Talk:Gangnido

old talk (may be unorganized, unsigned and out of date order)

Some of the claims made for this map are exaggerated. If it describes the "totality" of the old world, where is India? For that matter where is SE Asia? Actually the area labelled as Africa seems to correspond with one of these to some degree. There is no detail at all in the depiction of Europe's coastland, and what's that hole in Africa. It shows only the vaguest grasp of shape and proportion beyond South China. I'm not Japanese by the way. Wincoote 09:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Added an explanatory map. Please see the following cartography link for details: The Kangnido mapPHG 10:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just for comparison, this map was redrawn in the 1400s, by Europeans, using Ptolemy's World Map of 150CE as the basis: Image:PtolemyWorldMap.jpg. It is well known that a large corpus of geographical knowledge existed prior to the European Voyages of Discovery - perhaps the article shouldn't make it sound like such a startling revelation! Also, there is fairly good depiction of the European coastland in the Kangndido Map - but unfortunately even now it doesn't show up well in the pictures used in the article. Looking at the outlines given at Henry Davis's site (in the external links), the Black Sea, Spain and Italy appear quite distinctly. Probably the most fascinating point of interest in this map is the way southern Africa is detailed, and this is a major point of controversy (although Africa was circumnavigated in very ancient times, later ancient civilisations tended to see these earlier reports are merely legendary, so they didn't contribute to the geographical knowledge available). I think the article could go into greater depth on the African point. --131.111.8.97 12:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For this page don't use Korean reading, I changed. - ko:사용자:Galadrien

With all due respect, I must agree with the points above. The Kangnido map may represent extensive Asian geographical knowledge of the era, but it hardly describes the "totality of the Old World". Especially given the Ptolemaic map pointed out above (which itself naturally does not describe anything past Arabia very well). Are the labels on the Kangnido map clear? For I can't see any (not that I could read them anyway :p). In the absence of labels, identifying any nation or region in the western part of the map is pure speculation. I know, it's easy for us with 20/20 hindsight to sit here and point out such things.... As for the hole in the middle of "Africa": Probably it represents a region for which they had no data (think "deepest darkest Africa"), so it remains uncoloured as if it were an inland sea. --Jquarry 21:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

These are all very interesting points - perhaps we should start a History of cartography article to discuss these issues. --Oldak Quill 22:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I must agree that this seems a little far-fetched: The area named as Africa and Europe here resembles far more India than anything else. I would believe the arabian peninsula is more likely to indicate the Ganges estuary than anything else. There is one very positive thing however; and that is the quite remarkable accuracy in depicting the shoreline of China - especially considering the relatively poor seamanship of the chinese at this time. SWA 23:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) In short: THIS ARTICLE IS HIGHLY DISPUTED!! SWA 11:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but please read an example of schorlarly analysis associated to this map [1]. Continent shapes may be poorly represented, but I do not know of any academic analysis so far doubting that the African and European continent are represented on this map. The main rationale is that Arab maps of the West were available to China since the time of the Mongol conquests (Joseph Needham, also discussed in "Art in the Age of exploration" ISBN 0300051670). PHG 12:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem is that for whatever reason the mapmakers did not fill in the Mediterranean with black as they did for other bodies of water, though it is clearly outlined. This does make it rather hard to see Europe. The one image in the article that labels the Mediterranean does make this clear, though. Any idea why they would not fill in the Mediterranean as they did the other seas?

Reference should also be made to Gary Ledyard, "Cartography in Korea," in *Cartography in the Traditional East and Southeast Asian Societies*, ed. J. B. Harley and David Woodward, vol. 2.2 of *The History of Cartography* (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 235-345, esp. 244-49. Among other things, Ledyard reminds us that the map that survives was made ca. 1470, from an older original, ca. 1402; the failure to fill the Mediterranean and Black seas with wave patterns might have originated with the now lost 1402 original, the surviving image, or an some putative intermediate image. Ledyard agrees that the left-hand 'promontory' is Africa, with Arabia just beside. (I looked into this because I too wondered about the depiction of India; but Ledyard argues that India actually constitutes the left-hand side of China, the two regions making "a monstrous cell that has not yet divided."John green 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

disputed

flagged as factually disputed. see 1421 hypothesis 128.114.60.186 10:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Kangnido map is scarcely discussed on that talk page; please be more specific about what you consider to be disputed. -- Visviva 11:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

name

Can someone rename the article to "Kangnido"? "Do" means map, so it's redundant.{unsigned}

Only for speakers of Hanja, which for English readers would be rare. -- Stbalbach 14:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Did this map really combine the korean and japanese maps?

I just found in this article there are two Yuan Dynasty maps.--Ksyrie 01:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a japanese map but not korean ones.--Ksyrie 12:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Japan

how do we know, that the archiapaelago presented as japan on the kangnido is japan? geographically speaking the kangnidos placement of japan is right on target, that logically speaking it should be listed as the phillipines, what i am saying is that, is it possible that historians made an incorrect interpretation of labeling the location i am talking about as japan and not as the phillipines?

More importantly, if that archipeligo in the bottom right were Japan, would it not have 4 islands? Since it was common knowledge at the time that Japan had 4 home islands which are not depicted here. Therefore, due to the relative location and shape, it would be better to associate it with the Phillipines.

Bibliography

Looks like this article was written by those who were not familiar with Chinese and Japanese bibliography while I'm not interested in the 1421 hypothesis or something popular in the west.

I radically revised the article based on what I know. I deleted many statements without explaining why. I think most of them are simply outdated and those by Kangnidofan are his/her unfounded imagination.

I fear flood of proper names may confuse readers, but I hope this prevents groundless fancy coming from ignorance. --Nanshu 00:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I reinstated some information which apparently was deleted in favour of an outright "Mongolian map" stance. Let's keep balance and give due weight to the Mongolian story, which only remains an hypothesis. Regards. PHG 02:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

PHG, I reverted your edits. You claimed you "reinstated deleted information," but "deleted" information is actually kept in my version with some errors corrected. We don't have to mention the authors in the leading section because, as described in the "Sources" section, their contribution to the map as a world map is really trivial and their modifications to the eastern portion cannot be observed in the extant copies. For the same reason, the following sentence is misleading: "The map combined earlier Chinese, Korean, and Japanese maps.." This implies that these maps have equal weights, but what you guys interested in was taken solely from Li Zemin's map. The size is also misleading because there are two (in a narrow sense) or four (in a broad sense) maps and their sizes are not the same. Also, I'm not sure what you refer to by "Mongolian hypothesis"? To be precise, what is the counterpart? --Nanshu 23:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nanshu. You seem to know a lot on the subject, which is great, but you are apparently putting a lot of emphasis on a "Mongolian origin" of the map, which, as far as I know is only one theory among other: "This map originates from a historical setting of the Mongol Empire, which connected the western Islamic world with the Chinese sphere." You need references to the claim and a softening of the stance (a theory, not a certainty). You went as far as replacing the subtitle "Kangnido map" with "Mongolian map" in the article Ancient world maps (here), something which I am afraid is not appropriate given the current state of knowledge. Regards. PHG 03:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. You don't explain a counterargument to the supposed "Mongolian hypothesis". So I guess the problem here can be generalized as an asymmetry of information among two or more theories.

For problem X, Alice claims A and Bob claims B. This situation is easily handled by our NPOV policy. But,

For problem X, Alice claims A but Bob doesn't care about X. Then what should we do?

In this case, X is bibliography. Analyzing extant manuscripts and literary references, to reveal the relationship between written materials, both existing and lost. It's not appealing to ordinary people. It's not easy, but Miya Noriko among others did an amazing job. These maps can be traced back to the intellectual circles of Southern China, and further to the Mongol court, which gathered information from across the world. On the other hand, comparing the map with other world maps without detailed textual analysis ([2] only cites decades old papers!) would play well, but will not bear fruit. --Nanshu 22:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Restoration

I reverted Kangnidofan's edits. Strangely, s/he claimed s/he "restored information" in the edit summary. But what s/he did was nothing more than mass deletion of content. --Nanshu (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Errors on Image:645px-KangnidoCaption.jpg

Some captions given by PHG on Image:645px-KangnidoCaption.jpg are wrong.

• The place where "INDIA" is shown is actually Yunnan. You can see "Dali-lu" (大理路) near that caption.
  • The traditional "Buddhist" India is a small triangle, lower right of "PERSIA".
  • The newer "Islamic" India (Kashmir, Delhi, etc) lies to the west of the Buddhist India.
• I'm not sure the island marked as "SRI LANKA" is actually Sri Lanka. At least 馬八兒 on that island was situated on the east coast of India. So, that island may represent yet another India ("sea-route" India?) or just an imaginary entity.
• "SOUTHEAST ASIA" is actually southernmost China. Southeast Asia is more westward.

PHG, please clarify your source of these captions, so that we can find other errors. --Nanshu (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

tentative identification of some Kangnido topography

I too am intrigued. I suspect that PHG is following Gari Ledyard, but without knowing more about the actual toponyms on the map, I tend to prefer something closer to the above revisions on structural grounds, as in the illustration here (which is intended purely for discussion, not as a replacement for the disputed picture). David Trochos (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the earlier Da Ming Hun Yi Tu shows a peninsula west of China which does not appear on the Kangnido, I'm already becoming less confident about the Malay Peninsula and Sumatra! David Trochos (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy that we finally have a productive discussion. Unfortunately I will be busy in real life until April. Just one point for now.

• The river you identified as the "Irrawddy R." would be an imaginary entity. The caption "黑水南摘不立等地面" is placed to the east of the lower reach of the river. Literary references to the Heishui (黑水, River Hei; lit. black water) date back to the very early time of history: the Yu Gong (禹貢) of the Shangshu says, "導黑水．至于三危．入于南海．" (rough translation: River Hei reached Sanwei (in modern-day Gansu) and entered the south sea.). From then River Hei puzzuled Chinese geographers because it doesn't exist. Since they tried hard to identify it, the river on the Kangnido might partly represent actual river(s) but still it's safer to assume that it is an imaginary entity.

--Nanshu (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That Black Water may well be a Red Herring- it's a generic descriptive name (in Britain we have multiple Black Waters, River Doves, Duisks etc.) which was, for example, applied to part of the River Salween. Given that the Kangnido has "lost" that nearby peninsula, and rerouted some rivers in the area completely, I guess a great deal of comparison with other maps will be needed to sort out whether that particular river is actually meant to be the Salween. David Trochos (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sugiyama's new article

Sugiyama Masaaki's new paper extracts 224 place names of the west from the four copies. He leaves attestation details for future work, but I think the table itself interests western readers. Also he compares the map with the Catalan Atlas, which looks more grounded in history than the comparison with the Fra Mauro map. --Nanshu (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Name

Deiaemeth, thank you for remiding me of the name. I forgot to explain that it was nothing more than a combination of Chinese cliches. --Nanshu (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Kangnidofan's mass deletion

Nanshu, I think you are being extremely rude and uncivil. You have deleted a whole bunch of properly cited information and citation needed tags, and re-added uncited, irrelevant sections without explanation. Actually, you called it "vandalism" and gave me a vandalism warning on my talk page, which feels like a personal attack.

Please stop reverting other people's work and do not accuse me of "vandalism" for adding balanced, cited information to mitigate the Mongol-centric bias. Kangnidofan (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You disagree with the current edition. It per se is not bad. But as I said above, your "restoration" is nothing more than mass deletion of content. How can we tolerate such a disruptive action? --Nanshu (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion changed to move

The section on Maps of the Mongol Empire, deleted from this article, has now been moved (with some necessary alterations) to a more logical place, the article on Chinese geography, which badly needed additional substance. David Trochos (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

...and another move changed to near-deletion

On the other hand, when I moved the "Comparison" section into the Fra Mauro article (more logical as the comparison was between the Fra Mauro world map and Chinese world maps of the period in general) I found that most of the comparisons made, including the illustration, did not bear scrutiny. Chinese influence, particularly via Niccolò Da Conti, is undeniably present in the Fra Mauro map, but most of the features identified in this comparison were not valid examples. So the transferred text in the Fra Mauro article is not very long any more... David Trochos (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Nationalistic" claim

Re the revision rationale (22 Mar 2008):

"Removed inflammatory, nationalistic wording. "Superior", "inferior" are not very encyclopedic words. Its superiority should be self-evident without such words, if it is in fact that revolutionary."

The Kangnido is not a revolutionary map. Its superiority / inferiority when compared with Chinese and European maps are matters of detail, not obvious except on close examination. The need for such examination is apparent in the other revision rationale by the same editor, same date:

"This is not a World Map. It is a map of the Korean peninsula and immediate surroundings. The Europeans had maps of Europe prior to this date."

The Kangnido is indeed not quite a World Map, but it does map every part of the world for which its makers (or rather the makers of the lost prototypes) had reliable information, including Africa and most of Europe. Looked at in detail, its copying of its Chinese prototypes is inaccurate (and even aesthetically can only be seen as "not inferior" if it is a good representation of a passing fashion for a particular graphic style). David Trochos (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The same can be said about many other maps. I simply want to remove aggressive nationalistic wording that seems unnecessarily inflammatory. Koalorka (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Is "inferior in some ways, superior in others" nationalistic? The Chinese mapped their country in considerable detail at an early date, mapped Korea as well slightly later- then later still, when the Koreans had made an improved survey of their own territory, they added that to a less-than-perfect copy from Chinese mapping (curiously enough, imperfect in similar ways to the Ebstorf world map when compared to the slightly earlier Hereford world map; in both cases it seems the cartographers were so intent on creating a work of art that they forgot they were also creating a map) with the bonus of a pretty accurate (if misunderstood) map of Japan- which the Chinese had not acquired up to that time. David Trochos (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That's all very nice but it does nothing to address the poor wording. Say it is a "compilation" or enhancement. It is neither superior or inferior to the European or Chinese maps as each version has a better local orientation and detail. Do you see my point? Koalorka (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not necessarily convinced by it. All surviving world maps of the Chinese pre-Jesuit type are compilations, and the sources of most of the information in them can be identified with fair confidence- but only to the extent that we can say those sources once existed; we do not possess the originals, only more copies. This leads to tantalising questions like "why does the Kangnido represent the size of Africa better than the oldest surviving Chinese world map, the Da Ming Hun Yi Tu?" We can learn quite a lot by comparing what different surviving versions do well and badly, and we should not simply avoid using terms like "superior" and "inferior".

The European comparison is more problematic, because it's a quotation. If any reader of this page has access to a copy of the source (P. Jackson "The Mongols and the West" p330) it would be nice to know the sentences either side. There are complex issues involved here, relating to the development of European maps from (again lost) Roman originals- which seem to have a lot in common with the Kangnido, in the sense that they mapped most of the Empire with pretty high accuracy, and deliberately compressed everything outside. For local areas, the Europeans could match Chinese mapping by the 14th century, but their world mapping was stuck in a rut because they had ignored Ptolemaic co-ordinate geography for 1,000 years. David Trochos (talk) 10:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Gari Ledyard's paper

I finally examined Gari Ledyard's paper (a full paper and its abridged edition). It is good in that he follows old Japanese studies up to 1963, and bad in that they are simply outdated. The Honkōji map was discovered in 1988. More and more Chinese materials that implicitly and explicitly link extant maps to the lost original became available in the last decade. As for academic circles, an interdisciplinary team from Kyoto University studied old maps and world-views (15・16・17世紀成立の絵図・地図と世界観, 2002-2007). The papers by Miya and Sugiyama I cited are the offshoots of this project.

The current revision contains outdated information. Quote from the article:

Kim had returned from a trip to China in the summer of 1399, probably bringing the two Chinese maps with him, and both ministers had just completed reporting on land surveys of Korea's northern frontiers to the royal court.<ref name="gbks1"/>

Ledyard's paper is cited here, but this theory was originally proposed by Ogawa Takuji and Naitō Konan in 1920s. As I've written before, it's no longer accepted as Miya Noriko made a reinvestigation and showed that it was unlikely.

It is scars stemming from the vandalism by Deiaemeth, but it is unfortunate if those who try to make serious work are unaware of it. --Nanshu (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nanshu, no personal attack. Although I've known him by your 2channel friends' stalking and harassments on Korean editors, he is regarded a fair editor by the Korean community, and you might need to read WP:Vandalism again. You're the one who has been pushing your agenda to this article, and has falsely accused people who object to your POV directly become vandals? What a splendid logic(!?). The article has been nicely developed by many editors during your absence and none except you calls the current status as a scar or vandalism. So why don't you stop such disruptive comment here and there? That kind behaviors does not help your credentials or reputation.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Organization

I'd like to change the current disastrous situation. But it looks like I should share awareness of the problem of article organization.

Why does this map deserve an independent article? It's because the original maps are lost. A majority of researchers who deal with this map aim to restore the geographic knowledge of China under the Mongol Empire, as the titles of related papers suggest:

• 元代の地圖について (On the map in the age of the Yüan Dynasty) by Aoyama Sadao (1938),
• 東漸せる中世イスラーム世界図 (Islamic world maps expanding eastward) by Takahashi Tadashi (1963), and
• モンゴル帝国が生んだ世界図 (The world map incubated by the Mongol Empire) by Miya Noriko (2007).

The problem is that there are no appropriate articles to attribute these discussions to, other than the article of this map because investigating it is required to restore the lost originals. In fact some papers include the map's name in their titles, but actually focus on the same problem:

• 「混一疆理歴代国都之図」再考 (The Reconsideration of the Kon'itsu kyōri rekidai kokuto no zu) by Takahashi Tadashi (1966), and
• 「混一彊理歴代国都之図」への道 (The road to the Kon'itsu kyōri rekidai kokuto no zu) by Miya Noriko (2005).

In light of this academic trend, this article should contain these discussions (as the main topic). The relocation to Chinese geography was a quick-and-dirty job. It should be reverted. --Nanshu (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The academic trend may not be quite what you think it is. Miya does not necessarily support Takahashi's notion of Islamic maps "expanding eastward" (there's very little evidence of serious interest in cartographic development beyond Ptolemaic models in the Islamic world before Piri Reis), but seems instead to be arguing, in perfect accordance with the evidence, that the Mongol Empire allowed Chinese maps, which had reached a very high quality long before the Mongols, to expand westward. That expansion is clearly illustrated in Chinese geography, which remains a useful article. David Trochos (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I proposed a change. It would be nice if you clarify your position. I'm not sure whether you opposed my proposal or just gave a comment on some portion of my post.

1. If the former is the case, could you explain how your position is derived from your argument presented?
2. In either case, I have no idea where the supposed westward expansion is "clearly" illustrated in Chinese geography.

--Nanshu (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm against the change, because Chinese geography is the best place to put summaries of the development of "world" maps under the Mongol empire. The Kangnido is not the oldest surviving Chinese-type world map (although it does preserve the oldest useable versions of the place labels) and is certainly not the single key resource for study of such maps. However, I accept your point about the westward expansion not being clear in Chinese geography, which I've just amended to make it more clear that Jamal al-Din was working in China when he made his world map proposal; really there should be an explanation of the institute for Muslim astronomy etc. David Trochos (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. You and I focus on the same fact that during the Mongol era, Islamic geographic knowledge was added to Chinese geography. I guess you stress the question who had the initiative. But it doesn't challenge the fact: A majority of researchers who deal with this map aim to restore the geographic knowledge of China under the Mongol Empire. That's why I asked you how your position is derived from your argument presented.

I agree with you that the development of world maps under the Mongol empire should be summarized in Chinese geography. However, the current content of Chinese geography is horrible. The section of "Maps of the Mongol Empire" was originally written by me to explain what the Kangnido is, not the whole history of Chinese geography. For example, Wu Sidao is important for the Kangnido because he left an important literary clue to linking it to Li Zemin's map, but not necessarily important for Chinese geography as a whole because his Yu Ji Tu is not known today.

As for organization of this article, my second thought is that starting with Jamal al-Din is excessive when explaining the Kangnido. So here is my compromise:

• Chinese geography will briefly sketch the reconstructed situation of Chinese geography in the Mongol Era in chronological order. Also it will explain the relationship between the lost originals and these derivative works like the Kangnido and the Daming Hunyi Tu. It's too bad that currently the Kangnido only appears at the See Also list.
• Kangnido will explain what the Kangnido is, i.e. why it has gathered scholarly attention. A "puzzle-solving" style may be nice.

--Nanshu (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, missed this last week, sorry. Really, Chinese geography should do what it says on the label, summarise the development of Chinese geography from the earliest examples, through to its decline, plus an introduction to the edgy co-operation with the Jesuits. But yes, the Kangnido should feature in that article for what it can reveal of that development, and the Kangnido article should obviously make some mention of its place in that development; let's just try not to overlap the articles too much. David Trochos (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally I rewrote the article. I undid Deiaemeth's vandalism, restored some "Mongol" materials that are directly related to the map, changed the structure and added some stuff. It's a rough draft.

I deleted the following sentence:

In the [[Kyujanggak Library]] of [[Seoul National University]] there is a modern Korean hand copy done during the 1980s, considered highly researched and beautifully executed.<ref>Gari Ledyard [http://koreaweb.ws/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws/2006-April/005572.html message in Korean Studies mailing list] 2006-04-25, via Koreaweb</ref>

This paragraph is just a paraphrase of that of Ledyard's mail. Apart from the question that the mailing list is an appropriate reference, this is not really important to note. --Nanshu (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with the Daming Hunyi Tu

The following sentence is questionable:

It is the second oldest surviving world map from East Asia, after the similar Chinese "Da Ming Hun Yi Tu", *snip*

[3] claims that the Daming Hunyi Tu was created in 1389 (Hongwu 22). This is inaccurate. Place names of China presented on the map reflect the political situation of the year of Hongwu 22. That's all we can say. No historical source directly dates the map. The actual date of creation is unknown.

Different dates are proposed by other scholars. Walter Fuchs said that the place names are "obviously those of the late 17th century."[1] Miya says, "Even though it is undoubtedly based on Li Zemin's map revised in Hongwu 22, it is safer to say that the map itself is created in the Jiajing (1522-1566) or Wanli (1573-1620) eras or later,"[2] because it shows some similarity to maps created in these eras.

[1] Walter Fuchs: Pekin no Mindai sekaizu ni tsuite 北京の明代世界図について, Chirigakushi Kenkyū 地理学史研究, II, pp. 1-4, 1962年.

[2] (Miya 2006:512)

In addition there isn't much point in comparing the dates of creation (or last modification) of those derived maps. While the geographic knowledge was partially updated from the lost originals, the rest was left unchanged. What is important is that we can reconstruct the original situation, with the help of supplementary literary evidence.

So,

1. The questionable sentences in Kangnido, Early world maps and Chinese geography should be corrected.
2. I think "Da Ming Hun Yi Tu world map (1389)" and "Kangnido world map (1402)" in Early world maps should be merged into a single section titlted "Shengjiao Beihua Tu" (聲教被化圖) or so. Explain the original situation reconstructed, and then introduce these derivative works.

--Nanshu (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Curious. The curator at the Historical Archives seemed happy enough (admittedly back in 2004) to claim that the Da Ming Hun Yi Tu was made in 1389; and the 17th century orthography of the place-names isn't a great clue for dating purposes because they are on slips of paper, pasted onto the original map. Miya's claim is puzzling, given that no 16th (or even late 15th) century cartographer would be likely to depict Japan in the way the DMHYT does unless attempting to make a faithful copy of an early original.

As for the merger of the two maps in Early world maps- certainly it is beneficial to link them, but the article does not join multiple European maps in single sections, so I'm not sure it is fair to so so with Chinese/Korean maps. (Then again, there is probably a case to be made for a complete rewrite of that article to clarify the chain of development; hey ho.) David Trochos (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Dating the Daming Hunyi Tu.

Unfortunately [4] and [5] are not informative at all. I checked Wang et al. (1994).

Wang Qianjin 汪前进, Hu Qisong 胡启松 and Liu Ruofang 刘若芳: Juanben caihui Daming Hunyi Tu yanjiu 绢本彩绘大明混一图研究 (As Regards the Da Ming Hun Yi Tu (Amalgamated Map of the Great Ming Dynasty) Drawn in Colours on Stiff Silk), Zhongguo gudai dituji: Ming dai 中國古代地图集 明代 (An Atlas of Ancient Maps in China: The Ming Dynasty (1368-1644)), pp.51-55, Beijing, 1994.

As expected, they only examined the place names of China (e.g. Beiping-fu had not yet been renamed to Beijing), but Miya pays attention to non-Chinese regions too.

You said, "no 16th (or even late 15th) century cartographer would be likely to depict Japan in the way the DMHYT does unless attempting to make a faithful copy of an early original." Quite the opposite, I think. The Daming Hunyi Tu depicts the new enlarged Japan in addition to the traditional "three-island" Japan. I can hardly believe that the former was drawn in 1389. Miya figures that Edo is depicted on this map though the Manchu transcriptions are unreadable on a miniature copy. Also, according to Aoyama, it was in the 17th century that the Tōhoku (northeast) region came to be placed in the northeast of Japan. Until then, Tōhoku has been considered the eastern end of Japan.

Aoyama Hiroo 青山宏夫: Rettō no metamorufōze to <I> no henyō 列島のメタモルフォーゼと<夷>の変容, Zenkindai chizu no kūkan to chi 前近代地図の空間と知, pp.100-118, 2007.

BTW, Aoyama's theory reinforces Miya's hypothesis that the Honkōji map was copied in Japan during the Edo period. Just my original research :-)

Anyway Miya didn't give a conclusive answer. According to Miya (2007:285-293), Kyoto University finally got a full-scale replica, and Kicengge (a Sibe scholar), Sugiyama Masaaki and others were investigating the map. I hope they will report the results within one or two years.

2. Merger

I think this is an exceptional case. As for European maps, epoch-making maps themselves or faithful copies survive today. But the Mongol era maps are lost and can only be reconstructed from derivative works with the help of supplementary literary evidence. And yes, the chain of development needs to be explained for all historical maps, but that's clearly beyond my knowledge. --Nanshu (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

1) 1389 or not?

You write "Daming Hunyi Tu depicts the new enlarged Japan in addition to the traditional". I would argue that it depicts A new enlarged Japan, but not THE version that you would expect to see in the 16th century; and the fact that it also retains a very small version of the three-island Japan suggests that the cartographer is struggling to assimilate new information. As for place-names; I just don't trust those little paper labels, and I wish we knew what's underneath them all (and I'm puzzled by your point about Tōhoku; are you trying to say that all maps made on the mainland before the 17th century have Japan wrongly oriented?).

Looking more closely into this, I'm even more puzzled. Even assuming that there's a little bit missing at the right-hand side of the photos of the DMHYT available online, there's no way its depiction of Japan extended as far as Tōhoku, and probably not even as far as Edo. What it seems to show is just Kyushu, merging with the first 150km or so of the northern coast of Honshu. David Trochos (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

2) Merger

It all comes back to the general sorting-out of the Early World Maps article, I think. Should the article be, as at present, basically a list, or should it be structured to show how several separate cartographic traditions began to converge (and to some extent clash) in the later Middle Ages thanks largely to the Mongol conquests? If the latter, then there probably is a case for a unified section on Chinese world mapping; even if not, would you like to try adding something about the Guang Yu Tu, which is probably the closest we get to the "source" of maps like the Kangnido. David Trochos (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I updated Da Ming Hun Yi Tu and added some notes on the talk page.

As far as I know, the Japan on the DMHYT is an isolated type. It does not fall into any type of traditional Chinese maps. You claim that we would not expect to see this type of Japan in the 16th century? What do you base that on?

One thing that is for certain is that the Chinese merged a map of Japan into the map because Japan's spatial position vis-a-vis Korea is wrong. Japanese and Koreans were fully aware of the sea route from Kyushu to southern Korea via Iki and Tsushima.

And maybe my explanation on Tohoku was a bit confusing. Japan was traditionally depicted as in [6]. In this framework, Tohoku region was considered to be the eastern (not northeastern) end of Japan. As shown on later maps, however, Tohoku was "rising" to the north: [7] (1607) and [8] (1661). I though that this phenomenon might help to date some maps, but don't taking it too seriously. --Nanshu (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Africa or India?

When one looks at this map, the part identified as "Africa" would seem to be much more sensibly interpreted as India. The two large gashes between SE Asia and this could be interpreted as the Irrawaddy (Ayeyarwady) and Ganges deltas, or possibly the Godavari. The parts confidently interpreted as the Mediterranean could have any number of interpretations and the Henry Davis site referred to above seems to be that of just another interested amateur. (I hope I'm not maligning him.)

I don't read Chinese and anyway any characters are indistinguishable without access to much better reproductions. It's claimed that many names are transliterations of Arabic names and it needs to be remembered that these are very remote from the "Middle Kingdom" and perhaps were added imaginatively by cartographers who hadn't made any visits to this part of the world. Sri Lanka is certainly missing but it's far less of an omission than the whole of India and it's conceivable that the traders who provided this information were unaware that it was an island. In the days of sail one didn't have the luxury of exploring coastlands. The lighthouse of Alexandria is entirely imaginative.

Assuming that the detail above this large mass is indeed a representation of Europe copied from some Ptolemaic or Arabic source, then this still doesn't prove that the peninsula is Africa. The silk road connection to Europe was far to the north and it's possible that the cartographer simply placed Europe at a convenient point towards the edge of the map without any clear knowledge of its relationship to India. Given that the Ptolemaic map grossly underestimates the size of India it would give little guidance to how east and west are related. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence of Chinese trading links with India so it's reasonable to suppose that the knowledge of India's outline would be better in the east. Chris55 (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Kangnido legacy?

Yeoji jeondo (여지전도, 輿地全圖), Late 18th century.

As I was looking for 17th century-18th century Asian maps, I stumbled on this late 18th century Korean map. It is eerily similar to the 15th century Kangnido in general structure: large Asia, small Africa and Europe, undefined India. Europe and Africa are much more precisely drawn however, and it is possible to make out words such as "Atlantic Ocean" (大西洋) Mediterranean sea (地中海), or Italy (意大里亞). Would anybody know about this apparent "legacy" to the Kangnido mapmaking tradition? Cheers PHG (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Sorry I didn't notice this comment earlier. You're right, this is clearly an attempt to incorporate 18th century geographical information into the 14th century Chinese world mapping framework that produced the Kangnido. The cartographer has deliberately kept within the same area, omitting the Americas etc. but including features that should have been on the original maps, such as Great Britain. I wonder if it was a deliberate attempt to remind Koreans that the Cheonhado style was an embarrassing step backwards ?! David Trochos (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinese exploration

Does anyone feel like cleaning up this section? It is isolated from the rest and seems unrelated to the map.

And How about adding the relationship to the so-called the 1421 theory. I don't want to do that by myself because I don't believe this absolute nonsense, but this may be what some readers want. --Nanshu (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

All the Seas Are Painted Black But...

...the alleged Mediterranean. Perhaps it's not the Mediterranean, let alone a sea. Rather Bangla Desh or Myanmar.This way, your Africa and Arabia could be a warped and tangled depiction of Indochina and the Malacca Strait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.2.56 (talk) 09:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that the Mediterranean area would have been based on Portolan charts, which were practical tools for mariners, and had no sea colouring because the space was needed for compass directions, the lack of colouring is understandable. Placing far-Eastern countries in the far west is not so understandable. David Trochos (talk) 06:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. It's convincing, but let me point out a tiny flaw: on the rather accurate Catalan, Portuguese and Maghrebi portolan charts the Atlantic Ocean off Galicia, Portugal, Andalusia and Morocco happened to be left unpainted as well, and with rhumb lines to boot. On the other, a Madagascar-lacking Africa is an odd Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.2.56 (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "Madagascar-lacking". If anything, there are too many potential Madagascars floating around off southern Africa. As for the Atlantic thing, I just wish there was a better online image of the Da Ming Hun Yi Tu, which sesms to be an earlier version of the material. Looking closely at the depiction of the area west of the "Mediterranean" on there, it seems the cartographers were working within a paradigm that said "the land is surrounded by ocean", but didn't know where, in Europe, the ocean began and the land ended. David Trochos (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As I have already wrote in the article, you can find Mediterranean place names around the mass. --Nanshu (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Random remarks

• I reverted mass deletion by the single-purpose account Kangnidofan (talk · contribs).
• I do not think a modern copy in Seoul National University is worth mentioning. And a mailing list is not a good reference source. I have already pointed out this above, but the vandal ignored it.
• Editors should be aware that, as I said above, Gari Ledyard's paper is largely outdated.
• References are grouped by David Trochos (talk · contribs)[9]. But I would like to keep pages because I cite lengthy papers.
• The sections for the two Chinese maps were removed by the vandal and then were placed at the article of Chinese geography by David Trochos (talk · contribs). I wrote them to explain what the Kangnido is, not how Chinese geography has evolved (so the article of Chinese geography needs a drastic revision). As the discussions above demonstrate, most readers are much more interested in how the Kangnido as a world map was created than in how Koreans revised the Northeast Asian portion of the map. So these sections are an integral part of this article. Also, you should take into account the fact that these Chinese maps are now lost. They would not deserve separate articles but should be explained in this article because the Kangnido is the most important source for reconstructing them. And that's why the Kangnido is important. If the original world map survived, the Kangnido would have been treated as a minor offshoot.

--Nanshu (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio "Cartographic Images"

Recent edits restoring material to this page have been reverted because they appear to violate the copyright of the Cartographic Images site. The truth appears to be somewhat more complicated.

Comparing the current Kangnido page on Cartographic Images with this article and with Jim Siebold's original version at henry-davis.com a fairly clear chain of transmission emerges: Wikipedia has adapted Siebold's original text (borderline copyvio, but probably just about acceptable), but then Cartographic Images have directly copied the Wikipedia article (plus related material) as an appendix to the Siebold text.

If others can confirm my impression, I think the material should be restored, perhaps with explanatory refs. David Trochos (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If you're right, then the only issue is whether the text from Siebold is close paraphrase, which isn't acceptable, or clearly new text (of course there's the issue you raise of references as well). Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. Anybody else have any thoughts on whether the deleted text is too close to Jim Siebold's original? David Trochos (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Europe not represented in the Gangnido?

I just undid a contribution which said that the Gangnido only represented the Buddhist world and that Africa and Europe were not represented in the map. In my opinion the source was insufficient (a personal web site by someone who is not a cartographer). Feel free to add it again if you know more serious sources that share that interpretation. Seudo (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

He's not a cartographer, but he is really, really out to lunch and a nasty guy to boot. A birther wanting to legally sack DC and state capitals[10] he's also a religious bigot who hates Jews, Muslims, etc (eg says there are no patriotic Jews).[11] I wish I'd spotted that earlier. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gangnido. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070907180810/http://geog.hkbu.edu.hk:80/GEOG1150/Chinese/catalog/am31_map1.htm to http://geog.hkbu.edu.hk/GEOG1150/Chinese/Catalog/am31_map1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Kangnido vs Gangnido

Hi, should this article be renamed to "Kangnido", as per the McCune–Reischauer (MR) romanization?

From MOS:KO:

"In general, use the Revised Romanization (RR) system for articles with topics about South Korea. Use McCune–Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for topics about North Korea and topics about Korea before the division.
[...]
There are cases in which the romanization differs from the common name used in English sources. As this is the English-speaking Wikipedia, use the name most common in English sources."

So there's two arguments for using MR:

1. If you follow the first para, we should use the MR name.
2. The second para says a possible exception is when there's a more common name in English, but as far as I can tell there isn't.
   1. Most academic sources refer to the map using MR, and the map isn't really discussed outside of academic contexts.
   2. On both Google scholar and Google search, I'm seeing more hits for "Kangnido" than "Gangnido".

Unless there's something I'm missing, MR seems more appropriate. I may go ahead and make the change later if there's no reply within a week or two. toobigtokale (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)