Crime and Justice Atlas
Things this atlas does not know. Each entry is a question that specialists
have posed and not settled, recorded with what would actually resolve it and which
expertise the answer needs.
These are kept deliberately, rather than quietly omitted. An atlas that shows
only what it is sure of implies a confidence it has not earned, and the gaps are often where
the interesting work is. Several sit exactly where two fields fail to meet: identifying the
hyssop of the Hebrew Bible needs a botanist and a philologist of Biblical Hebrew, and neither
one settles it alone.
Grouped by the expertise recorded on each question, in the words the question itself uses. Most of these are held by a single question.
Filter By Specialty 99 fields, 1 selected
Showing 2 of 608 questions, filtered to 1 specialty.
Early modern history, palaeography, and historical linguistics for the Enochian corpus itself. 1
Edward Kelley
Did Edward Kelley report what he saw in the scrying sessions, or invent it?
Open Edward Kelley
Why It Is Open The Enochian material rests entirely on Kelley's reports of what appeared in the showstone, recorded by John Dee. Dee's diaries are strong evidence of what Dee believed and weak evidence of what actually occurred. Frances Yates called Kelley a fraud outright; others treat him as a genuine visionary or as self-deceived. The question is central to how the whole Enochian corpus should be read and is not settled.
What Would Settle It It may be unresolvable in principle, which is worth recording as such. It would move on evidence of Kelley preparing material in advance, or on linguistic analysis of the Enochian corpus bearing on whether it was composed rather than received.
Expertise Needed Early modern history, palaeography, and historical linguistics for the Enochian corpus itself.
Question posed in
John Dee's Conversations with Angels: Cabala, Alchemy, and the End of Nature, Deborah E. Harkness, Pages 11 and 24.
Historical linguistics, archaeology 1
Nazca
What language did the Nazca people themselves speak?
Open Nazca
Why It Is Open The Nazca (about 100 BCE to 800 CE) left no writing system, so no text records their own speech. The Quechua and Aymara families dominant on the Peruvian south coast today arrived through Inca imperial expansion in the fifteenth century and Spanish colonial administration afterward, six hundred years or more after Nazca civilization had already ended, so their modern presence cannot be read backward onto the Nazca population. Scholarship on Andean historical linguistics treats a Quechuan or Aymaran tie for the pre-Inca south coast cultures as speculative, resting on colonial-era impressions of multilingualism that may equally reflect internal variation within those two families elsewhere in the Andes.
What Would Settle It A securely dated Nazca-period inscription would settle it outright, but none has been found and the culture is understood to have had no writing system at all. Short of that, a documented layer of loanwords or toponyms in a later, attested language that can be traced specifically and exclusively to the pre-Inca Rio Grande de Nasca drainage, rather than to the wider post-Inca Quechua-speaking Andes, would be evidence a historical linguist could evaluate.
Expertise Needed Historical linguistics, archaeology
Question posed in
The Languages of the Andes, Willem F. H. Adelaar with Pieter C. Muysken.