Subject: The Mysterious Origins of Man and the Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1532 Date: Tue, 04

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

======== Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic Subject: The Mysterious Origins of Man and the Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1532 From: Heinrich Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 00:51:52 -0600 The Mysterious Origins of Man and the Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1532 The segment of the _Mysterious Origins of Man_ concerning the Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1532 starts out with Charlton Heston stating that Dr. Charles Hapgood [author of the _Ancient Maps of the Sea Kings_, Hapgood (1966, 1979)], made a _startling discovery_ while he was combing through the map room at the Library of Congress. MOM then goes on to quote Dr. Hapgood as saying: _As my eyes fell upon the southern hemisphere of a world map drawn by a Oronteus Finaeus in 1532, I had the instant conviction that I had found here a truly authentic map of the real Antarctica._ Unfortunately, this conviction likely so prejudiced his ideas concerning the Oronteus Finaeus Map that he was unable to evaluate it objectively. Once, Dr. Hapgood _knew_ he had an authentic map of Antarctica, he proceeded to overlooked, as will be later explained, many serious problems with this map being an accurate, although possibly still authentic, map of Antarctica. In MOM, Mr. Graham Hancock stated: _The mystery of this map is it shows Antarctica as it looks under the ice long before Antarctica is even supposed to have been discovered._ This part of MOM, Mr. Hancock not only incorrectly states the claims made by Hapgood (1966, 1979), but also the claims made in his own book, _The Fingerprints of the Gods_ (Hancock 1995). According to Hapgood (1966, p. 93, 1979, p. 79) and Hancock (1995, p. 18, 478), it is the Phillip Buache Map of 1737 that shows either the ice-free, sub-glacial bedrock, or combined topography of Antarctica. As discussed in a previous post of mine titled _Part 6 - The Buaches Map, Exhibit 9, Fingerprints of the Gods (long Post)._, the Phillip Buache Map of 1737 fails miserably in any way to accurately portray either the subglacial bedrock topography of Antarctica as mapped by Drewry (1983, sheet 3) or the ice-free topography of Antarctica as represented by the bedrock surface as adjusted for isostatic rebound by Drewry (1983, sheet 6). In these claims, both Mr. Hancock and Dr. Hapgood failed to realize that because of isostatic rebound, the ice-free topography of Antarctica and the present subglacial topography are two very different entities. The ice-free topography would differ by as much as 950 meters (3100 feet) in the interior and 50 meters (160 feet) along the coast as result of uplift that would take place with the removal of the Antarctic ice sheet (Drewry 1983, sheet 6). Contrary to MOM, both Hapgood (1966, p. 79-93, 1979, p. 69-79) and Hancock (1995, p. 14-16,22) clearly state that the Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1532 shows the continent of Antarctica with ice-free coasts >when the ice-cap was present only in the deep interior<. Then Mr. Hancock continued: _And perhaps the greatest mystery of all is it shows the Antarctica Peninsula not as it looks today covered by more than a mile of ice, but as it actually looks underneath that cover of ice._ It is mysterious that both MOM and Mr. Hancock manage again to seriously misrepresent the Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1532 and the claims of Hapgood (1966, 1979). As noted by Hapgood (1966, p. 93, 1979, p. 78-79), a major deficiency of Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1532 is that it lacks any feature that can be either recognized as or inferred to be related to the Antarctic (Palmer) Peninsula. In fact, the great mystery is that why MOM and Mr. Hancock would claim that the Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1532 shows the Antarctic (Palmer) Peninsula when it clearly does not (Hapgood 1979, Figure 52). For the lack of this peninsula, Hapgood (1966, p. 93, 1979, p. 78-79) gives a confused explanation. He claims that the base of this peninsula can be seen, but the Oronteus Finaeus Map shows no such base. He claims that this peninsula exists only as scattered bedrock islands, which is true according to Drewry (1983, sheet 3). However, the modern Antarctica Peninsula would have been present as a long north-south trending island only even the most rudimentary map of a partially glaciated Antarctica. Its elevation and isostatic rebound would have kept it well above any projected sea level rise (Drewry 1983). The absence of this island is one of many gross inconsistencies between this map and the partially glaciated hypothetical, prehistoric Antarctica proposed by Hapgood (1966, 1979). Then Charlton Heston stated that Hapgood put his theory to the test. According to MOM, Dr. Hapgood compared the Oronteus Finaeus map with a modern map of ice-covered Antarctica and found the maps to be similar. Then he compared a map created by seismographic surveys with the actual coastlines of the Oronteus Finaeus map. As Charlton Heston claimed: _When the maps were overlaid, the similarities astonished him._ This is an astonishing statement when the subglacial bedrock topographic map of Drewry (1983, sheet 3) is compared with the Oronteus Finaeus Map. In such a comparison, there exist such major inconsistencies between them that the Oronteus Finaeus Map resembles the modern map of ice-covered Antarctica more than it does the map of Drewry (1983) made by seismographic and other surveys. For example, Wilkes Land which the Oronteus Finaeus Map shows as solid land is occupied almost entirely by two large subsea basins and an _archipeligo_ of bedrock islands (Drewry 1983, sheet 3). In a partially glaciated Antarctica, this solid land shown on the Oronteus Finaeus Map would also be under water. Also, the Oronteus Finaeus Map fails to show the Amery Basin, which in either a partially or completely deglaciated Antarctica would be occupied by a 700 to 800 km (1100 to 1300 miles) long bay lying perpendicular to the coast of Antarctica between Princess Elizabeth Land and Mac Robertson Land (Drewry 1983, sheet 3). In addition, because the bedrock surface underlying West Antarctica lies hundreds of kilometers below sea level, except for some bedrock _islands_, the coastline shown by the Oronteus Finaeus Map for it would have been had to been the edge of an ice sheet. Yet, the Oronteus Finaeus Map shows the same features that Hapgood (1966, 1979) claims to be river mouths and fjords on other parts of the alleged nonglacial coastline on this glacial coastline. These and many other problems clearly show that Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1538, like the Buache Map of 1737 fails miserably to show either the hypothetical unglaciated or even a speculative partially glaciated Antarctica. Comparison of the Oronteus Finaeus Map with a map showing the bedrock topography adjusted for isostatic rebound, Drewry (1983, sheet 6), also fails to produce a satisfactory match. In this segment of MOM, Mr. Graham Hancock finally concluded: _The clearest deduction of all is that whoever drew up those original source maps thousands of years ago had a level of technology as high as our own._ and _ So this is a testimony of an advanced civilization in remote prehistory._ The clearest deduction that can be made from the above analysis is that there is no evidence of any advanced map-making technology being involved in the production of the Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1538. Thus, there is also absolutely no evidence of an advanced civilization in remote prehistory as far as the Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1532 and Buache Map of 1737 are concerned. However, at: gopher://marauder.millersv.edu:70/00/otherMU/columbus/data/art/LUNDE02 .ART Mr. Paul Lunde in _The Oronteus Finaeus Map_ that was published in the January-February 1980 issue of _Aramco World Magazine_ presents a more credible hypothesis that the source map for the Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1532 might have been a poorly drawn map of historic Antarctica, possibly Australia, made by some unknown Portuguese sailors sometime before 1513. Regardless of the source data, if any, for the Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1532, it clearly fails to accurately portray either a partially or completely unglaciated Antarctica that MOM would have people to believe. This segments ends with Charlton Heston stating: _A woolly mammoth was frozen so quickly that its last meal of buttercups remained fresh in its stomach for thousands of years. This sudden drop in temperature maybe a clue to the disappearance of the civilization that Plato called Atlantis._ Even this last statement presents some problems. First, MOM later fails to present any evidence that Atlantis was ever in Antarctica. Finally the claim by MOM that woolly mammoths were frozen so quickly that its last meal of buttercups remained fresh in its stomach is nothing more than folklore lacking any basis in fact. The presence of well preserved plant remains associated with mammoths and mastodons has little to do with quick freezing. Very well preserved gut contents have been found even with skeletal remains without any freezing. For example, vertebrate paleontologists found plants remains that were once in the guts of a mastodon associated with the skeleton of a mastodon that they excavated from a bog within Ohio (Lepper, et al. 1991, pp. 122-123). Also, paleontologists have recovered other complete mastodon skeletons containing well- preserved plant remains that were once gut and stomach contents in bogs of New York, New Jersey, and other states (Dreimanis 1968, Pp. 264.). Plant remains are so durable that flash-freezing is unnecessary for their preservation. In the example of the Ohio mastodon, the plant remains that once occupied the gut survived long after the remainder of the mastodon had decayed because of the water- logged, anaerobic environment in which they were buried. If freezing temperatures are essential for the preservation of plant material in the gut contents, why did the plant remains associated with this mastodon survived when the mastodon was never frozen and the rest of the mastodon had decayed away? In this case and other cases it is clearly evident that quick freezing is unnecessary for the preservation of plant material. Conclusion This segment of MOM fails to present any credible evidence either for an ice-free Antarctica or the fast-freezing of mammoths. References Cited Dreimanis, A., 1968, Extinction of Mastodons in Eastern North America: Testing a New Climatic-Environmental Hypothesis. The Ohio Journal of Science, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 257-272. Drewry, D. J. (ed.), 1983, Antarctica: Glaciological and Geophysical Folio. Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge. Hancock, Graham, 1995, Fingerprints of the Gods. Crown Publishers, Inc., New York. Hapgood, C. H., 1966, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, 1st Edition, Chilton Books, Philadelphia. Hapgood, C. H., 1979, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, 2nd Edition, E. P. Dutton, New York. Lepper, B. T., Frolking, T. A., and others, 1991, Intestinal Contents of a Late Pleistocene Mastodont from Midcontinental North America. Quaternary Research vol. 36, pp. 120-125 Sincerely, Paul V. Heinrich (as a private citizen) heinrich@intersurf.com Baton Rouge, LA Earthquakes don't kill people. Overpasses and buildings kill people. -anonymous civil engineer My standard disclaimer applies

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank