a map showing the bedrock topography adjusted
for isostatic rebound, Drewry (1983, sheet 6), also fails to
produce a satisfactory match.
A decidedly major problem is the lack of the Antarctica
Peninsula, Palmer Land, on the Oronteus Finaeus Map
For the lack of this peninsula, Hapgood (1966, p. 93, 1979,
p. 78-79) gives a confused explanation. He claims that the base
of this peninsula can be seen, but the Oronteus Finaeus Map
shows no such base. He claims that this peninsula exists only as
scattered bedrock islands, which is true according to Drewry
(1983, sheet 3). However, the modern Antarctica Peninsula
would have been present as a long north-south trending
island on even the most rudimentary map of a partially
glaciated Antarctica. Its elevation and isostatic rebound would
have kept it well above any projected sea level rise (Drewry
1983). The absence of this island is one of many gross
inconsistencies between this map and the partially glaciated
hypothetical, prehistoric Antarctica proposed by Hapgood (1966,
1979).
Other Problems
The discussion of the Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1531
presented by Hapgood (1966, 1979) repeatedly contradicts itself.
One hand, Hapgood (1966, 1979) constantly stresses the accuracy
on one hand. On the other hand, Hapgood (1966, 1979) often
has to explain away inaccuracies and contradictions in the
Oronteus Finaeus Map by proposing the existence, at first, of
a couple of separate source maps created thousands of years
apart and later the existence of numerous local sources maps
that were incorrectly compiled into the larger maps. This
involves considerable circular reasoning in that the numerous
errors are the only evidence for the existence of the various
alleged sources map, while the existence of the source maps
is used to explain away the errors. In addition, Hapgood
(1966, p. 86) shows comparisons of segments of the Antarctic
coast which instead of advancing his claims show how badly
mismatched modern maps and the Oronteus Finaeus Map are.
It is not surprising that this figure is missing from Hapgood
(1979).
Other Hypotheses
However, Lunde (1980) presents a more credible hypothesis
that the source map for the Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1531
might have been a poorly drawn map of historic Antarctica,
possibly Australia, made by some unknown Portuguese sailors
sometime before 1513. Regardless of the source data, if any, for
the Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1531, it clearly fails to accurately
portray either a partially or completely unglaciated Antarctica.
This hypothesis make better sense as the Oronteus Finaeus Map
has more clear resemblance to a glaciated than nonglaciated
Antarctica.
The Problem of An Ice-Free Antarctica
As previously discussed, there is an abundance of evidence that
demonstrates that Antarctica was covered by a fully developed
ice cap between 40,000 to 6,000 B.P. contrary to the claims of
FOG and Hapgood (1966, 1979). This evidence includes ice core
data (Jouzel et al 1987, Lorius et al. 1979), cores from the Ross
Sea (Licht et al. 1996, Kellogg 1979), palynological data from
tip of South America (Heusser 1989), and numerous radiocarbon
dates from glacio-lacustrine deposits and deltas (Stuvier et al.
1981). In fact, these and other studies show that a maximum
development of the ice cap and Ross Ice Shelf occurred during
that period, 21,000 to 16,000 B.P. (Denton et al. 1991), which
falsifies all of the claims made by FOG, "The Mysterious
Origins of Man", and Hapgood (1966, 1979) about the glacial
history of Antarctica.
As I have reviewed in previous posts, numerous studies, e.g.
Denton et al. (1991) and Marchant et al. (1986) present an
abundance of evidence that Antarctica was last completely
ice-free over 14 million years ago. Deep cores and borings
made into sediments filling deep basins within and thousands
of kilometers of seismic data from the continental shelf of
Antarctica confirm these studies (Cooper et al. 1995). Thus,
at no time was Antarctica ice-free enough for maps showing
either a totally or partially ice-free Antarctica to have been
made during the last 14 million years or so.
Conclusions
The clearest deduction that can be made from the above analysis
is that there is no evidence of any advanced map-making
technology being involved in the production of the Oronteus
Finaeus Map of 1531. Thus, there is also absolutely no evidence
of an advanced civilization in remote prehistory as far as the
Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1531 and Buache Map of 1737 are
concerned.
Final Notes
Anyway, more posts about the Piri Reis Map can, by keyword
searching. be found at:
http://www.dejanews.com/forms/dnq.html
There are claims about the Piri Reis map. There is one group
of Piri Reis fanatics who claim that the Piri Reis maps
were made by space aliens. They include best-selling book
writers, e.g. Eric Von Doniken and his "Chariots of the Gods"
and various paranoid flying saucier fans. An example can
be found at:
"UFO/piri.asc" http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/piri_asc.html
Also, there are some people who claim that the Piri Reis
is evidence that Africans found North and South America
long before Columbus. Unfortunately, there is something
about this map that has generated all sorts of strange,
eccentric, and loony ideas.
References Cited
Bentley, C. R., and Ostenso N. A., 1961, Glacial and subglacial
topography of West Antarctica. Journal of Glaciology. vol. 3,
no. 29, pp. 882-912.
Cooper, A. K., Barker, P. F., Brancolini, G. (eds.), 1995,
Geology and seismic stratigraphy of the Antarctic Margin.
Antarctic Research Series, vol. 68, American Geophysical Union,
Washington, D.C., 303 pp.
Denton, G. H., Prentice, M. L., and Burkle, L. H., 1991,
Cainozoic history of the Antarctic ice sheet. in R. T.
Tingey (ed.), pp. 366-433, The Geology of Antarctica.
Claredon Press, Oxford.
Drewry, D. J. (ed.), 1983, Antarctica: Glaciological and
Geophysical Folio. Scott Polar Research Institute,
Cambridge.
Hapgood, C. H., 1966, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, 1st
Edition, Chilton Books, Philadelphia.
Hapgood, C. H., 1979, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, 2nd
Edition, E. P. Dutton, New York.
Heezen, B. C., Tharp, M., and Bentley, C. R., 1972, Morphology
of the Earth in the Antarctic and Subantarctic. In Antarctic
Map Folio Series no. 16. American Geographical Society.
Heusser, C. J., 1989, Climate and chronology of Antarctica and
adjacent South America over the past 30,000 years.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, vol. 76,
no. 1/2, pp. 31-37.
Jouzel, S. J., Dansgaard, W., and many others, 1987, Vostok ice
core: a continuous isotopic temperature record over the last
climatic cycle (160,000 years). Nature. vol. 239, pp. 403-408.
Kellogg, T. B., Truesdale, R. S., and Osterman, L. E., 1979, Late
Quaternary extent of the West Antarctic ice sheet: New
evidence from Ross sea cores. Geology. vol. 7, pp. 249-253.
Licht, K. J., Jennings, A. E., and others, 1996, Chronology of
late Wisconsin ice retreat from the western Ross Sea, Antarctica.
Geology. vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 223-226.
Lorius, C., Jouzel, S. J., and many others, 1979, A 150,000-yr
isotopic climatic record from Antarctic ice. Nature, vol. 316,
pp. 644-648.
Lunde, P., 1980, The Oronteus Finaeus Map. Aramco
World Magazine. (Jan-Feb 1980)(accessible from:
http://www.millersv.edu/~columbus/h-l.html
under LUNDE02 ART
Marchant, D. R., Denton, G. H., Swisher, C. C., and
Potter, N., 1996, Late Cenozoic Antarctic paleoclimate
reconstructed from volcanic ashes in the Dry Valleys
region of southern Victoria Land. Geological Society
of America Bulletin, vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 181-194.
Stuvier, M., Denton, G. H., and others, 1981, History of marine
ice sheet in Antarctica during the last glaciation: a working
hypothesis. In G. H. Denton and T. J. Hughes (eds.), pp. 319-
436, The Last Great Ice Sheets. Wiley-Interscience, New York.
Sincerely,
Paul V. Heinrich All comments are the
heinrich@intersurf.com personal opinion of the writer and
Baton Rouge, LA do not constitute policy and/or
opinion of government or corporate
entities. This includes my employer.
'Afterall, if the present is *not* the key to
the past, it is at least *a* key to the past.'
-Flessa (1993) in Taphonomic Approaches to
Time Resolution in Fossil Assemblages (The
Paleontological Society)
