Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Big Bad Voodoo

Eskimo-missing puzzle

89 posts in this topic

Here is on more link

http://memory.loc.go...g7800 ct001372r))

Place names in Arabic. Chinese in two columns, on right side of map. Text in Venetian Italian.

Further description of map appeared in article: Bagrow, Leo, 1948. The maps from the home archives of the descendants of a friend of Marco Polo. Imago Mundi, vol. V.

I dont know why link wont work. After you click on it add in tab two )) and then press enter.

But it also says on the Library of Cogress website

[Map of the Far East and adjacent Pacific].

OTHER TITLES

Map known as: Map-with-ship

CREATED/PUBLISHED

[129-?]

NOTES

The map, in its ornamental frame, occupies the right side of the sheet. Drawing of a ship and an eight-line explanation of Roman numerals on left side of the sheet.

Place names in Arabic. Chinese in two columns, on right side of map. Text in Venetian Italian.

Undetermined authenticity.

Provenance unverified.

Pen-and-ink.

Further description of map appeared in article: Bagrow, Leo, 1948. The maps from the home archives of the descendants of a friend of Marco Polo. Imago Mundi, vol. V.

Includes key to identifying countries and regions designated by Roman numerals.

Translation of the explanation of Roman numerals: Marco Polo. I. India and the adjacent islands, according to what the Saracens say. II. Cattigara of Tartary, island of Zipangu and adjacent islands. III. Peninsula of the Sea Lions. IV. Islands connected with the Peninsula of the Deer situated 2 to 4 hours of difference from the walled provinces of Tartary.

Given to the Library of Congress in 1935 by Mr. Marcian F. Rossi, a retired merchant, who considered himself a descendant of a friend of Marco Polo.

Scale not given.

I doubt that this map is authentically connected to Marco Polo.

When there are no maps created by marco polo himself available, how and why is a map purported to be created by a "friend" of marco polo be available.

From an analysis of the "map with Ship' by John W. Hessler, a noted Catrographer,

http://warpinghistory.blogspot.com/2008/12/sketching-unknown-phenomenologicalandco.html

says

The motivation for this investigation stems from the problem of trying to identify the possible sources and the overall chronological similarity of the Rossi “Map With Ship” to other maps that may be contemporary with it. The history and origin of “Map With Ship” has been a problem for historians of cartography almost since its discovery and it has never been adequately studied from an analytic perspective. A recent C-14 dating of the vellum yielded two age distributions both after 1475.The map purportedly shows the coast of Asia, including Japan, and the coast of North America in the area of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands. Scholars have drawn attention to the fact that the strait shown on the map is depicted in a form that recalls several European maps of the region from the late sixteenth century and later. In particular the maps of Zaltieri of 1566 and that of Forlani of 1574 have been discussed in recent studie1].

Any ideas, Mr. L??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of it.

Dear Lava Lady, its hard to give refrences to all I wrote in this thread. But what I offer to you, again, is that you quote me and I will find you source of my claim.

Your opening quote is in conflict with much of what you wrote.

I open with it because I like the quote. It set you up into place much different then urban environment with punishment and reward system.

Also it explain what wiki say about that quote in the link I provided.

And the insult, post #20 "I doubt that Theresa Lee Clark will ever show up because obviously she realized that there is no misconceptions here."

It sounds very arrogant.

Thats interesting because they you can ask yourself this: Is it arognat to say that there is many misconceptions here and run and never show up to explain what you mean?

Thats tactic called hit and run. Very similar to trolling or spamming as others so called sceptics have been demonstrated in this thread.

What's obvious is that you can't know a culture until you've immersed yourself in it. Researching online only is not complete. What you have is interesting information, but choppy and needs backing up. Especially if you're called on it and you are being called on it several times.

I hope Theresa Lee Clark comes back so we can all learn the discrepancies.

I also hope Theresa will show up and explain what she meant. Any info you want to want know source give me quote I will give you source,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any ideas, Mr. L??

Rightnow...No I dont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And left me wondering how you managed to find this respect in the first place.

L, Jaylemurph is an historian. In the real sense, though he's only highly schooled in a specific area of history, IIRC.

You, on the other hand, continually exhibit to anyone that cares to look that you are completely innocent of any real knowledge of history.

It was a real joke when you said what you said about Jaylemurph. My advice is that you might want to pre-emptively apologize, as Jaylemurph has one of the most barbed tounges and savage wits on this forum.

Harte

I'm beginning to suspect this may be a matter of faulty translation, hinging on the use of the term 'science' in different languages, but since I don't speak any Slavic langauges, I can't really say. I really like that someone said history was a methodology. I was trying to get there, but whatever knowledgable person said it beat me to the punch.

We can't be too hard on the L, though. (Well, except maybe for the implied homophobia in his 'couple' comment above. That sort of thing is just rude.)

See, anyone who has spent any time around Bassets -- or even any other type of hound, for that matter -- knows their most endearing and frustrating characteristic is the same sort of stubborness the L exhibits. I say, rather than make him feel this is an undesirable chatacteristic, and anti-productive for intelligent discussion we all aspire here to, this is a sign of special favour in him bestowed on him by our Past Basset Masters for latching on to their deep and mysterious truths. He has been anointed, baptized even, and that is to say marked, by the Past Basset Masters as their own territory, in their tripod, canine way.

And as any would do -- hound or man -- having found a joyous amound of truth, he rolls all over in it, that he may be covered with it, and come back to us redolent of that truth, the better for us to enjoy it ourselves.

I imagine there will be a high place for L upon their glorious, drooling return.

--Jaylemurph

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

You implied that you are ignorant. In third thread in row.If you want I can provide you more info.

Also if one shouldnt talk about manners that is you Jay.

Edit: my advice to you is to stop digging your hole because you getting deeper and deeper.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rightnow...No I dont.

If you don't have any ideas on the credibility of a document that you are claiming to be proof that the old world knew of Alaska and all, then don't whip it further.

Try to take everything with a pinch of salt.

and from your posts on UM, you would eat anything and everything without any salt at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't have any ideas on the credibility of a document that you are claiming to be proof that the old world knew of Alaska and all, then don't whip it further.

Try to take everything with a pinch of salt.

and from your posts on UM, you would eat anything and everything without any salt at all.

No you get it all wrong. I did have ideas. Theories about map. You brought up some new info. Because of that I said: Right now I dont. (have nothing to say)

Because your link needs to be check for credibilty. Then what is claim in it. I want to search more about those study and so on.

Maybe if its true it doesnt mean it have nothing with Venetian republic.

Also if is total hoax lets see what I said about Polos map:

Also what I find interesting is fact that when Venetian Marco Polo came in China he got , now already famous, Map with a boat which have drawn Alaska on it. And its known fact that Colombus was influenced by Polo.....So could it be that knowledge of America traveled from Yupik trough Siberian people to Manchu then to Maro Polo. I realy see why not. Even if Polos map of America isnt what it seems to be then again knowledge about America most probably traveled to China trough Siberia.

I think that tells more about your above post and you and your spicies.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You implied that you are ignorant. In third thread in row.If you want I can provide you more info.

Also if one shouldnt talk about manners that is you Jay.

Edit: my advice to you is to stop digging your hole because you getting deeper and deeper.

Gosh, I don't mean to /imply/ I'm ignorant. Allow me to state in bold, unequivical terms: I am ignorant. At times, dreadfully, painfully ignorant. Fee free to quote me on this at your leisure.

I can's speak a word of Chinese. Linear algebra is a mystery to me. Virtually all of biology is unknown to me. I haven't read the entirety of the Fletcher and Beaumont first folio. I haven't even read the most recent BBC book about Doctor Who. In my defense, though, I don't often mistake that ignorance for anything else. I can't think of a time when I've corrected someone else's Cantonese, advanced mathematics, biology. And while I have corrected others' statements about Beaumont and Fletcher, it's been with a solid knowledge of 17th Century dramatic literature and stage practivce.

(So, umm, verb. sap. and what not. And if you can't be bothered to know what you're talking about, at least -- please -- be amusing about it. Taking yourself so seriously is a bit tiresome...)

--Jaylemurph

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jay,

my couple comment have nothing with homosexuals. I see Darwin and Mendel as perfect couple.

Many people can see same thing but acutally all could interpert differently.

For example. Lets say that 5 people saw a dog.

First will instantly think on family member.

Second will think monster.

Third will think dog.

Fourth will think food.

Fifth will think love.

People interpert differently. It depends on human history, expirience, education and background. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question is how did you conclude that I imply on homosexual couple?

Due your personal histroy or education? Or expirience?

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awww how sweet...

You and questionmark made perfect couple so it isnt surprise that you think same. What is surprising is that you two (so called sceptics) agreed on totaly fringe idea.(Jays)

[snip]

This is quite obviously meant to be demeaning to the two (male-identified) people to whom it is addressed. There is nothing demeaning about being a straight couple in our heteronormative society, so I put forth it is most likely you would not have mentioned their putative romantic couplehood or at least their putative suitability as a romantic couple without insulting intent. As I said, it is implied and not explicit.

So, you know, yes, we all got the slur. And we got that you cleverly distanced yourself from out and out homophobic content, but let's not also pretend it wasn't there, and get back to you telling Inuits all about their own culture. It's better for us all to stay more or less on topic.

--Jaylemurph

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source.

I don't agree that Theresa Lee Clark was arrogant. IMO she was informing you. Your response was arrogant. You seem unable or unwilling to hear opposing ideas. It's unfortunate TLC hasn't participated in this discussion, it would have been interesting to learn more. But now I'm bored with all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source.

I don't agree that Theresa Lee Clark was arrogant. IMO she was informing you. Your response was arrogant. You seem unable or unwilling to hear opposing ideas. It's unfortunate TLC hasn't participated in this discussion, it would have been interesting to learn more. But now I'm bored with all this.

Wikipedia is like portal. You need to check sites they refering to.

About Theresa. Ofcourse I dont agree. Thats your view. My is very much different. I let mods be judges. So if you think I was arrogant in anyway there is button "report" where you can report my arogance to mods.

I agree it is unfortunate that she dont participate.

Im too bored to answer on your imaginary accusition that I insulted Theresa.

Btw she didnt bring none info into discussion.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's better for us all to stay more or less on topic.

--Jaylemurph

It was you who move away from topic. I just answerd on your posts.

So its good to know that you listen my advice and decide to return on topic. :tu:

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, your opening quote is from an Inuit writer, your following statements contradict what she is saying. So, she it's wrong and you are right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, your opening quote is from an Inuit writer, your following statements contradict what she is saying. So, she it's wrong and you are right?

Dear Lava Lady,

Dear Lava Lady,

I open with it because I like the quote. It set you up into place much different then urban environment with punishment and reward system.

Also it explain what wiki say about that quote in the link I provided.

If you want I can explain what wiki say about it or quote it.

Im not saying that she is wrong and Im right. Because I dont know what Theresa have on her mind. Because that madam just stated that in this thread there are many misconceptions here and never show up again.

I can only conclude that she change her mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Lava Lady,

If you want I can explain what wiki say about it or quote it.

Im not saying that she is wrong and Im right. Because I dont know what Theresa have on her mind. Because that madam just stated that in this thread there are many misconceptions here and never show up again.

I can only conclude that she change her mind.

No thank you. I've moved on to other topics. I'm done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No thank you. I've moved on to other topics. I'm done.

See you around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

L they repeat their mantra, the same way you repeat yours. However you're both wrong and both right.

Yes, history is an actual science. (which is what you keep "mantraing" about)

However, history is part of those sciences, in which data is provided primarily from past events and for which there is usually no direct experimental data, such as cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, geology, paleontology and archaeology. (Which is what you accuse Jay and Everdred to "mantra" about)

One can draw a distinction, between research directed towards identifying laws and research which seeks to determine how particular historical events occurred.Having said this, nobody ever said that the proverbial line between these sorts of science can be drawn neatly and evenly

And last but not least, historical claims are as much empirically verifiable than any other sort of claims.

So quite honestly, you ignore quite a few facts yourself. Mr; Pot, meet Mr. Kettle......

Searcher,

for my mantra I gave reasons. I didnt see them refuting those reasons.

I think that Im right and they wrong. This next is just speculation. I think that reason for our different opinion is because US citizens are tought differently.

Unless someone proove me that history isnt organized or that isnt knowledge I will think on history as science.

When I heard about Congress of historical methods/studies I will change my mind.

Whats the different between my and Jay view? Thats main question. What does it change? Perhaps fact that history is self correcting? also speculating.

Also sciences isnt just experiments.Judging on that we need to discover time machine and go in history then observe. We can done thought experiments although.

But to be good historian beside good expression and communication skills you need to have insights and travel in your mind to the past. You must use imagination in sense.

You must be able to do thought experiments. But what you can do in present is observation. Observation of many things related to history. Obesrvation is scientific method.

Ofcourse also you can study old manuscripts. And yes history use archaeology, geology, astronomy,...Same as physics use math.

What you mean by this: "historical claims are as much empirically verifiable than any other sort of claims."?

There was a time before scientists. Their meaning evolve. What is scientists? Whats historian then? Natural philosopher? Observer? Methodologist? Cmon.

L, by your post you prove that you did not understand one word of what I was saying. Also, I'm not a US citizen, just for the record.

You can't even see that I said" yes, history is a science and knowledge" You went off into one of your regular half cocked and silly ramblings, on how you are right and everybody else is wrong.

I've highlighted the relevant parts for you. And yes, you do need empirical proof, even as a historian, when you make a claim. Imagination is just not enough. If you cannot by some way or another prove that what you imagine happens to be correct, then it remains just a mental exercise, nothing even a theory, but an assumption or at best a hypothesis. That's what I mean by you also need empirical evidence.

Of course I know what is going to happen now, you are going to not understand, disagree and be arrogant about it. Thn say that we are all wrong and "imagine" a bit more.. At this point, the respect has run out, the way you answer other people......not even worth a comment anymore. Sadly dissapointing....

Hi Searcher,

Good to see you back. I think that in part it has always been a political issue, the Inuit people did not have any representatives present when the treaties were signed.When it became more financially viable for gov't and industry to develop the resources,and of course the military and NORAD. When it came time to negotiate a treaty with the Inuit people that the gov't (and we know how frugal they are,haha)felt it would affect the treaties that had been originally signed with the Aboriginal people,so they were given a classification that isolated them as a distinct and different culture.

jmccr8

Glad to be back JMCCR8. And thanks for the explanation, I figured it was something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone didnt understand something that was you so dissapointing is mutually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw this is what is called silly ramblings.

L, by your post you prove that you did not understand one word of what I was saying. Also, I'm not a US citizen, just for the record.

You can't even see that I said" yes, history is a science and knowledge" You went off into one of your regular half cocked and silly ramblings, on how you are right and everybody else is wrong.

I've highlighted the relevant parts for you. And yes, you do need empirical proof, even as a historian, when you make a claim. Imagination is just not enough. If you cannot by some way or another prove that what you imagine happens to be correct, then it remains just a mental exercise, nothing even a theory, but an assumption or at best a hypothesis. That's what I mean by you also need empirical evidence.

Of course I know what is going to happen now, you are going to not understand, disagree and be arrogant about it. Thn say that we are all wrong and "imagine" a bit more.. At this point, the respect has run out, the way you answer other people......not even worth a comment anymore. Sadly dissapointing....

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rest my case.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rest my case.....

I suspect you did it because of your ego. (All this) Sadly your mate should do that on page two. But he hates to loose. I also hate to loose so I understand him completly. Only instead of him I would react different in my defeat. Although this thread totaly moved from topic I wouldnt called it unproductive. Atleast I learn about some people who dwells here. And beside that I have a new profile quote.

See you around.

Edit: Ironicly as member title of jay it is written : Scientician. So according to Jay he isnt historian. Even Harte say so.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harte I already told you several times. I will repeat it again.

I dare you to quote me and respond to my particular part of post which you dont agree or keep quite. Its easy to attack person but attack my arguments if you dare.

I double dare you?Lets value your knowledge? What do you say? Please stop hiding behind sceptic mask whos tactic is hit and run.

Respond to 500 words that boil down to "It appears that the Vikings may have had sex with some Inuit."?

Please. The Inuit are world-famous for having sex with strangers.

Ever read "Top of the World?'

What's to respond to here?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Respond to 500 words that boil down to "It appears that the Vikings may have had sex with some Inuit."?

Please. The Inuit are world-famous for having sex with strangers.

Ever read "Top of the World?'

What's to respond to here?

Harte

How do you know it wasnt Slavic people who came from Asia?

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.