It is not true I received a rough reception at the recent history conference. “That many historians are rejecting my thesis and evidence” is not true either. Take a look at my simple direct presentation in the top article at carljweber.com. The person talking about my “rough reception” at the history conference was not there, and has been disparaging me for years. After Mr. McCafferty posted his comments on maphist several days ago, I posted the following on maphist as a reply/invitation.

**** maphist comment by Weber begin
What might settle this issue is a forensic test of the Marquette Autograph Map, a test that it seems would be within the authority of Mr. McCafferty to initiate - known as he is to the director of the archives where the map is preserved. She cites him as one of the two American experts on the map.

This map was never known to history until it appeared in the mid-1800s. What might be said from an analysis of the physical materials? The significance of the map for the history of cartography is huge. It has long been believed the first map of the continental interior, the Mississippi River, the Illinois River, the Chicago area, etc. It is the vital document on which other important ancient documents are said to be based.

My hypothesis is that the map was not drawn by Jesuit Jacques Marquette in 1673-74. It was created some time after 1813. Why? Prior to a map by John Melish in 1813, there is no map, except the Marquette Autograph, that approximates the shape of the Illinois River correctly, a “three-sides-of-an-octagon” shape — at least no map to be found among the seventy-odd maps that the Internet makes available to us. Are we to believe that for 139 years after Marquette is said to have created this map that nobody else had the skill to do the same? There are no other maps by Marquette known to exist. This one, that emerged in 1844 with some other documents presumed to be Marquette’s, was published in 1852. A forensic test might resolve the Marquette Autograph Map “mystery,” as it was referred to by Mr. Martin McHugh — editor of the magazine for the Society of Jesus — in my conversation with him.

Mr. McCafferty is cited by Isabelle Contant — she is director of the Jesuit Archives at St. Jerome, Canada, where the map is housed — he is cited as being one of two American authorities on the map. I think it not unreasonable for Mr. McCafferty to use his influence to initiate a scientific test on the map. I’m sure more than a few subscribers to maphist would welcome this initiative.

What can be said, whether true or false, about my character and behavior, has no bearing on the authenticity of the map. For more background, google “carl weber marquette map”.
***maphist comment by Weber end

I’d like to invite any subscribers to The Map Room to look at my evidence at carljweber.com (first article), and, for the benefit of the readers of this site, raise what might be reasonable objections to my simple presentation and allow me to respond. Also, as I said in my maphist comment, Mr. McCafferty could do a service to the curious to use his influence to have a forensic examination made of the map. I also invite anyone in The Map Room to discuss publicly the authenticity of the Autograph Marquette Map.
Carl J. Weber

It is not uncommon at all for old documents to surface. The three French-Illinois dictionaries are good examples of this phenomenon. It is well known that Marquette went up the Illinois River in 1673. It is well known that he could make maps. It is even known that he used a broken sextant to do so.

The burden of proof lies on Mr Weber’s shoulders, and yet he can do nothing but toss out superficial ideas lacking any substance. He even ran out of his presentation at the Illinois History Conference three weeks ago to avoid having to answer questions and to avoid scheduling a public debate on the matter offered to him by an Illinois Country historian. Mr Weber’s whacko ideas in other places, other web sites. If nothing else, it is good comedy.

Alain Rocquet

It is obvious from Mr. Weber’s opening statement above that he lives in a dream world of his own making. His presentation at the Illinois History Conference was like nothing anyone had ever seen at the conference: pure, utter chaos on his part, purely incomprehensible. And when it was done, Weber ran out of the room, avoiding the questions of the Illinois historian Walcynzski. Talk of Weber’s antics at the conference will continue among historians for a long time. As for Dr. McCafferty’s “disparagement of Mr. Weber, I have followed this through the years, from their correspondence on the Linguist Listserv to the present day, and would like to comment on it here. All McCafferty has ever done, besides, I should add, trying hard to help Mr. Weber personally as a budding historian, is to refute, point by point, all of the idiotic notions that Weber comes up with, which seem to be an endless riviere. The “disparagement” first began when Weber, who is neither an Algonquian linguist or a speaker of French, tried to discredit in an article in the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society McCafferty’s excellent article on the place name “Chicago” that had recently appeared in the same review. McCafferty’s response to Weber’s article was thorough and convincing, albeit none too kind (but considering the circumstances!). It clearly revealed that Weber was simply an avocational dabbler in all things linguistique and historical. Not a serious scolar by any means. Moreover, if one visits Weber’s website, one can see that it’s just a “me-me” thing, and full of trash. Of course, Weber probably sees himself as a tragic, misunderstood, trammeled hero-expert going up against the real experts. It is perfectly clear to anyone that he doesn’t stand a chance.

Alain…
What you say are well know facts about Marquette are well known in our received history. Did you know that there was no association of Marquette with a expedition of discovery until 1681? Six years after he died? Did you know that never-ever was Marquette’s name mentioned by Jolliet — at least in documents that we have?… Did you know that the broken sextant idea is NOT well known, but was a conjecture used by Weld (1903) and Delanglez in the 1940s as a way to explain the “degree-off” error? Did you know that the 1675 map that MrMcafferty mentions is unsigned and undated? Why wouldn’t the actual state of Jesuit map making knowledge be represented by the Rafeix Campeau raised questions of signatures and watermarks… do you really think that “well known” is an argument? If have heard some not unreasonable ideas to counter my ideas — but not from MrMcafferty’s camp. If you have no doubts about the map, so be it… but some people would be open to having the map examined under the forensic microscope. Mr. Walcynzski can speak for himself. The “chicago word” business — did you know that so far as I know, I’m the first to identify the earliest use of the chicago-word on a map (1684) and in a text (1680). Mr. MaCafferty “lifted” those idea from me and used them without attribution. He also lifted the idea that Chicago applied to the entire DesPlaines Valley — which he also “lifted” from me without attribution. If Mr.McCafferty can identify someplace in his writting where he alluded to these ideas of mine before I published them… then I will give a much due apology… otherwise, there’s a name for that. When you write, I’m “Not a serious scolar by any means,” that is a matter of opinion. This “help” from McCafferty is in his own head… I have the email from McCafferty telling me that HE knew very little about the maps of the period, and thanking me for referring to a particular map on the Library of Congress website… Would you like to see the email I received from a professor of the history of “our period” who was at the conference and praised me and asked for some feedback on some of his material that he will be publishing?

Mr. Weber either doesn’t realize or forgets that he was not the first to know any of the things he says he was the first to know. Holy Cow. He is so unaware of the early history of Chicago and of the people who have written about it or discussed it that he obviously believes he was the first one there. Moreover, I’ve never seen anything by Weber in any bibliography besides his piece that followed mine in the JISHS. Even if he were the first to find something and publish his finding, where would you look? Car and Truck Magazine? I’ll be happy to correspond with you, Mr. Rocquet, or with anyone who would like to have the full story, as I have nothing more to say to Mr. Weber.
Also, as I mentioned before, anyone reading this website is invited to write me about any of the various “problems” that Weber raises about Marquette and/or his map. He simply doesn’t have all the facts, and therefore continues to spout inanities. That’s a pity, of course. But I’m happy to accomodate anyone offlist.

Best,

Michael McCafferty

I meant to add that, if Mr. Weber ever had an actualy original idea, I would never use it intentionally, as I can’t recall believing anything he’s ever said.

Regards,

Michael McCafferty, signing off

Mr. Weber,

Yes, please tell about the history professor at the conference who is interested in your work and your help.

Thankyou,

Paul Lacroix

I found this site, and the other one, the “hoax” site, by chance today while looking for other information. It’s very interesting, although at the same time pitiful. I also read Mr. Carl’s write-up on his website about Jacques Marquette’s map. I have a few observations to offer. First, Mr. Carl’s piece would not stand up in the academic world if it were published. Not only are many of the facts wrong—and I hope to address them below if I have time—but he seems to not be aware of the French sources at all. My impression, since I know the Steckian material first hand, is that Mr. Karl is simply parroting Steck. Moreover, the lack of citations of French sources suggests an offputting anglocentric mentality. I can’t say with conviction that that is the case, but it seems like it. The only other alternative I can think of is that Mr. Carl is avoiding the French sources because they would undermine his work. I can think of no other reasons. In any event, there are many errors in the paper owing to the fact that he has not used any French sources. Furthermore, and in this connection, one simply cannot work in this field without knowledge gleaned from the eminent Canadian historian Lucien Campeau. Come to think on it, it could be that Mr. Carl avoids using Campeau since Campeau was a Jesuit priest. Perhaps he thinks that Campeau was a Jesuit apologist. Of course, anyone who knows the field understands that Campeau was the historian’s historian. He was extremely rigorous and of the highest calibre. It’s true that he worked mostly in Jesuit-related history, but he was a hawk, and nothing escaped him, whether it be Jesuit or non-Jesuit mistakes or incompetencies. Moreover, most anyone who knows the French sources knows that, concerning the papers of Marquette’s Mississipi expedition, Campeau set to right not only Steck’s aberrant ideas but also those of Delanglez. Mr. Karl only confuses the issues, extremely, and does not know the facts. In fact, his write-up for the history conference is a mess and is full of errors. For example, he does not know the full extent of our knowledge of Marquette’s handwriting—there exist well-known other exemples of his hand. Another exemple is that Mr. Carl does not know the documentary sources. We know, for exemple, that governor Frontenac was aware of Marquette’s taking the Mississippi voyage. All in all, Mr. Carl limits the framing of his arguments and jumps to conclusions that can only be called *wild*.

I don’t know Dr. McCafferty personally, but I correspond with him once in the 1990s while I was working on a master degree. My impression from reading Mr. Carl’s note that McCafferty expressed that he was not an expert in maps is that the latter was just playing the common academic ruse of feeling out what Mr. Karl knew. When I corresponded with McCafferty, I was absolutely impressed by his thoro knowledge of early North American cartography. He was aware of provenance, patrimoine, etc. of the many maps we discussed. I believe that Mr. Carl was just the naïve victim of academic sleuthing in this case.
In addition, Mr. Carl’s use of various maps to try to prove that Marquette could not have drawn the Illinois river so well is specious simply because the maps he cites are all bad maps, made by incompetents. That’s not proof of anything. Anyone can make a bad map. And God knows there are plenty of them in the archives and in print. In this connection, it should be noted that, while the 1675 Jesuit map may not be precisely from 1675, it was sent to Colbert by the Jesuits and it indisputably contains information borrowed from Marquette’s earlier chart of the Missisipi.

In sum, all that I can say about Mr. Carl’s write-up and his website offerings about Marquette, if anyone besides a few people see them, is that they will spark more positive interest in this very important figure in early French colonial history.

Finally, I would like to beg pardon for using this website to ask for Dr. McCafferty’s address. If it’s here, I ‘ve overlooked it. If you are still visiting this website, Dr. McCafferty, would you please contact me. I have some questions that I’d like to ask you. My coordinates are lavignesylv@hotmail.com

Lavigne, Sylvie
Doctorant in History and Cartographie
Sorbonne

Mme Lavigne is correct on all counts. Thank you, Mme Lavigne, for taking the time to lay out these mistakes in Mr. Weber’s (not Mr. Carl’s) ideas. However, what you pointed out is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of his errant notions. This would be an interesting discussion if Mr. Weber had any knowledge of what he is talking about. He certainly does not know the French material, as you said, and he seems, as you also pointed out, to be versed only in Steck’s ideas, which is, of course, about as quicksand as one can get. I must admit that I tried to contact De Vry University, a technical school, by the way, to find out about him but the official would not divulge any information. So, I’m wondering if he is really a “history professor” or just some crank. I have been unable to find anything published by him. Like Dr. McCafferty seems to suggest for himself, I don’t plan to revisit this site anymore. At least in terms of Mr. Weber’s ideas, it has nothing to offer.

Mr. Lacroix, you asked for an email exhanged I had mentioned in regard to the Conference on Illinois History. Mr. Lacroix, you are apparently in the hostile camp, but nontheless, even though your team is unwilling to back up their assertions with substance, a not unreasonably request, I’m pasting three emails from the professor who, among more than a few others, appreciated and respected my efforts at the conference. So far as I know, nobody who is blogging against me was at the conference, and my invitation, on this forum, to the person who was there, has declined to participate. In the following, I have edited out what I told him (for conservation of space). The professor mistakenly thought I had a doctorate in this field.
I have put his initials instead of his name, out of confidentiality reasons. THESE ARE WORDS OF SOMEONE AT THE CONFERENCE. As I’ve said, there were many at the conference who appreciated my talk, and the characterization of my presentation otherwise, I hope readers of these blogs sees for what it is.
——————-
START OF MATERIAL — three emails — TO WEBER BY SOMEONE AT THE CONFERENCE.

EMAIL 1
Dr. Weber:
I very much enjoyed your presentation at the history conference in Springfield yesterday. I have been researching and wriitng on the famed “Piasa Bird” for many years and have made considerable references to the Marquette/Jolliet expedition, maps, etc. I wonder if I may send for your review that section of my draft monograph discussing those aspects of the Piasa story? That section may need some revision or at least some footnoted comment in light of your interesting theory.

—J. J., PhD.

EMAIL 2
Dr. Weber:

Thank you for agreeing to review the sections of my draft monograph on the “Piasa Bird” that refer to the Marquette/Jolliet map situation. Some copies of Jolliet’s map-from-memory included depictions of the Piasa. As I now re-read that section of my draft for the first time in some time, I see that I had no reference whatever to the supposed Marquette map that you discussed in your paper, since the Piasa does not appear on that map. However, I will insert a sentence or footnote about that map.

Following are the partial sentences and sentences in my existing draft that mention the map situation.

a seventeenth century French map. Its translated title reads, “General map of Northern France [the French name for Canada], Containing the Discovery of the Illinois Country Made by Mr. Jolliet” (Fig. 37; Franquelin [1678]).

The map was drawn in 1678,

The French cartographer Jean Baptiste Louis Franquelin (1678) completed the map just five years after the French explorers discovered the pictograph, and after the original field map disappeared when Jolliet’s canoe capsized near the end of the return journey from the Mississippi (Delanglez 1943:57). According to Delanglez (1946a:110, 116), Jolliet drew another map of the expedition from memory in Quebec in 1674, and Franquelin’s work was one of five slightly varied copies made of that map before that second Jolliet map was lost.

Footnote fragment:

….Temple (1975:1, Plate 58) included one of the copies of the [lost Jolliet] map…in his supplement to Tucker’s (1942) atlas of of Illinois Indian villages. Temple attributed this “Jolliet larger map” (Delanglez 1943:54) to Jolliet or someone at his command. Anticipating Temple’s publication of the map, Betty Madden (1974:17) credited Temple with discovering Jolliet’s hitherto lost 1674 original-from-memory drawing. However, …Delanglez (1946a:130-139)…earlier had concluded after extensive studies and comparisons , that Franquelin, not Jolliet, was the draughtsman of the Jolliet larger map.

I welcome your comments.

—J J

EMAIL 3
Dr. Weber:

Thank you very much for your very prompt reply to my email, and for the data to which you refer. At least some of these are new to me and I shall certainly look into them.

Yes, some references to “monsters” by other early explorers sometimes seem to relate to the piasa figures, although there apparently were other 17th century sightings of Native American rock art along the Mississippi.

No, I don’t believe I knew of the 1680 map attributed to Franquelin, but for my purposes it seems to copy the piasa figure that first appears in the 1678 map attributed by Delanglez to Franquelin in consultation with Jolliet.

Many thanks again for your presentation in Springfield and for your helpful email.

J.J., PhD.
—————-