Ptolemy's Geography and the Atlantic islands

[Abdul Goatherd]

OK.

I am rather excited.

I was plumbing through some old literature on the Canary Islands and I believe I might have cracked a particular puzzle in Ptolemy's Geography, relating to the Atlantic islands that seems to have been bedevilling writers for centuries.

Essentially, the old historians I've been reading all bewail the carelessness and errors of Ptolemy's work on the Atlantic, and assume he was really ignorant about that area. I believe I have figured out what Ptolemy was doing, and that Ptolemy is actually amazingly accurate (well, not perfectly accurate, but a little reintepretation of one little point fixes almost all the rest of his blunders and proves he was far less of an ignoramus than previously thought (also helps clear up some other issues relating to other writers.)

I am not going to reveal what it is - it is a bit like "Columbus's egg", astoundingly obvious when I point it out. But it seems to have been missed by everybody up to now. So I am thinking of commiting it to print and reaping the laurels.

Problem is: I don't know what the current state of scholarship is like. I am not a historian and this is a relatively new area for me. Most of the stuff I've been reading is heaps old, I presume there's more up-do-date work. But I don't know where to look. The insight being so obvious, I naturally assume someone stumbled upon it already. But web searches aren't revealing that my little "insight" has been anticipated, but then again, I'm not finding much of anything on Ptolemy at all.

I presume the research on this (if any) will have been done by Spaniards (since it is intimately tied with the history of the Canary islands), but I don't know who the current experts might be on that, so that I can check up on them.

Anybody have any familiarity with the field of ancient geography or Canarian history or any idea where I might go?

EDIT: Nautical geographers with a historical bent might also be interested, since it relates to the Prime Meridian.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Virtually all academic scholarship from the past two or three decades is going to approach Ptolemy's Geography in terms of what they say about the cultural world-view or mythopoeic discourses of the ancient world and its reception down the ages, and won't really bother attempting to work out how "accurate" it is.

This also means that people in the field aren't likely to be interested in your discovery, and will either say that you are missing the point or engaging in conjectural parlour-games.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Virtually all academic scholarship from the past two or three decades is going to approach Ptolemy's Geography in terms of what they say about the cultural world-view or mythopoeic discourses of the ancient world and its reception down the ages, and won't really bother attempting to work out how "accurate" it is.

This also means that people in the field aren't likely to be interested in your discovery, and will either say that you are missing the point or engaging in conjectural parlour-games.

Oh pooh.

 

[unmerged(31881)]

On the other hand, if you are right, it will be epic win - no matter the current state of academia.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

Can you really be "right" about the interpretation of a 2000+ year old map? You can offer an interesting an plausible hypothesis but you can hardly prove that it's what Ptolemy meant.

 

[unmerged(89129)]

yeah so you might as well tell us XP

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Can you really be "right" about the interpretation of a 2000+ year old map? You can offer an interesting an plausible hypothesis but you can hardly prove that it's what Ptolemy meant.

Oh, I am not speculating about what Ptolemy "meant". But I believe I found the source of his error. In a nutshell, his Atlantic is wrong because he set his prime meridien wrong in a way no one has noticed before. He didn't mean it to be wrong, of course, but (here I speculate) he was misinformed about certain sailing directions in the Canaries, with the result that he misplaced his meridien and mismapped the Atlantic based on it. That is, if you make one slight correction to one slight point, everything else falls neatly into place and Ptolemy's wrong calculations and laughable errors become astoundingly and precisely accurate (with a few exceptions).

In short, Ptolemy was not uninformed about the Atlantic. He was simply misinformed by some source on a tiny, tiny point (a point he couldn't verify) that ended up throwing the rest of his calculations off and made him look like a big ignorant fool. And I think I have found exactly what that point was and how that produces his errors.

OK, maybe it's not that big a deal. But I found it exciting.

As for implications for cultural world-view and mythopoeic discourses ... mmm.... well, it suggests that ancient knowledge of the Atlantic wasn't all that poor. Which explains all subsequent slavery, colonialism and racism down to the modern day, as well as the source of the Enlightenment, the oppression of women and revolutionary Maoist resistance theory.

And, even more importantly, if I combine the new insight with other writers (i.e. Pliny), I think I can crack open that highly important, urgent, centuries-old bitter dispute about which Canary island had the coolest name.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

As for implications for cultural world-view and mythopoeic discourses ... mmm.... well, it suggests that ancient knowledge of the Atlantic wasn't all that poor. Which explains all subsequent slavery, colonialism and racism down to the modern day, as well as the source of the Enlightenment, the oppression of women and revolutionary Maoist resistance theory.

now, that sounds like a recipe for academic stardom

Anyways I have long since been convinced that the ancient world was pretty familiar with its surroundings (as far as their technology would let them explore it). The Carthaginians circumnavigated Africa and lived to tell the tale - but made sure not to let any Greeks know how it was done. Greeks and Phoenicians traded with British isles for tin, and it's pretty sure (to me) that their stories about the mythical northernmost islands (Thule) were inspired by sailing up to the Hebrides and beyond.

Considering Ptolemy probably "only" had first hand experience of the orient itself, and not the many countries and seas beyond it, his compilation of knowledge is still extremely impressing. He also was aware of the limitations of his own knowledge, i.e. the fact that he could "only" map barely a quarter of the earth's surface. Which was the peak of (western) geographical knowledge for the next 1200 years. Pretty awesome if you ask me.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Well, I have all respect to Carthaginians (although they didn't circumnavigate Africa... )

The Canary islands are particularly fascinating since it was so close to the Mediterranean civilizations and yet the peoples were so utterly primeval, with all the primitiveness of "uncontacted" peoples. Kinda llike the Andaman & Nicobars. If people were sailing there, if they got visitors, they didn't leave the minutest trace of it.

Yet everyone seems to know the islands were there - and in Ptolemy's case, quite accurately.

Alas, unlike the Andamanese, the Canarians are "extinct", so we can't really figure out their story. I have my own sick theories....

 

[Jos de trol]

Well, I have all respect to Carthaginians (although they didn't circumnavigate Africa... )

The Canary islands are particularly fascinating since it was so close to the Mediterranean civilizations and yet the peoples were so utterly primeval, with all the primitiveness of "uncontacted" peoples. Kinda llike the Andaman & Nicobars. If people were sailing there, if they got visitors, they didn't leave the minutest trace of it.

Yet everyone seems to know the islands were there - and in Ptolemy's case, quite accurately.

Alas, unlike the Andamanese, the Canarians are "extinct", so we can't really figure out their story. I have my own sick theories....

Makes sense to my admittedly very unhistorical brain. They were small, isolated islands litterally in the middle of nowhere (important) in the classical world so not able to nurture a highly developed civilization nor to reach out and conquer their surroundings. Such people don't own, but they get pwned as soon as the big boys take an interest.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Makes sense to my admittedly very unhistorical brain. They were small, isolated islands litterally in the middle of nowhere (important) in the classical world so not able to nurture a highly developed civilization nor to reach out and conquer their surroundings. Such people don't own, but they get pwned as soon as the big boys take an interest.

Well, on the "edge" of nowhere, not quite in the "middle" of it.

The puzzle is these people were utterly primitive, stone age level. They had nothing more elaborate than fire, sticks & stones. If the ancients knew of the islands and mapped them reasonably well, then surely somebody must have visited (and are said to have visited), yet there is no discernable impact of contact.

There is a huge mystery of how they even got here. They got early Berber characteristics, suggesting they came from North Africa and archaeological digs suggests they came very late (400 BC or even later). So these are not stone age Andamanese isolated for thousands of years. They must have had some contact with Mediterranean civilization before they came, and yet evince none of it. Moreover, how they crossed the water and hopped from island to island is mystery - they had zero knowledge of the water - no rafts, no dugouts, no fishing skills, nada. They had absolutely no contact from island to island.

My own little theory is that the Canary Islands were some sort of Carthaginian gulags or slave-breeding grounds. That is, the Carthaginians rounded up some backwoods inland people (probably Atlas dwellers or Saharan nomads, thus stone age & no sea knowledge) and just ferried them out and dumped them on the islands to "breed" like animals. And then the occasional Carthagian ferry would return and grab a bunch of fresh young islanders to take back to Carthage as slaves. An easy, confined little slave-breeding garden.

Then one day the Carthaginians stopped coming. And nobody else came. And everybody gradually just forgot about them. The record of the islands' existence & location, from the old Carthaginian slave ferries, lingered (although I am sure the Carthagians did their best to hide their secret slave stash from their enemies). Gradually everyone forgot about the purpose, forgot about they were inhabited. So there were no visits, beyond the occasional lost fisherman or something, and thus no 'contact' that might change development.

But that's just my wild speculation.

 

[unmerged(31881)]

Well, I have all respect to Carthaginians (although they didn't circumnavigate Africa... )

Or at least they weren't the first to do so. The Pheonicians probably beat them to it. Despite Herodotus and Ptolemy thinking it couldn't be done.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

My own little theory is that the Canary Islands were some sort of Carthaginian gulags or slave-breeding grounds. That is, the Carthaginians rounded up some backwoods inland people (probably Atlas dwellers or Saharan nomads, thus stone age & no sea knowledge) and just ferried them out and dumped them on the islands to "breed" like animals. And then the occasional Carthagian ferry would return and grab a bunch of fresh young islanders to take back to Carthage as slaves. An easy, confined little slave-breeding garden.

Then one day the Carthaginians stopped coming. And nobody else came. And everybody gradually just forgot about them. The record of the islands' existence & location, from the old Carthaginian slave ferries, lingered (although I am sure the Carthagians did their best to hide their secret slave stash from their enemies). Gradually everyone forgot about the purpose, forgot about they were inhabited. So there were no visits, beyond the occasional lost fisherman or something, and thus no 'contact' that might change development.

But that's just my wild speculation.

The theory just needs some sort of alien involvement, and then it would be perfect!

 

[Jos de trol]

The primitive inhabitants of easter island screwed up their natural environment, but why didn't the canarians do so? Because they were "saved" in time? Also how do the dogs fit into this story?

 

[Ming]

The theory just needs some sort of alien involvement, and then it would be perfect!

Isn't that the plot of Stargate?

Maybe the aliens/carthaginians gave up on the canaries 'cuz they found the andamans? What if they're still coming? Maybe that's why the Andamanians don't trust anybody?????

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

The theory just needs some sort of alien involvement, and then it would be perfect!

Unlikely. Any self-respecting aliens would have at least built some mysterious stone thingamajigs with cyptic inscriptions to tease us. But there's nothing like that there.

The primitive inhabitants of easter island screwed up their natural environment, but why didn't the canarians do so? Because they were "saved" in time? Also how do the dogs fit into this story?

Canarians were much more primitive. They didn't try to build anything or make much of any demands on their environment.

Dogs were a tale told by Pliny - he said Juba of Mauretania took an island-hopping cruise back in c.10 BC and claimed Gran Canaria was overrun by large feral dogs and brought back two specimens. Alas, there's no archaelogical evidence of dog overrun.

Canarians did have domesticated dogs (for shepherding needs). And likely Juba just saw a handful, or maybe a pack of strays, and assumed they were everywhere.

(Note: Juba doesn't report any humans anywhere. So it's not as if his touristic jaunt was very thorough.)

On the other hand, in a different place, Pliny also reports a tribe called the "Canarii" in the North African Atlas range. There's some speculation they are related (or maybe, if my gulag theory is correct, the island known as Canaria was just the prescribed gulag for that particular tribe).

Or at least they weren't the first to do so. The Pheonicians probably beat them to it. Despite Herodotus and Ptolemy thinking it couldn't be done.

Highly unlikely.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

Hehe, interesting theory

Although I always thought it made perfect sense that regardless of their origin, the Canarian islanders would regress to stone age primitivism... isolation and confinement in a not-too-dangerous environment does that to people. Even without slave trade. Check out the Tasman islanders - they started out as migrants from the Australian mainland who must have known hunting and fishing techniques, yet when the British found them, they had regressed so much they did not know how to fish any more, and their tools had become even more primitive than those of the Australian aborigines.

The Canaries are pretty much the epitome of a secluded, peaceful island - no seasons, reliable weather, sparse surroundings, enough plant and animal life to get by. In other words, an environment that is the perfect anti-stimulant for any sort of technological progress or curiosity. The Canary island natives could even have been descendants of very early shipwrecked sailors, or of adventurous Berber hunter-gatherer-fishermen people who made the trip all on their own. They may have forgotten how to make boats because they did not need them?

 

[Herbert West]

Canarians were much more primitive. They didn't try to build anything or make much of any demands on their environment.

Sadly, there is no such society. Every society will reach the bounds of its support environment with exponential speed. Then, you either curtail the population (afaik, a few Micronesian tribes manage to live jut at the edge of the support power by throwing excess babies into the sea), or you start to alter the bounds, be that agriculture, or overusage of the environment.

So, in either case, you have rather large man-made changes in flora and fauna, and/or large structures, paintings, that stuff, or you have a population that dies out due to overusage, which will leave graves, equipment, and so on.

A third option might be a constant tribal warfare keeping the lid on the population, but again, that leaves plenty of archeological finds.

I rather doubt that a whole, self-sufficient slave colony could wind up unnoticed by everyone.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Although I always thought it made perfect sense that regardless of their origin, the Canarian islanders would regress to stone age primitivism... isolation and confinement in a not-too-dangerous environment does that to people. Even without slave trade. Check out the Tasman islanders - they started out as migrants from the Australian mainland who must have known hunting and fishing techniques, yet when the British found them, they had regressed so much they did not know how to fish any more, and their tools had become even more primitive than those of the Australian aborigines.

But how long were Tasmanians there?

The puzzle of the Canarians is the very short length of time between their estimated arrival & their 'forgetfulness' - just a few centuries.

And not natural to forget. If they ever knew about seafaring, they certainly had enough reasons & means not to forget it. They had plenty of wood to build canoes, rafts and whatnot. They were surrounded by water, other islands were visible on a clear day; and surely fireplace smoke would have indicated "other people" lived out there.

It just seems to suggest they never knew - meaning, they were inland stone age pastroalists of some sort who were ferried out there by someone else. Voluntarily or unvoluntarily.

My Carthaginian slave gulags maybe a stretch. It is possible the Phoenicians/Carthaginians just dropped them off (along with some livestock) in the vague hope they'd prepare the islands for future colonization. And then just forgot about them.

Or even more simply: just penal transportation of "troublemakers" from the hinterlands. Britain had Australia. Why not Carthage have Canaries?

 

[Jos de trol]

interesting

maybe they had a big fall out between the island communities and afterwards they only remembered not so seek contact with the other islands because "evil lurked there" or whatever propaganda