Did Erich von-Daniken have a point?????

[JohnB]

Very interesting idea.

 

Makes you wonder if it was intentional. Perhaps Menkaure decided that building a larger pyramid would absorb too much time and labour and so intentionally changed what was important. Due to the principle of Ma'at, keeping so much for himself might have gone against the rules in his opinion.

 

If he decided to change things, few would gainsay the living Horus.

 

I wonder if there's any way to check.

[Edtharan]

I wonder if there's any way to check.

I thin it would be very hard to get definitive proof (unless there was some kind of pyramid fashion magazine ), but there would probably be some circumstantial proof.

 

I would expect that you could track fashions (we know that certain gods went in and out of favour) and see if the change in pyramid building followed such trends. Though come to think of it, there were changes in how pyramids were constructed over the periods that they were built, there were even times they went out of favour some what. So it is certainly possible that fashions changed about pyramids.

 

What I would look for is any documentation around that time that mentioned the expectations of building pyramids, how much they are mentions in various writings, etc to try and determine the attitudes and importance of the pyramids.

 

I'm no archaeologist, but I do have an interest in it (but not a great interest in Egyptian archaeology - but I do find it somewhat interesting).

[JohnB]

I knew there was a good reason to explain why I'm learning to read the language.

[Moontanman]

Nazca lines are cool, but what about the Antarctic maps? That is really interesting, has anyone else have info on any anomalies similar to that one?

[Mokele]

The supposed Antarctic maps have all either turned out to be gross fabrications (either recent or ancient), base on little more than rumors from sailors, and usually don't show anything near the degree of accuracy claimed.

 

Sadly, I've lost the link, but I recall recently seeing an image where someone had used distortion on the most famous of these maps (Piri reis) to put it into a form we're more familiar with and overlay it on a real map of antarctica - the two looked almost nothing alike.

[JohnB]

I've read many things about the Piri Reis map over the years. To be clear on what we're talking about, let's look at it.

 

First off, some facts about the map.

 

1. It is real and not a modern forgery.

2. It was created by Admiral Piri Reis circa 1513 AD. Reis was an Admiral in the Turkish navy and as such had free access to the Imperial library.

3. Piri Reis stated that he compiled the map from older sources. (The map also has numerous comments around the edges.)

 

The map itself is a "Portolano" type map. These were used before the invention of accurate timepieces. Without accurate clocks it is virtually impossible to work out longitude. (Latitude was calculated from Polaris, the Pole Star.) Navigation was by the "Compass Rose" method, basically you sail in a given direction, say North East until you get to the destination Latitude and then change course. That's why there are Compass Roses all over the things.

 

Portolano style maps are notoriously bad at showing accurate scale. Note the inaccuracies in this 1489 Portolano by Albino de Canepa. Hard to recognise the British Isles, isn't it? Note also the multiple Compass Roses and the patterns of lines criss crossing the map, these lines represent the straight course, point to point route for sailing.

 

 

 

There are two reasons for the claim that the Piri Reis map shows Queen Maud Land in Antarctica.

1. It goes across the bottom of the map.

2. Confirmation by the US Military. The letter stated:

6, July, 1960

Subject: Admiral Piri Reis Map

TO: Prof. Charles H. Hapgood

Keene College

Keene, New Hampshire

 

 

Dear Professor Hapgood,

Your request of evaluation of certain unusual features of the Piri Reis map of 1513 by this organization has been reviewed.

The claim that the lower part of the map portrays the Princess Martha Coast of Queen Maud Land, Antarctic, and the Palmer Peninsular, is reasonable. We find that this is the most logical and in all probability the correct interpretation of the map.

The geographical detail shown in the lower part of the map agrees very remarkably with the results of the seismic profile made across the top of the ice-cap by the Swedish-British Antarctic Expedition of 1949.

This indicates the coastline had been mapped before it was covered by the ice-cap.

The ice-cap in this region is now about a mile thick.

We have no idea how the data on this map can be reconciled with the supposed state of geographical knowledge in 1513.

 

Harold Z. Ohlmeyer Lt. Colonel, USAF Commander

 

The point often missed by those both for and against the "Antarctica" theory is that if the coastline is a good match then it can't be Antartica. The weight of a large ice mass depresses the land and changes the coastline.

 

The Scandinavian Ice Sheet of the last Glacial Maximum was nearly 3 kilometers thick, depressing the land by a full 900 metres. If the Antarctic coast in this area is under 1 mile of ice, then the land must be depressed by at least 150 metres, significantly changing the coastline.

 

Conclusion: Lt. Colonel Ohlmeyer was a twit.

 

As for point 1, you'll notice that South America looks rather short. The area that is claimed to be Queen Maud Land is nothing more than the east coast of South America bent around the edge of the map.

 

The Piri Reis map does not show Antarctica.

 

For some good essays on the Piri Reis map;

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198001/piri.reis.and.the.hapgood.hypotheses.htm

 

For comparisons of the Piri Reis map to modern ones;

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/PiriRies.HTM

(Is this the link you were thinking of Mokele?)

 

For translations of the comments written by Piri Reis and placed on his map;

http://www.sacred-texts.com/piri/pirikey.htm

I thoroughly recommend this link for anyone who is interested in the Piri Reis map. It's fascinating to read what the man himself had to say.

 

One comment,

The names which mark the places on the said islands and coasts were given by Colombo, that these places may be known by them. And also Colombo was a great astronomer. The coasts and island on this map are taken from Colombo's map.

refers to the area in the top left of the map. You'll note a large island is shown there, "taken from Colombo's map". There is no island in that position, however it is the location of the "Great Bahama Bank", where the Bimimi Road was found.

 

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/mapas_pirireis/esp_mapaspirireis04.htm

has some further thoughts on this.

 

Sorry for the long post, but I thought if it was pretty fully covered we could save time the next time it's brought up.

 

And before anyone brings up Oronteus Finaeus and his map of 1531, let me add that it was a widely held belief that there was a "Great Southern Land" in the Southern Hemisphere for quite some time. It was believed necessary to "balance" all the land in the Northern Hemisphere, so there is nothing unusual about finding a "Terra Australis" on an old map. You'll note that Finaeus himself uses that name for his "Antarctica".

 

With large numbers of Portolanos being scanned and placed online, I've managed to build up a considerable collection (Okay, yes, I was hoping to find some hint on the location of Atlantis. and early cartography is simply fascinating) and I have yet to find one that can be reasonably shown to show Antarctica.

 

Cheers.