Talk:Kangnido

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kangnido article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Kangnido is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea (History), a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
	Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please help us improve this article.
	Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	Middle Ages Portal Kangnido is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

A fact from Kangnido appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on March 21, 2005.

Contents 1 old talk (may be unorganized, unsigned and out of date order) 2 disputed 3 name 4 Did this map really combine the korean and japanese maps? 5 Japan 6 Bibliography 7 Restoration 8 Errors on Image:645px-KangnidoCaption.jpg 9 Sugiyama's new article 10 Name 11 Kangnidofan's mass deletion 11.1 Deletion changed to move 11.1.1 ...and another move changed to near-deletion 11.2 "Nationalistic" claim

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] ...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)

[edit] "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)