NavList:

   

Reply

I'm a bit puzzled by the latest posting from John Huth ("Apache runner")

In answering a question he has decoded some of the key numbers in the
sketch mapprovided by J K Wright, as follows-

|4 = Toledo (Toletum in the Marseilles tables)
| 41 = Alexandria
| 58 = Alcufa.
|

| I have no idea what Alcufa is - if I try to use Damascus, Baghdad and
Mecca
| as a rough guide to the latitude and longitude of "Alcufa", I just find
| nothing but desert.    I was wondering whether it was some kind of oasis
| town that's long dead on a route between Damascus and Baghdad.

=========================

But that decoding differs slightly from the Excel table he provided,
attached to his posting of 1 Nov 09, "Portuguese shipwreck question".

In that table, there were 57 entries, on lines which were actually numbered
from line 3, so 3 to 59 inclusive. It was the 57th, on line 59, that was
labelled "Aleufa" (not quite "Alcufa") in that table. There wasn't a 58th
(which would have been on line 60).

Is there a simple explanation? Have I missed something?

=========================

I'm interested in the geographical positions of these Toledan tables, and
the Marseilles tables which seem to have been derived from them. They
appear to have arrived in the Moorish Muslim community in Spain, well
before Ptolemy's "Geographia", with its 5,000 or so geographical positions,
reached the West from the Muslim world by a very different route, via
Constantinople.

I'm interested in how well (if at all) the two lists of positions
correspond. Does anyone know of an authoritative study? Did J K Wright
address this question, in 1923? It's a bit out of Navlist's normal
expertise, I know. And certainly well out of mine.

George.

contact George Huxtable, at  george@hux.me.uk
or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222)
or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.

   

Reply