I feel like too many are coming at it purely from a literary perspective and over analyzing in their arrogance. I'm critical of the critics of this book. People may agree or disagree with conclusions drawn but the five star rating is for an excellent presentation and making people think. The one information that is hard to dismiss is the arctic coastline accuracy. So what is the big deal? The deal is that maps such as these are the tangible proof that others have done so.Īs far as the secondary proofs as building styles, any 101-architecture class will tell you that with similar building material you get similar structures. As far as who got to the west first, it seems that anyone falling in the water would turn up here. However, no one else is as enthusiastic as Charles H. The map he had was a composite and he missed his landing point. All this flat earth stuff is much later than Columbus is. The story goes that the crew was not afraid if falling off the end of the earth but that Columbus was a poor navigator. I have been able to find a few other references now and then like other people mentioning that fact that Columbus did have a map case of sorts. It seems to have disappeared from the Internet. Nevertheless, there is no other book that really covers the Piri Reis map. At least my copies have color and do look like coffee table books. This book is worth keeping for the pictures alone.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |