Hoax Museum Archives
Hoax Museum Hall of Fame
|
Is Marquette’s Map a Hoax?
Status: Undetermined
Father Jacques Marquette was a 17th-century priest and explorer. He accompanied Louis Jolliet on an expedition into the midwest in 1673 where they became the first Europeans to see the Mississippi River. Unfortunately most of the records of this expedition were lost on the return journey on account of an overturned canoe. But not all the records. In 1844 a map, apparently drawn by Marquette, was found hidden away in the archive at College Sainte-Marie in Montreal. This map was immediately recognized as "the earliest map of the American Midwest and the best proof of the 1673 discovery of the Mississippi River by two French-Canadian explorers." But is the map real? Some don't think so, particularly Carl Weber, a history professor at DeVry University. Weber argues that the Jesuits "determined to assert the primacy of the religious order's role in the exploration of North America, probably concocted the map to bolster Marquette's place in history." As evidence he points out that 1) it's undeniable that the map "emerged all of a sudden out of nowhere in the middle of the 1800s." That alone makes it suspicious. But also 2) it's far more accurate than one would expect for a map drawn in 1673. Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 4 of 4 pages « First < 2 3 4
my quote material did not make it to the site. Here it is:
McCafferty's article in "Proceedings of the Algonquian Conference"
Bernou questionnaire "une relation...avec la carte du R. p. Marquette".
bon au revoir!
Posted by lafvigne sylvie on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 05:41 AM
McCafferty's article in "Proceedings of the Algonquian Conference"
Bernou questionnaire "une relation...avec la carte du R. p. Marquette".
bon au revoir!
I'll have to reply more fully later. For now, see what's under development at
http://carljweber.com/late17thCenturyMaps.html
Whatever contributions one might have, please pass them on -- but please include citations. That inclusion has been somewhat lacking on this blog.
Sylvie, do you see rapids on the Marquette Map? There is not much on this map to interpret. Please help. Do you have a background in this material? or are you relying completely on Mr. McCafferty extensive background. I'm sure everyone would be pleased to see full citation forms for the items you mention. These blogs would better be thought of as a discussion, not a debate -- I'm sure at least a few people are interested, but bringing 21st century politics into late 17th century history is, in my opinion, unnecessary argumentation.
Posted by Carl J. Weber on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 06:33 AM
http://carljweber.com/late17thCenturyMaps.html
Whatever contributions one might have, please pass them on -- but please include citations. That inclusion has been somewhat lacking on this blog.
Sylvie, do you see rapids on the Marquette Map? There is not much on this map to interpret. Please help. Do you have a background in this material? or are you relying completely on Mr. McCafferty extensive background. I'm sure everyone would be pleased to see full citation forms for the items you mention. These blogs would better be thought of as a discussion, not a debate -- I'm sure at least a few people are interested, but bringing 21st century politics into late 17th century history is, in my opinion, unnecessary argumentation.
Sylvie gave the citations to me and to Alain Rocquet.
I have a good copy of Marquette's map and can see exactly what McCafferty is talk about. Very nice! Excellent! Wow!!!! This is very cool.
It is true that these blogs would be a nice place for discussion, but Mr Weber, you have set the tone, her--and elsewhere, as we have noticed.
Don't play coy now that you have opened up your own can of worm.
Although she say that she shall not return to this site, many thanks to Sylvie for pursuing these matter, for talking to Dr. McCafferty, and for sending me the full citations for Bernou, Frontenac, etc. I'm going to be in France next spring and look forward to seeing the Bernou material.
I probably sign off, too, from this site. Better thing to do in the world than read this blog and the strange ideas that Mr Weber expels.
Best,
Arsenault, Serge
Posted by Arsenault, Serge in Montreal on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 06:51 AM
I have a good copy of Marquette's map and can see exactly what McCafferty is talk about. Very nice! Excellent! Wow!!!! This is very cool.
It is true that these blogs would be a nice place for discussion, but Mr Weber, you have set the tone, her--and elsewhere, as we have noticed.
Don't play coy now that you have opened up your own can of worm.
Although she say that she shall not return to this site, many thanks to Sylvie for pursuing these matter, for talking to Dr. McCafferty, and for sending me the full citations for Bernou, Frontenac, etc. I'm going to be in France next spring and look forward to seeing the Bernou material.
I probably sign off, too, from this site. Better thing to do in the world than read this blog and the strange ideas that Mr Weber expels.
Best,
Arsenault, Serge
Also, Sylvie send me and M. Roquet digital copy of Marquettes letter to F. Oliva, 1666.
It is fantastic! Very nice! It is Marquette's cursive handwriting, beyond question, that we find in his second journal and in his map.
Salut,
S-F Arsenault
Posted by Arsenault, Serge on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 06:57 AM
It is fantastic! Very nice! It is Marquette's cursive handwriting, beyond question, that we find in his second journal and in his map.
Salut,
S-F Arsenault
I want to add some remarks about the map of Father Raffeix.
According to Winsor, the original map is archived at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris. Winsor dates it to 1688 but he also says that this is simply Harisse's dating. He also says that Kohl places it between the years 1681 and 88.
As Campeau so well explained in the "Cartes relatives a la decouverte...," Marquette's map, unfortunately, had little impact on cartography, *even Jesuit cartography* as we see quite well in the Manitoumi maps. The problem is that once Jolliet, with the mapmaker Franquelin's help, established the incorrect portrayal of the Mississippi, the flow of events in 17th-century cartography left Marquette's map in the backwaters. As McCafferty pointed out to me last night, and according to Esarey, nobody really knew, even Jesuits like Raffeix, what was right or what was wrong with Marquette's map once Jolliet and Franquelin started turning out maps. According to Esarey, "Chaos won out."
Alain Rocquet
Posted by Rocquet, Alain in Plattsburg on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 04:41 AM
According to Winsor, the original map is archived at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris. Winsor dates it to 1688 but he also says that this is simply Harisse's dating. He also says that Kohl places it between the years 1681 and 88.
As Campeau so well explained in the "Cartes relatives a la decouverte...," Marquette's map, unfortunately, had little impact on cartography, *even Jesuit cartography* as we see quite well in the Manitoumi maps. The problem is that once Jolliet, with the mapmaker Franquelin's help, established the incorrect portrayal of the Mississippi, the flow of events in 17th-century cartography left Marquette's map in the backwaters. As McCafferty pointed out to me last night, and according to Esarey, nobody really knew, even Jesuits like Raffeix, what was right or what was wrong with Marquette's map once Jolliet and Franquelin started turning out maps. According to Esarey, "Chaos won out."
Alain Rocquet
Part 1
Re: Father Raffeix’ map.
Alain Rocquet said
>>>
According to Winsor, the original map is archived at the Bibliotheque
Nationale in Paris. Winsor dates it to 1688 but he also says that this
is simply Harisse's dating. He also says that Kohl places it between the
years 1681 and 88.
>>>
The after-the-year 1681 seems right, because there is a reference to that year (in conjunction with La Salle) on the map... it would have been December, 1681. But for myself, unless there is some information otherwise, I’ll have to hold and limit my dating of the map to the post-1681 generalization. See this map at http://carljweber.com/Raffeix.htm -- consequently Lionel Lindsay at the Catholic Encyclopedia missed the right year when he said 1676.
(http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/r/raffeix,pierre.html).
Franquelin is variously said, by different historians, to have helped Jolliet with several maps – the Thévenot (published in 1681, which is, as the beginner knows, a Manitoumie based map); another is the map discovered by Gravier and published in 1880 (where Jolliet’s name is spelled with one ‘l’, and the hyper-ornate script is quite inexpertly slanted)– citations available if anyone likes. SEE NEXT POST
Posted by Carl J. Weber on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 06:56 AM
Re: Father Raffeix’ map.
Alain Rocquet said
>>>
According to Winsor, the original map is archived at the Bibliotheque
Nationale in Paris. Winsor dates it to 1688 but he also says that this
is simply Harisse's dating. He also says that Kohl places it between the
years 1681 and 88.
>>>
The after-the-year 1681 seems right, because there is a reference to that year (in conjunction with La Salle) on the map... it would have been December, 1681. But for myself, unless there is some information otherwise, I’ll have to hold and limit my dating of the map to the post-1681 generalization. See this map at http://carljweber.com/Raffeix.htm -- consequently Lionel Lindsay at the Catholic Encyclopedia missed the right year when he said 1676.
(http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/r/raffeix,pierre.html).
Franquelin is variously said, by different historians, to have helped Jolliet with several maps – the Thévenot (published in 1681, which is, as the beginner knows, a Manitoumie based map); another is the map discovered by Gravier and published in 1880 (where Jolliet’s name is spelled with one ‘l’, and the hyper-ornate script is quite inexpertly slanted)– citations available if anyone likes. SEE NEXT POST
Part 2
I have seen nothing in the original source documents to tie Jolliet to Franquelin, except for his taking Franquelin’s place as the hydrographer (i.e., cartographer) of Canada. There appears to be no more than educated guessing about these two maps and a Jolliet/Franquelin connection. Please inform me otherwise, if you know of one in source documents. However, there IS a map, put up recently on the Library of Congress, that by the style of the map IS a Franquelin-assisted Jolliet map. Although there is nothing solid, it appears to be a map that fell into British hands, and the errors in the text, in English script, on the map, jump out as obvious. The interesting point is that there are camels and ostriches on the map – and in a La Salle document in Margry (I believe a manuscript document), La Salle points out the error of Jolliet’s ways. La Salle alludes to Jolliet’s saying he saw camels and ostriches on his, Jolliet's, voyage. As we know, different historians use different names for these period maps. If this map has been described by any of our decades-past historians, I missed it – please let me know references to it. Certainly “chaos has won out” in OUR day.
There are about a-half-a-dozen Manitoumie related maps. I’m going to put them all in one place in the near future for those interested to look at. The posting above this one says that Marquette’s Autograph map remained “backwater” – how can we know this other than – if the map is authentic – the “backwater” conclusion is the only one that fits, so it must be true? If the map is authentic, what could an explanation be for it not geting sent to Jesuit Superior Dablon in Quebec? And moreover, why was it not included in the “Marquette Stuff” envelope Dablon is said to have received? If the map is authentic, is this “remained in the backwaters” a mystery that it appears we can only guess about? Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
Posted by carljweber on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 07:00 AM
I have seen nothing in the original source documents to tie Jolliet to Franquelin, except for his taking Franquelin’s place as the hydrographer (i.e., cartographer) of Canada. There appears to be no more than educated guessing about these two maps and a Jolliet/Franquelin connection. Please inform me otherwise, if you know of one in source documents. However, there IS a map, put up recently on the Library of Congress, that by the style of the map IS a Franquelin-assisted Jolliet map. Although there is nothing solid, it appears to be a map that fell into British hands, and the errors in the text, in English script, on the map, jump out as obvious. The interesting point is that there are camels and ostriches on the map – and in a La Salle document in Margry (I believe a manuscript document), La Salle points out the error of Jolliet’s ways. La Salle alludes to Jolliet’s saying he saw camels and ostriches on his, Jolliet's, voyage. As we know, different historians use different names for these period maps. If this map has been described by any of our decades-past historians, I missed it – please let me know references to it. Certainly “chaos has won out” in OUR day.
There are about a-half-a-dozen Manitoumie related maps. I’m going to put them all in one place in the near future for those interested to look at. The posting above this one says that Marquette’s Autograph map remained “backwater” – how can we know this other than – if the map is authentic – the “backwater” conclusion is the only one that fits, so it must be true? If the map is authentic, what could an explanation be for it not geting sent to Jesuit Superior Dablon in Quebec? And moreover, why was it not included in the “Marquette Stuff” envelope Dablon is said to have received? If the map is authentic, is this “remained in the backwaters” a mystery that it appears we can only guess about? Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
Once again, Mr. Weber's tone expresses the heights of arrogance. Here we have a self-anointed "expert" on all things New France, although of dubious educational and formational background and credentials, some sort of ex-adjunct faculty member of some technical institute, passing himself off as a "professor of history," no doctoral degree, by the way, with no standing anyone is aware of or with any
detectable respect in the academic world, recently humiliated at the Illinois historical
conference, whose work is untouchable in the eyes of refereed academic journal editors,
and who pontificates to the world his "expertise" **as if his opinions mattered**.
However, Weber certainly knows how to created pretty neat websites. Gotta hand to him that. But, of course, this is the only means by which he can get his aberrant ideas out into the public arena. So be it. *Nobody is impressed*.
Has Weber ever once cited Delanglez or Campeau, erstwhile scholars who went beyond bias and prejudice? Does he just toss out the window the truly incredible scholarship of these two giants? Does he cite Delanglez's work concerning Franquelin and Jolliet. Campeau's? And whenever the heat intensifies around him, what does he do? He cries "ad hominen attack!" when in fact he needs a good course in Delanglez, Campeau and the ability to read French documents, not to mention a trip to Paris and Rome. This boy needs a planet ticket!
What we have here in Weber is simply Father Steck's reincarnation but worse. But, again, here we have also someone whose strategy
is to not responde to excellent points, as for example those made by Lavigne the other
day. Zero for responsiveness. Why?
Mr. Weber has an agenda. He's a huckster, a hawker, with an agenda to push. No one should be confused about this at all. He has an agenda, a set of preconceived ideas that he intends to foist onto the public, the devil be damned. Mr. Weber skirts around any discussion of evidence that might show the emperor is not wearing no clothes, hoping that readers will not notice
or remember.
Posted by Yvette Bertrand in Ste-Agathe-des Monts, P.Q. on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:20 AM
detectable respect in the academic world, recently humiliated at the Illinois historical
conference, whose work is untouchable in the eyes of refereed academic journal editors,
and who pontificates to the world his "expertise" **as if his opinions mattered**.
However, Weber certainly knows how to created pretty neat websites. Gotta hand to him that. But, of course, this is the only means by which he can get his aberrant ideas out into the public arena. So be it. *Nobody is impressed*.
Has Weber ever once cited Delanglez or Campeau, erstwhile scholars who went beyond bias and prejudice? Does he just toss out the window the truly incredible scholarship of these two giants? Does he cite Delanglez's work concerning Franquelin and Jolliet. Campeau's? And whenever the heat intensifies around him, what does he do? He cries "ad hominen attack!" when in fact he needs a good course in Delanglez, Campeau and the ability to read French documents, not to mention a trip to Paris and Rome. This boy needs a planet ticket!
What we have here in Weber is simply Father Steck's reincarnation but worse. But, again, here we have also someone whose strategy
is to not responde to excellent points, as for example those made by Lavigne the other
day. Zero for responsiveness. Why?
Mr. Weber has an agenda. He's a huckster, a hawker, with an agenda to push. No one should be confused about this at all. He has an agenda, a set of preconceived ideas that he intends to foist onto the public, the devil be damned. Mr. Weber skirts around any discussion of evidence that might show the emperor is not wearing no clothes, hoping that readers will not notice
or remember.
continues:
Weber's approach is this: "Here's what I believe. Here's what I'll *choose* to present to you concerning my beliefs. Anything you say is
irrelevant, inferential and sub-primary-documentary, and of course wrong." End of story.
This website has sufficiently satisfied my curiosity and that of many folks I have shown it to. It's beyond any reasonable doubt that Marquette's map was done by Marquette.
On behalf of these people, I will offer thanks to Lavigne, Rocquet, McCafferty, Esarey and all who have devoted their time to helping us see
through these matters, and my "no thanks" to Weber for his useless ideas. The continued ignorance of his proclamations have encouraged me
to sign off.
But to end on a positive note, I did check out what appears to be Weber's only chance at historical recognition, which is the Griffon
thing. Someone mentioned this earlier. Since it's clear that he's not going to convince anyone except the errant misidentified "professor", the occassional unsuspecting publishers of Jesuit magazines, some unsuspecting journalists here and there concerning anything having to do with Marquette; he should concentrate his efforts on researching and laying out the particulars concerning the Griffon. In fact, an indepth paper on that topic by Weber, despite his lack of credentials and his lack of credibility in other topics, would probably make it into a refereed journal.
Ok. Time for me, too, to check out from this truly weird website.
Bonne journee a` tous,
Yvette Bertrand
Ste-Agathe-des-Monts
P.Q.
Posted by Yvette Bertrand in Ste-Agathe-des-Monts, P.Q. on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:21 AM
Weber's approach is this: "Here's what I believe. Here's what I'll *choose* to present to you concerning my beliefs. Anything you say is
irrelevant, inferential and sub-primary-documentary, and of course wrong." End of story.
This website has sufficiently satisfied my curiosity and that of many folks I have shown it to. It's beyond any reasonable doubt that Marquette's map was done by Marquette.
On behalf of these people, I will offer thanks to Lavigne, Rocquet, McCafferty, Esarey and all who have devoted their time to helping us see
through these matters, and my "no thanks" to Weber for his useless ideas. The continued ignorance of his proclamations have encouraged me
to sign off.
But to end on a positive note, I did check out what appears to be Weber's only chance at historical recognition, which is the Griffon
thing. Someone mentioned this earlier. Since it's clear that he's not going to convince anyone except the errant misidentified "professor", the occassional unsuspecting publishers of Jesuit magazines, some unsuspecting journalists here and there concerning anything having to do with Marquette; he should concentrate his efforts on researching and laying out the particulars concerning the Griffon. In fact, an indepth paper on that topic by Weber, despite his lack of credentials and his lack of credibility in other topics, would probably make it into a refereed journal.
Ok. Time for me, too, to check out from this truly weird website.
Bonne journee a` tous,
Yvette Bertrand
Ste-Agathe-des-Monts
P.Q.
I really like history but I hate learning sbout dunb old people that doesn't even matter, i mean who cares if they founded America or not the good thing is that we are still here and aren't going anywhere
Posted by Winni the pooh on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:09 AM
You're right... the more important thing, we are here and aren't going anywhere. Out of curiosity, what makes you "really like history"?
Posted by Carl J. Weber in Chicago area on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:34 AM
I noticed that the former adjunct faculty member of a technical institute has not responded with his academic and professional credentials. Perhaps even his publications in peer-reviewed
historical or cartographical journals would be pertinent.
Posted by Norman Catledge in Orlando, FL on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:30 PM
historical or cartographical journals would be pertinent.
Page 4 of 4 pages « First < 2 3 4