Please prove that statement. You disagree with a number of historical source documents that EXPLAIN his guesswork, and show it!
Completely misquoting your opposition like that would fail you in a Year 9 English debating team. I never claimed he drew a map of Australia, that's childish *and* dishonest.
If you read what the HISTORIANS I am quoting said, they claim that
maybe the top end of Australia *contributed* a little to the shape of the Terra Australis map. I'm merely extrapolating from that with a little guesswork of my own where the 'bay' (what you think of as the Ross Sea) came from on his map, as we have no historical evidence he actually went there, and plenty evidence that he made up this continent from a patchwork quilt of sources!
"Fine put the reports together to produce a half real, half guessed, map."
Jave la Grande - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And your wonderful report actually begins by saying, "Robert J. King has
suggested that Alfonse’s description of
La Grande Jave could also fit.."
I highlighted key word in these statements by putting them in boldface and red.
You are claiming evidence based on suppositions, but I am pointing out clearly visible resemblances.
Perhaps you care to explain why he names part of the Great Southern Land "BRASIELIE REGIO" and the other part "REGIO PATALIS"?
I never even so much as suggested that Oronteus Finaeus was not influenced by current cartographic thought. The highly inaccurate parts of his map are clearly the notions current in his day.
Oh, and I'm right, there really ARE no mountains on the bottom right of the map oriented this way. Dark Green is practically sea-level, and yes, that's a deglaciated map!
If you bother to actually read the legend, you will see that the darkest green is indeed at sea level, but the green used to represent the coastline in question actually represents something on the order of 600 meters (that is almost 2000 feet) above sea level. This would most certainly look like mountains to an ancient sailor sailing along the coast. You also have to realize that this is artwork based on guesses about how far the land mass would rise without the ice.
But you are still ignoring the fact that the map below, which I already posted, which is actually based on measured data shows mountains in that area that are more than 1000 meters above the surrounding area, not just the 600 or so meters shown on the map based on supposition.
But, here's the real kicker. The map is totally out of scale!
The Orontius Finaeus map | Bad Archaeology
Let's check the scale again...
Oopos!
Orenteus Fineaus, and all the other mapmakers of his day, indeed drew Antarctica much too large. Hapgood theorized that this was why they did not draw the Antarctic Peninsula. It just wouldn't fit below the tip of South America, which they knew was there. But it was not nearly as far out of scale as your picture misrepresents.
After much study, Hapgood concluded that the error was that someone, probably long before the time of Oronteus Finaeus, had interpreted a circle intended to represent the 80th parallel as the Antarctic Circle. Indeed, the circle labelled by Oronteus Finaeus as the Antarctic Circle is almost exactly the same size (relative to the continent as a whole) as the eightieth parallel is to the actual continent of Antarctica. So Hapgood assumed that this was actually the eightieth parallel. The scale of his redrawn map was based on that assumption.
Oh, and the top end of Australia? There's the overall shape of the Gulf of Carpentaria, but there's also the islands.
Your argument just crashed and burned... Oh the humanity!
But hey,
otherwise your maps are EXACTLY THE SAME! And if I did just a bit of photoshop, just a little bit, I could make you look like Margaret Thatcher! Or Elvis! Or Santa Clause flying home not to the North Pole, but to a South Pole that is 1600km's off target and balmy and warm, and yet to be discovered in the real world. Take your pick... Photoshop
distortions rock!
Actually the argument that crashes and burns is the one that imagines that the two islands shown by Oronteus Finaeus in the Ross Sea are not the two that are actually in those very locations in the Ross Sea, as shown in the map below:
You find a general resemblance between two islands in a rounded bay and two islands in a clearly angular bay.
On the other hand, simple inspection of the Oronteus Fineaus Map of 1531 shows about 16 points clearly identifiable as points known to exist in Antarctica. But after Hapgood redrew the map based on the assumption mentioned above that Orentius Finaeus' "Arctic Circle was actually the eightieth parallel, plus an assumtion that the original map had been drawn on a polar equidistant projection, more than thirty specific points on the map became identifiable as known points in Antarctica. But then it was discovered if they assumed that the original map had been drawn with curved meridians like those used by Oronteus Finaeus, the number of clearly identifiable points grew to more than fifty.
So which is proof so clear as to cause a "crash and burn," two points that
may correspond to a small portion of the coast of a land mass that resembles the map in no other point, or more than fifty clearly identifiable points in Antarctica?