Old atlas/map information will/can be different

[pepperj]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and in many cases it is true. In researching old historical altas/mapping/artist sketches and the actual lay of the land is sometimes totally different from what one views in the written text. This can throw off a person when trying to determine the actual locations of a site, the topography of the land vs a sketch will/could be nothing of the same.
Here is a townsite/mill site that I had hunted for years, now I had not seen the historical sketching until after my years of hunting there had ended there.
Where the mill sat actually falls way from the road where the horse and carriage is in the photo.
This is where the stream runs, now in the sketch it looks like a sizeable water course-yet in real life it's not too wide and a few feet deep.

Now here are the 2 goggle earth street shots

The first shot is where the artist sketched the scene, and the house on the right is the one on the sketch.

Second shot of the field is where the office sat in the sketch looking out onto the hill and other buildings.



Notice the difference in the topography? No hill just a slight rise to the field.
Now it was said when this brought up in discussion the consensus was that it would be hard to sketch a photo of a plain showing all the town-so the artist will put them on a hill.

Just thought I'd do a little example for the folks that have a struggle in mapping/reading a text/book and the actual lay of the land when they get there.
Best of luck on the research of your next keeper.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[ticndig]

Thanks for sharing the hill theory , makes sense.

 

[madmantrapper]

I'm no artist but I do a fair amount of drawing. I have never seen this or thought of doing it. I think artists try to duplicate what they see as close as possible. I do see your point, just don't agree.

 

[pepperj]

I'm no artist but I do a fair amount of drawing. I have never seen this or thought of doing it. I think artists try to duplicate what they see as close as possible. I do see your point, just don't agree.

What have you never seen the artist's work before, or the way the artist depicted the town/mill on a hill?
What don't you agree with the post or artist?
I've seen this many times in old atlases and the picture drawn may have had the buildings, streets, correct but the "Topography" is way off.

It was the way of showing the multitude of buildings off in a scene. I asked the question to historians, artists, and that's what I was told.
Sorry if you feel a tad defensive because you draw and you're defending the art world, I can understand, NP.

Just a side note: Many times I thought this or that-and I have read some information on TN about a subject.
I looked down the rabbit hole and guess what I pulled up?
I learned something new-now go figure-even an old dog can learn a new trick.

 

[Tony in SC]

Interesting post! I've seen a drawing of the small town where I grew up. Some buildings were out of place just so they could be in the picture.

 

[pepperj]

Interesting post! I've seen a drawing of the small town where I grew up. Some buildings were out of place just so they could be in the picture.

Thank Tony in sharing that. Another example of an artist perception of what they would think how picture should look like.
I kind of throws the research off a tad, or when a person actually goes to the location and it basically flat as a pancake.

 

[madmantrapper]

I was not trying to start a war. I was just saying it is not the way I do it. I usually draw what I see the way I see it.