Re: VMs: Re: T-maps later than thought?

["Barbara Barrett" <barbarabarrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Elmar Elucidated;
>I'm not quite sure if there's really anybody interested in the argument
except
>for the two of us... sorry if we're wasting bandwidth.

Barbara Blithers;
Other have interest, and some of those even join it. Observing Thesis vs
Anti Thesis to reach synthesis it a function of this forum.

Besides, don't deny an old lady one of her few pleasures in life ;-)

I'm sure that when and if we're the only two left and either when the rest
of them get board with us or we start going around in endless circular logic
our moderators will intervene ;-)

>> Barbara Babbles;
>> Perhaps if you've got the English name of the map I can look it up on the
>> net; most of the significant medieval maps are one line somewhere.

>It was just a page in a book (oh which I don't know the title anymore);
anyway
>I don't think it's spectacular enough to warrant an exhaustive search.

Everything teaches if you open yourself to it: that's my philosophy anyway.
You said the exhibition had a catalogue; perhaps the mss was mentioned
therein?
I'd really like to chase it down. Pretty Please?

> I wasn't attacking the fingerprint technique, but your assumption of "6
> matches make a proof".

Not my assumption at al dear heart. Medievalists identify a T-O map by 6
features which in combination are unique to T-O maps, and the one on f68v3
has them all: Ergo 100% match; a positive identification.

Getting into statistics and their relevance to fingerprint ID isn't germane
in itself to the T-O map ID.

>What you have in the alleged T-O-map is... three strokes of the quill.

Incorrect, the inner and outer circles, and the strict placement of the
straight strokes are of vital importance, as are the areas they enclose and
the shapes they form.

>Yes, but f68v3 is _not_ specific. All you've got is a circle with two lines
>running through it. I could show you the exact same shape from my last
>PowerPoint presentation. It's a pie chart with percentages -- does this
prove >I  was actually drawing a T-O map?

>No, what it proves is, that the shape of a T-O can occur in various
>circumstances, and to precisely identify it we have to have context
>information -- like from the labels.

As what you draw does not have all the necessary points of identification,
it can not be a T-O map, but I'll give you that it could bear a superficial
resemblance to one. But the major objection is that it would be out of
context, and in all examination of the past Context is King. An original T-O
can only be found in context. In the context of a modern financial report it
is very unlikely to be a T-O map (although it is possible in a thesis on
cartography), in the context of a medieval manuscript it is highly unlikely
it is not a T-O map.

As I said in the last post a T-O map is positivley identified before the
labels are taken into consideration. That is the way it is done.

> > Ah, but you're making the assumption that the labels on a T-O map always
> > identify its constituent parts, which is not true. <snip>
> > Furthermore the f68v3 isn't just a circle with two lines; ...

>What you have is a circle, divided in a 180° and two 90° segments.
>Everything else is your interpretation. Orientation is arbitrary, and there
is
>only one  way to arrange these segments, so there's not really a whole lot
of
>information in there.

Incorrect. It isn't my interpretation but that of medievalists (as was
pointed out to me); the details are in D'Imperio. And in a *basic* schematic
the whole point is to reduce the information content to its fundamentals
anyway. Simplicity was the goal. So the fact the basic unadorned T-O
contains "little information" while a statement of truth, in no way makes it
become something else!

>You corroborate your interpretation by the second circle running around it,
>saying "it's the great ocean, and that fits in the T-O interpretation." At
the
>same time you ignore the four spirals running outward -- arbitrarily
dividing
>the image in parts which belong to the suspected T-O, and parts which do
>not

On the contrary petal. The first outer circle is an integral part of T-0 map
identification; it doesn't corroborate the identification, it is an integral
part of it.

And the question wasn't what does the whole page represent but; is that a
T-O map at the centre of the drawing?

As for the spirals they fit the pattern of an 8 wind "wind rota". It was not
uncommon to place a world schematic of some type at the centre of a wind
rota. The far outer pair of circles from which the spirals connect to the
"world" make sense, make medieval sense, in terms of a wind rota - but that
identification is less sound than that of the T-O map, but only because of
the stars and wigglly lines which are very uncommon and cast doubt on the
wind-rota interpretation - if they are meaningful and not just decoration or
prettyfictaion of some sort. With the possible Wind Rota ( a very high
possibility) we can not say definitely unless the stars and wiggly lines
prove to be decorations only - and that will take much work.
.
>What you're doing is: You show that the interpretation as T-O is
consistent.
>(You found no contradictions.) This is not the same as proof.

Just as a mater of interest, out of curiosity, how do you determine a
geometric proof?

Taking a flat surface as a given; an enclosure made up of three straight
sides whose internal angles sum to 180 degrees would be considered a "proof"
that the enclosure is a triangle rather than a rhombus, square, circle, or
any other geometric figure. In my Geometry classes that was a proof.

Therefore the medieval identification of a circle enclosing a circle, the
inner one of which was bisected across its centre, and one of the halves was
further bisected into two equal halves (quarter circles) by a straight line
running from the centre to the circumference (all of which the centre of
f68v3 conforms to in both the positive and negative space created) is a
geometric proof.

Also the context. In a medieval document any person drawing or looking at
this figure would see a T-O map as there was no other motif that met all
those criteria. Certainly an educated contemporary could not see it as
anything else.

Really we are left with no other alternative but to explore the
ramifications of the motif being a T-O map, (including looking for
circumstances confirmed within the vms which would exclude the possibility
of it being a T-O map). But in all good conscience I can not simply dismiss
it, the evidence that it is one is just too strong for that. And as I've
said before, to dismiss or ignore it, or rationalize it to oblivion so that
it didn't contradict pet theories, would just be bad science. We must
explain the presence of the T-O map before we can go any further. I could
just pretend it wasn't there and give loads of logical reasons why it only
"seemed" to be there, but that'd be dishonest, and calling everything I did
into question.

I realize that emotionally the ramifications of a T-O map in the VMS are
unacceptable to some points of view and opinions on the vms. But good
science is all about doing U turns when contrary evidence presents itself,
and being just as excited by being wrong as by being proved right ;-)

Regards

Barbara.

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list