What led some people to (correctly) believe that there was no land under the ice cap at the North Pole?
In the 1595 Map of the Arctic, Mercator shows the North Pole as having a substantial landmass surrounding a rock.
Source: Wikipedia
A little over a hundred years later, Guillaume de L'Isle's 1714 map (updated 1741) of the Arctic regions shows no land beneath the polar ice cap.
Source: Wikipedia
Apparently, Guillaume de L'Isle was not the only person to believe there was no substantial landmass under the Arctic ice cap. Wikipedia's article on the North Pole states:
As early as the 16th century, many prominent people correctly believed
that the North Pole was in a sea
In the absence of solid proof provided by modern scientific techniques such as bathymetric measurements of the sea floor, what led de L'Isle and others to believe there was no land under the Arctic ice cap?
early-modern arctic
asked Dec 17 at 15:49
Lars Bosteen
37.3k8180243
add a comment |
In the 1595 Map of the Arctic, Mercator shows the North Pole as having a substantial landmass surrounding a rock.
Source: Wikipedia
A little over a hundred years later, Guillaume de L'Isle's 1714 map (updated 1741) of the Arctic regions shows no land beneath the polar ice cap.
Source: Wikipedia
Apparently, Guillaume de L'Isle was not the only person to believe there was no substantial landmass under the Arctic ice cap. Wikipedia's article on the North Pole states:
As early as the 16th century, many prominent people correctly believed
that the North Pole was in a sea
In the absence of solid proof provided by modern scientific techniques such as bathymetric measurements of the sea floor, what led de L'Isle and others to believe there was no land under the Arctic ice cap?
early-modern arctic
asked Dec 17 at 15:49
Lars Bosteen
37.3k8180243
10
Point of order; that second map doesn't actually show the pole is free of land. It shows the mapmaker doesn't know how far north Greenland goes.
– Joshua
Dec 17 at 23:04
2
There is land under the North Pole, it just happens to be covered with 4,000 meters (13,123 feet) of water AND some ice.
– James Jenkins
Dec 18 at 18:41
Was the omission of Alaska from his map motivated any differently from the omission of land at the North Pole?
– Aaron Brick
Dec 18 at 18:58
@AaronBrick: Perhaps, because James Cook and George Vancouver weren't born yet, there was insufficient knowledge of the Alaska coastline for a mapmaker with obvious high standards to venture on an outline. Ivan Fyodorov didn't reach Alaska until 1732 according to Wikipedia, nearly two decades after first publication of he second map.
– Pieter Geerkens
Dec 18 at 22:23
1
@PieterGeerkens Yes. Mercator was more willing to imagine coastlines than de l'Isle.
– Aaron Brick
Dec 19 at 23:49
add a comment |
In the 1595 Map of the Arctic, Mercator shows the North Pole as having a substantial landmass surrounding a rock.
Source: Wikipedia
A little over a hundred years later, Guillaume de L'Isle's 1714 map (updated 1741) of the Arctic regions shows no land beneath the polar ice cap.
Source: Wikipedia
Apparently, Guillaume de L'Isle was not the only person to believe there was no substantial landmass under the Arctic ice cap. Wikipedia's article on the North Pole states:
As early as the 16th century, many prominent people correctly believed
that the North Pole was in a sea
In the absence of solid proof provided by modern scientific techniques such as bathymetric measurements of the sea floor, what led de L'Isle and others to believe there was no land under the Arctic ice cap?
early-modern arctic
asked Dec 17 at 15:49
Lars Bosteen
37.3k8180243
In the 1595 Map of the Arctic, Mercator shows the North Pole as having a substantial landmass surrounding a rock.
Source: Wikipedia
A little over a hundred years later, Guillaume de L'Isle's 1714 map (updated 1741) of the Arctic regions shows no land beneath the polar ice cap.
Source: Wikipedia
Apparently, Guillaume de L'Isle was not the only person to believe there was no substantial landmass under the Arctic ice cap. Wikipedia's article on the North Pole states:
As early as the 16th century, many prominent people correctly believed
that the North Pole was in a sea
In the absence of solid proof provided by modern scientific techniques such as bathymetric measurements of the sea floor, what led de L'Isle and others to believe there was no land under the Arctic ice cap?
early-modern arctic
early-modern arctic
asked Dec 17 at 15:49
Lars Bosteen
37.3k8180243
asked Dec 17 at 15:49
Lars Bosteen
37.3k8180243
asked Dec 17 at 15:49
Lars Bosteen
37.3k8180243
asked Dec 17 at 15:49
Lars Bosteen
37.3k8180243
asked Dec 17 at 15:49
Lars Bosteen
37.3k8180243
37.3k8180243
10
Point of order; that second map doesn't actually show the pole is free of land. It shows the mapmaker doesn't know how far north Greenland goes.
– Joshua
Dec 17 at 23:04
2
There is land under the North Pole, it just happens to be covered with 4,000 meters (13,123 feet) of water AND some ice.
– James Jenkins
Dec 18 at 18:41
Was the omission of Alaska from his map motivated any differently from the omission of land at the North Pole?
– Aaron Brick
Dec 18 at 18:58
@AaronBrick: Perhaps, because James Cook and George Vancouver weren't born yet, there was insufficient knowledge of the Alaska coastline for a mapmaker with obvious high standards to venture on an outline. Ivan Fyodorov didn't reach Alaska until 1732 according to Wikipedia, nearly two decades after first publication of he second map.
– Pieter Geerkens
Dec 18 at 22:23
1
@PieterGeerkens Yes. Mercator was more willing to imagine coastlines than de l'Isle.
– Aaron Brick
Dec 19 at 23:49
add a comment |
10
Point of order; that second map doesn't actually show the pole is free of land. It shows the mapmaker doesn't know how far north Greenland goes.
– Joshua
Dec 17 at 23:04
2
There is land under the North Pole, it just happens to be covered with 4,000 meters (13,123 feet) of water AND some ice.
– James Jenkins
Dec 18 at 18:41
Was the omission of Alaska from his map motivated any differently from the omission of land at the North Pole?
– Aaron Brick
Dec 18 at 18:58
@AaronBrick: Perhaps, because James Cook and George Vancouver weren't born yet, there was insufficient knowledge of the Alaska coastline for a mapmaker with obvious high standards to venture on an outline. Ivan Fyodorov didn't reach Alaska until 1732 according to Wikipedia, nearly two decades after first publication of he second map.
– Pieter Geerkens
Dec 18 at 22:23
1
@PieterGeerkens Yes. Mercator was more willing to imagine coastlines than de l'Isle.
– Aaron Brick
Dec 19 at 23:49
10
10
Point of order; that second map doesn't actually show the pole is free of land. It shows the mapmaker doesn't know how far north Greenland goes.
– Joshua
Dec 17 at 23:04
Point of order; that second map doesn't actually show the pole is free of land. It shows the mapmaker doesn't know how far north Greenland goes.
– Joshua
Dec 17 at 23:04
2
2
There is land under the North Pole, it just happens to be covered with 4,000 meters (13,123 feet) of water AND some ice.
– James Jenkins
Dec 18 at 18:41
There is land under the North Pole, it just happens to be covered with 4,000 meters (13,123 feet) of water AND some ice.
– James Jenkins
Dec 18 at 18:41
Was the omission of Alaska from his map motivated any differently from the omission of land at the North Pole?
– Aaron Brick
Dec 18 at 18:58
Was the omission of Alaska from his map motivated any differently from the omission of land at the North Pole?
– Aaron Brick
Dec 18 at 18:58
@AaronBrick: Perhaps, because James Cook and George Vancouver weren't born yet, there was insufficient knowledge of the Alaska coastline for a mapmaker with obvious high standards to venture on an outline. Ivan Fyodorov didn't reach Alaska until 1732 according to Wikipedia, nearly two decades after first publication of he second map.
– Pieter Geerkens
Dec 18 at 22:23
@AaronBrick: Perhaps, because James Cook and George Vancouver weren't born yet, there was insufficient knowledge of the Alaska coastline for a mapmaker with obvious high standards to venture on an outline. Ivan Fyodorov didn't reach Alaska until 1732 according to Wikipedia, nearly two decades after first publication of he second map.
– Pieter Geerkens
Dec 18 at 22:23
1
1
@PieterGeerkens Yes. Mercator was more willing to imagine coastlines than de l'Isle.
– Aaron Brick
Dec 19 at 23:49
@PieterGeerkens Yes. Mercator was more willing to imagine coastlines than de l'Isle.
– Aaron Brick
Dec 19 at 23:49
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The answer lies in your second map, and the extensive exploration of Siberia's Arctic sea coast through the 1600's in search of a Northern Passage. Note how well mapped that area has become in the intervening century.
Russian settlers and traders on the coasts of the White Sea, the Pomors, had been exploring parts of the northeast passage as early as the 11th century. By the 17th century they established a continuous sea route from Arkhangelsk as far east as the mouth of Yenisey. This route, known as Mangazeya seaway, after its eastern terminus, the trade depot of Mangazeya, was an early precursor to the Northern Sea Route.
Further, the process by which icebergs are formed by calving from glaciers was well known. The absence of large icebergs in the Arctic Ocean north of the Kara Sea would have strongly suggested the absence of any glaciers, and thus any land, in that corner of the world.
Update
In regards a comment about the sinking of the Titanic:
Titanic sank just south of Iceberg Alley, off the southern tail of the Grand Banks. That is ~1900 km south of Greenland, and ~3800 km south of the Arctic Ocean north of Iceland and Ellesmere Island.
answered Dec 17 at 16:16
Pieter Geerkens
39.2k6116187
3
TL;DR: (TIL) because there's no icebergs.
– Mazura
Dec 18 at 2:26
2
@Mazura: Not just that there were no icebergs - but also that they knew with great certainty that there were no icebergs.
– Pieter Geerkens
Dec 18 at 2:30
1
Well, in 1912 they found out there exist icebergs large enough to sink a 270 meter ship made of steel.
– Damon
Dec 18 at 14:57
5
@Damon That iceberg calved off a glacier in Greenland and floated down into the North Atlantic, where icebergs can be found. Pieter Geerkens says there are no icebergs in the Arctic Ocean, a thousand miles north of where the Titanic sank, just pack ice a foot or two thick, which implies there are no glaciers or land in the Arctic Ocean. I don't know if his answer is correct, but your objection to it is clearly wrong.
– MAGolding
Dec 18 at 15:02
@Damon: Titanic sank just south of Iceberg Alley, at the southern tail of the Grand Banks. That is ~1900 km south of Greenland, and ~3800 km south of the Arctic Ocean north of Iceland.
– Pieter Geerkens
Dec 18 at 15:16
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "324"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f50193%2fwhat-led-some-people-to-correctly-believe-that-there-was-no-land-under-the-ice%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The answer lies in your second map, and the extensive exploration of Siberia's Arctic sea coast through the 1600's in search of a Northern Passage. Note how well mapped that area has become in the intervening century.
Russian settlers and traders on the coasts of the White Sea, the Pomors, had been exploring parts of the northeast passage as early as the 11th century. By the 17th century they established a continuous sea route from Arkhangelsk as far east as the mouth of Yenisey. This route, known as Mangazeya seaway, after its eastern terminus, the trade depot of Mangazeya, was an early precursor to the Northern Sea Route.
Further, the process by which icebergs are formed by calving from glaciers was well known. The absence of large icebergs in the Arctic Ocean north of the Kara Sea would have strongly suggested the absence of any glaciers, and thus any land, in that corner of the world.
Update
In regards a comment about the sinking of the Titanic:
Titanic sank just south of Iceberg Alley, off the southern tail of the Grand Banks. That is ~1900 km south of Greenland, and ~3800 km south of the Arctic Ocean north of Iceland and Ellesmere Island.
answered Dec 17 at 16:16
Pieter Geerkens
39.2k6116187
3
TL;DR: (TIL) because there's no icebergs.
– Mazura
Dec 18 at 2:26
2
@Mazura: Not just that there were no icebergs - but also that they knew with great certainty that there were no icebergs.
– Pieter Geerkens
Dec 18 at 2:30
1
Well, in 1912 they found out there exist icebergs large enough to sink a 270 meter ship made of steel.
– Damon
Dec 18 at 14:57
5
@Damon That iceberg calved off a glacier in Greenland and floated down into the North Atlantic, where icebergs can be found. Pieter Geerkens says there are no icebergs in the Arctic Ocean, a thousand miles north of where the Titanic sank, just pack ice a foot or two thick, which implies there are no glaciers or land in the Arctic Ocean. I don't know if his answer is correct, but your objection to it is clearly wrong.
– MAGolding
Dec 18 at 15:02
@Damon: Titanic sank just south of Iceberg Alley, at the southern tail of the Grand Banks. That is ~1900 km south of Greenland, and ~3800 km south of the Arctic Ocean north of Iceland.
– Pieter Geerkens
Dec 18 at 15:16
add a comment |
The answer lies in your second map, and the extensive exploration of Siberia's Arctic sea coast through the 1600's in search of a Northern Passage. Note how well mapped that area has become in the intervening century.
Russian settlers and traders on the coasts of the White Sea, the Pomors, had been exploring parts of the northeast passage as early as the 11th century. By the 17th century they established a continuous sea route from Arkhangelsk as far east as the mouth of Yenisey. This route, known as Mangazeya seaway, after its eastern terminus, the trade depot of Mangazeya, was an early precursor to the Northern Sea Route.
Further, the process by which icebergs are formed by calving from glaciers was well known. The absence of large icebergs in the Arctic Ocean north of the Kara Sea would have strongly suggested the absence of any glaciers, and thus any land, in that corner of the world.
Update
In regards a comment about the sinking of the Titanic:
Titanic sank just south of Iceberg Alley, off the southern tail of the Grand Banks. That is ~1900 km south of Greenland, and ~3800 km south of the Arctic Ocean north of Iceland and Ellesmere Island.
answered Dec 17 at 16:16
Pieter Geerkens
39.2k6116187
3
TL;DR: (TIL) because there's no icebergs.
– Mazura
Dec 18 at 2:26
2
@Mazura: Not just that there were no icebergs - but also that they knew with great certainty that there were no icebergs.
– Pieter Geerkens
Dec 18 at 2:30
1
Well, in 1912 they found out there exist icebergs large enough to sink a 270 meter ship made of steel.
– Damon
Dec 18 at 14:57
5
@Damon That iceberg calved off a glacier in Greenland and floated down into the North Atlantic, where icebergs can be found. Pieter Geerkens says there are no icebergs in the Arctic Ocean, a thousand miles north of where the Titanic sank, just pack ice a foot or two thick, which implies there are no glaciers or land in the Arctic Ocean. I don't know if his answer is correct, but your objection to it is clearly wrong.
– MAGolding
Dec 18 at 15:02
@Damon: Titanic sank just south of Iceberg Alley, at the southern tail of the Grand Banks. That is ~1900 km south of Greenland, and ~3800 km south of the Arctic Ocean north of Iceland.
– Pieter Geerkens
Dec 18 at 15:16
add a comment |
The answer lies in your second map, and the extensive exploration of Siberia's Arctic sea coast through the 1600's in search of a Northern Passage. Note how well mapped that area has become in the intervening century.
Russian settlers and traders on the coasts of the White Sea, the Pomors, had been exploring parts of the northeast passage as early as the 11th century. By the 17th century they established a continuous sea route from Arkhangelsk as far east as the mouth of Yenisey. This route, known as Mangazeya seaway, after its eastern terminus, the trade depot of Mangazeya, was an early precursor to the Northern Sea Route.
Further, the process by which icebergs are formed by calving from glaciers was well known. The absence of large icebergs in the Arctic Ocean north of the Kara Sea would have strongly suggested the absence of any glaciers, and thus any land, in that corner of the world.
Update
In regards a comment about the sinking of the Titanic:
Titanic sank just south of Iceberg Alley, off the southern tail of the Grand Banks. That is ~1900 km south of Greenland, and ~3800 km south of the Arctic Ocean north of Iceland and Ellesmere Island.
answered Dec 17 at 16:16
Pieter Geerkens
39.2k6116187
The answer lies in your second map, and the extensive exploration of Siberia's Arctic sea coast through the 1600's in search of a Northern Passage. Note how well mapped that area has become in the intervening century.
Russian settlers and traders on the coasts of the White Sea, the Pomors, had been exploring parts of the northeast passage as early as the 11th century. By the 17th century they established a continuous sea route from Arkhangelsk as far east as the mouth of Yenisey. This route, known as Mangazeya seaway, after its eastern terminus, the trade depot of Mangazeya, was an early precursor to the Northern Sea Route.
Further, the process by which icebergs are formed by calving from glaciers was well known. The absence of large icebergs in the Arctic Ocean north of the Kara Sea would have strongly suggested the absence of any glaciers, and thus any land, in that corner of the world.
Update
In regards a comment about the sinking of the Titanic:
Titanic sank just south of Iceberg Alley, off the southern tail of the Grand Banks. That is ~1900 km south of Greenland, and ~3800 km south of the Arctic Ocean north of Iceland and Ellesmere Island.
answered Dec 17 at 16:16
Pieter Geerkens
39.2k6116187
edited Dec 18 at 15:19
answered Dec 17 at 16:16
Pieter Geerkens
39.2k6116187
answered Dec 17 at 16:16
Pieter Geerkens
39.2k6116187
answered Dec 17 at 16:16
Pieter Geerkens
39.2k6116187
39.2k6116187
3
TL;DR: (TIL) because there's no icebergs.
– Mazura
Dec 18 at 2:26
2
@Mazura: Not just that there were no icebergs - but also that they knew with great certainty that there were no icebergs.
– Pieter Geerkens
Dec 18 at 2:30
1
Well, in 1912 they found out there exist icebergs large enough to sink a 270 meter ship made of steel.
– Damon
Dec 18 at 14:57
5
@Damon That iceberg calved off a glacier in Greenland and floated down into the North Atlantic, where icebergs can be found. Pieter Geerkens says there are no icebergs in the Arctic Ocean, a thousand miles north of where the Titanic sank, just pack ice a foot or two thick, which implies there are no glaciers or land in the Arctic Ocean. I don't know if his answer is correct, but your objection to it is clearly wrong.
– MAGolding
Dec 18 at 15:02
@Damon: Titanic sank just south of Iceberg Alley, at the southern tail of the Grand Banks. That is ~1900 km south of Greenland, and ~3800 km south of the Arctic Ocean north of Iceland.
– Pieter Geerkens
Dec 18 at 15:16
add a comment |
3
TL;DR: (TIL) because there's no icebergs.
– Mazura
Dec 18 at 2:26
2
@Mazura: Not just that there were no icebergs - but also that they knew with great certainty that there were no icebergs.
– Pieter Geerkens
Dec 18 at 2:30
1
Well, in 1912 they found out there exist icebergs large enough to sink a 270 meter ship made of steel.
– Damon
Dec 18 at 14:57
5
@Damon That iceberg calved off a glacier in Greenland and floated down into the North Atlantic, where icebergs can be found. Pieter Geerkens says there are no icebergs in the Arctic Ocean, a thousand miles north of where the Titanic sank, just pack ice a foot or two thick, which implies there are no glaciers or land in the Arctic Ocean. I don't know if his answer is correct, but your objection to it is clearly wrong.
– MAGolding
Dec 18 at 15:02
@Damon: Titanic sank just south of Iceberg Alley, at the southern tail of the Grand Banks. That is ~1900 km south of Greenland, and ~3800 km south of the Arctic Ocean north of Iceland.
– Pieter Geerkens
Dec 18 at 15:16
3
3
TL;DR: (TIL) because there's no icebergs.
– Mazura
Dec 18 at 2:26
TL;DR: (TIL) because there's no icebergs.
– Mazura
Dec 18 at 2:26
2
2
@Mazura: Not just that there were no icebergs - but also that they knew with great certainty that there were no icebergs.
– Pieter Geerkens
Dec 18 at 2:30
@Mazura: Not just that there were no icebergs - but also that they knew with great certainty that there were no icebergs.
– Pieter Geerkens
Dec 18 at 2:30
1
1
Well, in 1912 they found out there exist icebergs large enough to sink a 270 meter ship made of steel.
– Damon
Dec 18 at 14:57
Well, in 1912 they found out there exist icebergs large enough to sink a 270 meter ship made of steel.
– Damon
Dec 18 at 14:57
5
5
@Damon That iceberg calved off a glacier in Greenland and floated down into the North Atlantic, where icebergs can be found. Pieter Geerkens says there are no icebergs in the Arctic Ocean, a thousand miles north of where the Titanic sank, just pack ice a foot or two thick, which implies there are no glaciers or land in the Arctic Ocean. I don't know if his answer is correct, but your objection to it is clearly wrong.
– MAGolding
Dec 18 at 15:02
@Damon That iceberg calved off a glacier in Greenland and floated down into the North Atlantic, where icebergs can be found. Pieter Geerkens says there are no icebergs in the Arctic Ocean, a thousand miles north of where the Titanic sank, just pack ice a foot or two thick, which implies there are no glaciers or land in the Arctic Ocean. I don't know if his answer is correct, but your objection to it is clearly wrong.
– MAGolding
Dec 18 at 15:02
@Damon: Titanic sank just south of Iceberg Alley, at the southern tail of the Grand Banks. That is ~1900 km south of Greenland, and ~3800 km south of the Arctic Ocean north of Iceland.
– Pieter Geerkens
Dec 18 at 15:16
@Damon: Titanic sank just south of Iceberg Alley, at the southern tail of the Grand Banks. That is ~1900 km south of Greenland, and ~3800 km south of the Arctic Ocean north of Iceland.
– Pieter Geerkens
Dec 18 at 15:16
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f50193%2fwhat-led-some-people-to-correctly-believe-that-there-was-no-land-under-the-ice%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
10
Point of order; that second map doesn't actually show the pole is free of land. It shows the mapmaker doesn't know how far north Greenland goes.
– Joshua
Dec 17 at 23:04
2
There is land under the North Pole, it just happens to be covered with 4,000 meters (13,123 feet) of water AND some ice.
– James Jenkins
Dec 18 at 18:41
Was the omission of Alaska from his map motivated any differently from the omission of land at the North Pole?
– Aaron Brick
Dec 18 at 18:58
@AaronBrick: Perhaps, because James Cook and George Vancouver weren't born yet, there was insufficient knowledge of the Alaska coastline for a mapmaker with obvious high standards to venture on an outline. Ivan Fyodorov didn't reach Alaska until 1732 according to Wikipedia, nearly two decades after first publication of he second map.
– Pieter Geerkens
Dec 18 at 22:23
1
@PieterGeerkens Yes. Mercator was more willing to imagine coastlines than de l'Isle.
– Aaron Brick
Dec 19 at 23:49