Quote
true, but isnt the earliest recoded date of any human (civilised?) exploring the region to be 1830s whereas the map is 15th centuary and argued to be copied from earlier maps?
Not at all! The Vikings are known to have discovered America in the early 1000, and studies are currently underway that indicate the Romans and the Chinese might have been there even earlier.
We are a restless species. We wander.
Quote
The oher interesting fact is the map does accurately (luckily?) have the location of raised areas only recently proven in the 60s as being `generally accurate`?
Not under the ice, however. The raised areas you are referring to (I am assuming you are referring to the ones in Daniken's books?) are actual ice mounts, not underground mountains covered with ice. It really isn't all that difficult to guess at the topography under the ice, when you understand that ice flows like water, only much slower. A professional map-maker could easily make a general guess as to what the ice was flowing around.
Quote
I do apologise that a lot of this is regurgatated, but I have not found arguements against, and the above seems a good arguement at the moment.R47
It isn't the arguments, but rather the conclusions that certain authors with a creative outlook on reality decided to publish, that are debatable here. Conclusions work in two ways, after all. The Piri Reis map is reasonably accurate if one assumes that the Antartic was covered with ice at the time, however, if the land was indeed visible, then the map-makers were far from competent, completely missing an existing land bridge to South America, and deciding that land existed where we know today is nothing but the Ross Ice Shelf.