Talk:Gangnido

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

text: 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)

text: Maybe, but please read an example of schorlarly analysis associated to this map . 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" ). PHG 12:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: old talk (may be unorganized, unsigned and out of date order)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: name

message: I just found in this article there are two Yuan Dynasty maps.--Ksyrie 01:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a japanese map but not korean ones.--Ksyrie 12:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Did this map really combine the korean and japanese maps?

message: 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)
thread_title: Restoration

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Given that the earlier  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Errors on [[:Image:645px-KangnidoCaption.jpg]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Sugiyama's new article

message: 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)
thread_title: Name

message: 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)
thread_title: Deletion changed to move

message: 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)
thread_title: ...and another move changed to near-deletion

message: 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.
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Gari Ledyard's paper

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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.Gari Ledyard message in Korean Studies mailing list 2006-04-25, via Koreaweb
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)
thread_title: Organization

message: 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)
thread_title: Africa or India?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Kangnido legacy?

message: 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)
thread_title: Chinese exploration

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  All the Seas Are Painted Black But... 

message: * I reverted mass deletion by the single-purpose account .
* 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 . 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 . 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)
thread_title:  Random remarks 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Copyvio "Cartographic Images" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 he's also a religious bigot who hates Jews, Muslims, etc (eg says there are no patriotic Jews). I wish I'd spotted that earlier. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe not represented in the Gangnido? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
# If you follow the first para, we should use the MR name.
# 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.
## Most academic sources refer to the map using MR, and the map isn't really discussed outside of academic contexts.
## 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)
thread_title:  Kangnido vs Gangnido