A New Theory On Mapping The New World

I guess he/it flew over here

Is that Santa Claus?????

Dickson, an amateur geographer and scholar of the Age of Discovery, this week is giving a Columbus Day lecture at the Library of Congress ...

Doen't he mean 'giving a White European Male Oppressor Pig, Despoiler of the Planet Day lecture'.....?

Anyone who studies Olmec art objects with an open mind can't escape the realization that it was a multiracial society. The so-called Colossal Heads have clearly negroid features while images like yours show definite Asian characteristics. Some have what appear to be Egyptian-style fake beards, and others show the typical head-shaping that was found much further north in U.S. groups like the Flatheads. In some cases it's almost impossible to distinguish between Olmec and Chinese jade carvings.

Anyone who looks at Mayan faces (they're still very much alive and kicking in Mexico, Belize and Guatemala, as well as in old art) sees unique features, more related to present-day Peruvians and other South American people.

The faces that come alive in Moche pottery are somewhat different, with aristocratic features, although some similarities exist -- especially the prominent (but not hooked) noses.

What I'm getting at is there must have been a tremendous mix of races in South and Mesoamerica going back a tremendous length of time. The academic archaeologists' fixation on the Clovis Barrier, combined with their absolute belief that no one arrived in the Americas by sea, has kept research mainly in North America -- a place I think is least likely to yield affirmative evidence of diffusion.

With the reluctant acknowledgment of the age of Monte Verde in Chile by the Clovis reactionaries, more study is taking finally place, even at northern places like the Meadowcroft Pa. rock shelter, where some crucial ancient finds are now being acknowldged. The next few years are going to be very interesting. If objective research continues I believe current ideas about the peopling of the Americas is going to be knocked cockeyed. But one should never underestimate the power of political correctness and the political spoils system (i.e., Kennewick Man).

I agree 100%. I've read that some of the large Olmec heads have Caucasian features but, I've never seen one.

Hence, the well-known problem of Greenland appearing to be as large as the entire continent of Africa, which it certainly is not. But there's no real distortion as you move along the equator from east to west, or west to east...

OK...I'm fairly new to caring about World History, Politics and Geogrophy so please hang with me (I would give ANYTHING to be able to go back to school and actually give a crap about this stuff)...

I've got a wall map (Pretty big and very detailed) and....YOU'RE RIGHT....Greenland is HUGE! About the size of Africa. And I've got a tiny-little globe on my desk and sure enough, Greenland is only about 10% of the wall map's size...

I had noticed this before but never really thought much of it other than "Gee Greenland looks big"...Until your post here, that is...

So anyway...My question is...Would you be so kind as to tell me why this is? And dumb it down??

Thank in advance for your time.

Ps...Where is Antartica on my wall map?

So anyway...My question is...Would you be so kind as to tell me why this is? And dumb it down??

Sure. It's a little geometry and topology problem, basically. Start by looking at the north pole of your globe - notice how all the lines of longitude (the lines that run north-south) converge onto that one point at the north pole? Now look at the north end of your wall map - those longitude lines are all parallel to each other, and don't converge any more. But they still run north-south, and they still point to the north pole, really. Only now, instead of the north pole being a point at the top of the globe, when you flatten out the world into a two-dimensional representation, what happens is that the north pole gets stretched out so that it's a long line instead of a point - the whole top edge of your map is the north pole.

That's because the north pole is a point, so to make flat, rectangular map, you have to stretch it out so that it's as long as the equator. And as you stretch it out, the things near the north pole get stretched out as well - the closer a thing is to the north pole, the more it gets stretched, and things along the equator don't get stretched at all, really. It's kind of hard to visualize, but if you can imagine "skinning" your globe and flattening it out, you can sort of get the idea of what's happening. So Greenland, being pretty far north, gets stretched to the point that it's as large as Africa, but since Africa lies right along the equator, it doesn't get stretched at all. So they appear to be equal in size, even though Africa is actually about 13 times larger than Greenland. Notice what happens to other northern lands also - Alaska looks like it's about the size of half the continental US, because it's also been stretched out.

So, what happened to Antarctica? Well, the same thing happens in the south as well - the south pole, and everything around it, gets stretched out and enlarged. So, that long strip of land along the very bottom of your map that runs the whole length of the map - that's Antarctica, all stretched out into a strip, instead of a roughly round continent, just like the south pole got stretched out into a line instead of a point.

Just a little topological problem associated with making two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional things. There are maps that try to minimize that distortion, like this equal-area projection map:

Notice how it's kind of divided into sections, rather than a simple flat rectangle - that avoids the stretching at the north and south ends of the map.

Anyway, the long and the short of it is that there's nothing wrong with asking why it's that way - if you don't, you might start assuming some pretty silly things. Like the lady I heard giving a lecture some years ago, who insisted, quite seriously, that the distortion of the northern part of Mercator maps like yours was a conspiracy. By who? Well, by the white man, of course - to make Africa look small and insignificant. I assume that, since Greenland is a part of Denmark, it was supposed to be some sort of Danish mapmakers plot to hold the black man down ;)

Thanks for answering in such detail...You're too kind. If I can ever return the favor concerning The Yankees, Professional Wrestling or Fantasy Football (Or Politics on any forum but this one), ask away...But somehow, I don't see those topics being of much use...But, it's what I know...

Back to the subject...I sat there and stared at my map and globe (The map takes up almost a whole wall in my office and I'm fascinated by it for some reason) and didn't get any work done...

What I noticed was the around the equator, the boxes (Longitudes and Latitues crossing?) were square. Towards the top, they were progressively upward rectagle-shaped. I assume this is part of the same phenomenon?

Your explanation has further helped my understanding. Thank you! Now I can't wait to get back to work and do some more starting!

And I could see people making that mistake about sizes...An emplyee and I were comenting on the size of Alaska just the other day...I always knew it was the largest of the states, so I assumed my map was correct...Now I'll reference the globe more often (Which is what I had been doing for a while, and what enticed me to make this post).

As for Antarcia...I knew it would run the entire length of the bottom of the map, but it's just not there. Not at all. I guess it's just not a very good map (I assumed it was)...Bought it at Staples for about 60 Bucks.

Thanks again! This is something that I've learned (Something I've simply, just never pondered in detail before I saw your post) and will use in the future quite often! That's pretty cool!

Excellent explanation, thanks.

By the way...

That's because the north pole is a point, so to make flat, rectangular map, you have to stretch it out so that it's as long as the equator.

BINGO! That's the part that made it all make sense. Well done!

If I can ever return the favor concerning The Yankees..

Ah, the Yanks. Here's a question - what the hell happened? ;)

And, FWIW, I don't know jack about fantasy football, except that you can play for money, and win if you're good at it. So it's still an open question for me about whether my esoteric knowledge of maps is really the more valuable information - nobody pays me diddly for this. I'm wonderig if maybe I shouldn't have spent time learning how to handicap the ponies or something practical like that ;)

As for Antarcia...I knew it would run the entire length of the bottom of the map, but it's just not there. Not at all. I guess it's just not a very good map (I assumed it was)...Bought it at Staples for about 60 Bucks.

Hmmmm. Well, maybe it's a really old map, from before mapmakers knew about Antarctica.

Okay, it's a stretch ;)

These are some oldies I found and added the other day, listed alphabetically (ignoring the indefinite article), but didn't ping. Enjoy!