Talk:Junk (ship)

message: : ... junks capable of carrying 700 people together with 260 tons of cargo
The original Chinese text reads:
:* 大者二十餘丈，
:** The larger ones are over 20 "丈" long,
:* 高去水三二丈，
:** and above the water for 3 to 2 "丈",
:* 望之如閣道，
:** they are like houses,
:* 载六、七百人，
:** and are carrying 6-700 people, 
:* 物出萬斛。
:** and are carrying more than 10,000 "斛" of cargo.
The Chinese characters are ancient units. We know very little about these units. Even if we could find a definition somewhere, the ship owner could had lied. Let's say you were a business man who wanted to hire a ship, what would the ship owner tell you? Lies, bloody lies. Yes, this ship could carry 10,000 "斛" of cargo, ... it could sink if there's any wind. Do not believe in these dead people's words. -- Toytoy 15:04, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
::I agree for the units, although the numbers are based on estimates made by specialists. At least the "units" for counting people have not changed through time: 600 to 700 people on a boat does indicate quite a big-sized ship. Of course even historians could lie, but Chinese historians later than the 2nd century BCE do have a record for precision, and there is indeed a pattern of large Chinese ships throughout 2 millenia. Thanks for the feedback PHG 12:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit conversion 

message: : ... ships with seven masts, travelling as far as Syria.
I don't know if the original text was "大秦" (Daqin) and its translator was Friedrich Hirth of 19th century. Anyway, some place names are still in debate as of today. Please be careful. -- Toytoy 03:30, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
::Does the original text indeed say Daqin? Do you have the quote? I am very interested, especially for the article Sino-Roman relations. Regards PHG 12:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place names 

message: : The English name comes from Malay dgong or jong.''
I checked the OED, it did not say anything about its origin but it includes some quotes:
1.    a. Naut. An old or inferior cable or rope; usually old junk. Obs. 
* 1485 Naval Acc. Hen. VII (1896) 49 Hausers grete and small..iij, Jonkes..iiij. Ibid. 55 Olde Jonkes..iiij.
* 1600 HAKLUYT Voy. (1810) III, We only roade by an old iunke.
* 1622 SIR R. HAWKINS Voy. S. Sea (1847) 155 Peeces of a Junke or rope chopped very small. 
* 1626 CAPT. SMITH Accid. Yng. Seamen 16 Cables, hawsers or streame cables when that way vnseruiceable, they serue for Iunkes, fendors and braded plackets for brests of defence. 
* 1627  Seaman's Gram. vii. 30 Fenders are peeces of old Hawsers called Iunkes. 
* 1769 NEWLAND in Phil. Trans. LXII. 86 You may make your ship fast with any old junk.
b. A piece of old cable used in making a fender, etc. Obs. 
[1626-7: see 1.] a
* 1642 SIR W. MONSON Naval Tracts (1704) III. 374/1, I advise, that..the uppermost part of the Ship be arm'd with Junks of Cables.
* 1716 Glossogr. Nova, Bongrace, to Mariners is a Frame of old Ropes or Juncks of Cables, laid out at the Bows, Stems, and Sides of Ships..to preserve them from Damage of great Flakes of Ice.
junk, n.2
A name for the common type of native sailing vessel in the Chinese seas. It is flat-bottomed, has a square prow, prominent stem, full stern, the rudder suspended, and carries lug-sails.
The name is now applied to Chinese, Japanese, Okinawan, Thai, and other vessels of this type; early writers applied it still more widely to Malay, Javan, and even South Indian native vessels. 
* [1555 EDEN Decades 215 [from It. of Pigafetta] From the whiche Ilandes [Moluccas] they are brought [to India] in shyps or barkes made withowt any iren tooles... These barkes they caule Giunche. 
* 1588 PARKE tr. Mendoza's Hist. China I. III. xxi. 115 Such ships as they haue to saile long voiages be called Iuncos.] 
* 1613 PURCHAS Pilgrimage, Descr. India (1864) 54 The viceroy having two ships sent him for supply, two Iunkes, eight or ten boates. 
* 1634 SIR T. HERBERT Trav. 184 We espied a Malabar Juncke of seventie Tunnes, bound for Acheen in Sumatra. 
* 1697 W. DAMPIER Voy. (1729) I. 396 The Chinese..have always hideous Idols on board their Jonks or Ships. 
* 1720 DE FOE Capt. Singleton xiv. (1840) 237 A Dutch junk, or vessel, going to Amboyna. 
* 1773 Gentl. Mag. XLIII. 332 The Chinese junks and boats..were most of them sunk. 
* 1813 J. BURNEY Discov. S. Sea III. x. 255 The unwieldiness of the Chinese jonks. 
* 1853 HAWTHORNE Eng. Note-Bks. (1883) I. 442 All manner of odd-looking craft, but none so odd as the Chinese junk.
attrib. 
* 1634 SIR T. HERBERT Trav. 27 A Junck-man of Warre full of desperate Malabars. 
* 1880 I. L. BIRD Japan II. 320 The total junk navy is 468,750 tons.
: BTW the word for 舟 is pronounced "zung" (sounds like joong) in the dioziu dialect, and I can assume that it's very similar if not the same in hokkien and other southern min dialects.  I have always thought that the word came from that.  But that was without knowing there were malay words that are similar.  ~anonymous
::I'm curious about the etymology as well; since Junk / Jonk meaning an old piece of rope was a nautical term  since 1353 per this link. While I'll admit that its my own OR, I'd believe that the boat term was created when western sailors saw how much rope was used in the junk rig (and due to the quantity required, it was probably lots of old pieces).
::: Why was the following passage taken out entirely? It seems... well, useful. Even if the etymology is specious, the Chinese language equivalents are important:  
:::The word junk comes to English from Malay jong, ajong, which is from Chinese 船 cún / tsún (Minnan), chuán (Mandarin), boat, ship, junk. The Chinese word for an ocean-going junk is 艚 cáo. --grant (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I’d say the reason it was taken out is that it is very unlikely to be true. The OED does mention the theory, but also flat-out states that there is no connection between the Chinese word 船 and the Javanese word djong. Moreover, the pronunciation given in the current version of the page, [dzuːŋ], is … well … strange, to say the least. There is no sign that this word ever had a velar nasal at the end: Japanese onyomi is sen (would probably have been sō if there had been a velar involved). Karlgren’s reconstruction for the EMC form is *ɗi̯wan (Tōdō reconstructs *diuə̆n), both with no velar. The link between the Chinese word and the Javanese one seems to be entirely made up. Kokoshneta (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what OED says: "Ultimately < Javanese jong ship, large vessel, especially one of Chinese origin (12th cent. or earlier; compare Malay jong, jung) < Chinese (Wu: Ningpo) jüng ship." https://www.oed.com/dictionary/junk_n3?tab=etymology#40254649  Pakbelang (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The OED page you have given supports the ultimate Javanese origin of the junk. Historically, Javanese and Malay people called the Chinese "junk" (actually chuan) wangkang. Only in the modern era do both Javanese and Malay people call the Chinese ship, chuan, as jung. Chinese and Javanese junk should be viewed as a markedly different vessel, regardless of if the English thought they were both called "junk". See the argument of a user below about the difference between the two etymology. Surijeal (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

text: As the letter u can also be pronounced as -oo- in English (like the word June), and for some unknown reason (possibly a very common phenomenon called phonetic mutation or even a slight Mondegreen), the final g was written in k, and the whole word was written as junk.: -grant (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Seems to me the discussion under design, that watertight holds were a myth, is contradicted under history, 14th century, by the quote from Niccolo Da Conti. Is this a conflict, or is da Conti's comment merely out of context to his intent? 'Intact' certainly suggests 'not water damaged'. Is there a good source for the watertight idea being a myth?ThuranX 05:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watertight Holds 

message: The article treats the sizes as given facts and does not reflect at all the fact that all these numbers are just speculation. In fact, by any measure we have, the size of the ships, particularly of the Treasures ships, must be blown out of proportion. See Largest wooden ships. Gun Powder Ma 01:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article reflects uncritically the dimensions given by ancient sources and fails to take into consideration modern scholarship which favours far smaller sizes. See zheng he. Regards Gun Powder Ma 23:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Counter. Modern scholarship by Louise Levanthes,et al, points towards a ship size of the treasure junks at 400-440 feet ("When China Ruled the Seas" pg. 80). Others, particularly Prof. Edward Dreyer of the University of Miami have approved of the ship sizes as being factual range probabilities, not technical impossibilities ("Journal of Asian Studies" -  Vol. 54, No. 1, pp 198-199). Joseph Needham, as well, had pointed towards treasure ships in the 400-500 ft range. Therefore, based on their research and modern translations into modern units as well as the rudder posts unearthed at Longjiang, the treasure ship sizes of 400 ft or longer are both plausible and, in all likelihood, probable. Kairn012 02:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of Zheng He's ships 

message: Are the Ibn Battutah quotations free of copyright?  Parts of them match word for word The Travels of Ibn Battutah edited by Tim Mackintosh-Smith (). He claims copyright for his foreward (not quoted in this Wikipedia article), not for the text which he abridged from the translation by Professors Hamilton Gibb and C.F. Beckingham and for that The Hakluyt Society holds copyright.--SilasW 20:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright query re 14th century junks (Yuan Dynasty) 

message: The article needs the Chinese name of this type of ship. Chinese Wikipedia gives 中国帆船. Badagnani (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese name

message: The text states that the medieval Chinese junk could sail against the wind, but the illustration shows that it is primarily propelled by rowers. Why are they rowing if the ship could beat against the wind? Ibn Battuta (Travels of Ibn Battuta) writes that the medieval Chinese junk only used its sails when the winds were favourable, and rowers when the winds were unfavourable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.62 (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder whether someone was confused between the sailing characteristics of the junk rig and the sailing characteristics of junks themselves. It's entirely plausible that junk rigs would enable the vessel to point closer to the wind than square rigs, but that junks themselves might not sail well upwind due to their hull shape. Indeed, my International Maritime Dictionary (1961) says that "the frequent absence of keel in the junk does not permit it to work well to windward." 206.208.105.129 (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Color me skeptical; I grew up sailing a Sunfish (and other scow-like flat-bottomed boats with daggerboards) they sailed pretty close to the wind. I suppose the profile of the ship above the waterline might cause some wind resistance, but that's not really due to keellessness. Unless the IMD is referring to boats that only use the rudder (no daggerboard or leeboards) for lateral resistance - I vaguely remember reading that some junks have oversized rudders for that purpose. -- grant (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Using an oversized rudder in place of keel/centerboard/daggerboard doesn't make sense to me--the resistance to leeward drift has to either be distributed over the entire bottom of the boat (as with the keel of a frigate, say) or be concentrated directly below the sails' center of effort. If the resistance is applied only at the stern, the boat will have such a lee helm that it will always tend to fall off. No? 206.208.105.129 (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

text: In any case, I searched for anything I could use to rewrite this and having found nothing removed it. It was part of some major additions by an IP at  some of which were nonsense, eg the bit about Cromagnon's doing cave painting on the Indo-China cost. This I sourced back to a magazine (sorry, called it a book in error in my edit summary) later copied into a self-published book. Despite some odd claims, the Cromagnon (an obsolete but still popular term) are European. He added some other unsourced stuff. Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Text contradicts illustration

message: I need a diagram of a junk sail that labels all the differant parts and stuff.
-Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.214.34 (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sail Diagram 

message: The commment in the "Leeboards & Centerboard" section stating that before the 19th century most navigation "continued for the most part to be done by the wind, sun and stars" may have been true for the Chinese, but was not true for Europeans.  The numerous compass bearings seen on 14th century Portlan Charts, as well as the remark quoted later in the article from the 15th century Frau Mauro map testifies to the importance of steering by magnetic compasses.   66.51.147.97 (talk)gb  —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leeboards & centerboards article comments on compass not being used inaccurrent? 

message: This translation from medieval Italian to modern English appears to have been made by a Wikipedia editor (no other reference is given) and is thus original research. This translation has allowed the editor to insert his/her own speculations: for example the improbable idea that "isole uerde" referred to the Cape Verde Islands in West Africa, thousands of miles north of the Cape of Good Hope. A story of a junk being blown off course from the Indian Ocean into the South Atlantic is one thing; a story that they then traveled thousands of miles further away from their intended route instead of sailing back to that route is quite another.  Which story best corresponds to the medieval Italian text should be decided by credible sources, not by Wikipedia editors. 
It's also questionable to use this source from the other side of the world, probably repeating second-or-worse-hand rumors, that relates a story about "Zoncho de India" alongside a story of a roc, in a section that suggests that it's about the factual history of junks rather than uncorroborated rumors or possibly fictional stories about them. A credible source (of the kind we should be quoting from) would provide multiple primary sources before making a strong claim about the historicity of this voyage. 24.130.227.219 (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of Frau Mauro map text from the medieval Italian 

message: I was watching a History Channel program on Youtube and they said that the old Chinese junks could carry 1500 tons of cargo.  Does anyone know if that could be the case.....thanks. PS...I'm editing this to say that the 1500 ton number would represent more than the weight of three fully loaded high capacity versions of the Boeing 747.Longinus876 (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Displacement 

message: Contradictory statement in intro para:
:"Junks were developed during the Song Dynasty (960-1129)[1] and were used as seagoing vessels as early as the 2nd century CE." 
Seems strange that junks were seagoing vessels from the 100s onwards, but their 'development' only took place from 960s.
The cite for the first-mentioned dates is a print book I don't have access to. -- Centrepull (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development dates 

message: Ambiguous statement in the section on Asian Trade:
"These junks were usually three masted, and averaging between 200 and 800 tons in size, the largest ones having around 130 sailors, 130 traders and sometimes hundreds of passengers."
Hundreds of passengers in addition to 130 traders? Were the traders not counted amongst the passengers? -- Centrepull (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traders and passengers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Junk (ship). 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  tag to http://geoweb.venezia.sbn.it/geoweb/Hsl/FraMauro/FMnumerico.html
*Added  tag to http://geoweb.venezia.sbn.it/geoweb/Hsl/FraMauro/FMnumerico.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813084347/http://www.michellemoonlee.com/junks/ to http://www.michellemoonlee.com/junks
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613074446/http://www.worldofboats.org/boats/view/keying_ii/22/junk to http://www.worldofboats.org/boats/view/keying_ii/22/junk
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) 00:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The banner at the top of the article mentions moving lengthy quotes to Wikiquote. However, the material that's quoted doesn't seem to be "notable,' but just highly technical. Would it be appropriate simply to summarize a passage with the proper reference?
Shandong44 (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, Shandong44! Go for it! HopsonRoad (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Junk (ship). 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/20081201125515/http://www.friend.ly.net/users/dadadata/junk/platt/platt_chinese_sail.html to http://www.friend.ly.net/users/dadadata/junk/platt/platt_chinese_sail.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505083424/http://www.thomashoppe.net/Revival_of_the_Chinese_Junk to http://www.thomashoppe.net/Revival_of_the_Chinese_Junk
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070203063801/http://www.chinaseas.org/ to http://www.chinaseas.org/
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) 17:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Thank you for contributing a section on the Javanese Djong. I'm concerned that it reads as a patchwork of historical descriptions with quotations, rather than summarizing what makes those vessels distinctive and notable. You might wish to review: Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. Keep up the good work! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section on Javanese ''Djong'' 

message: This image comes from a Japanese document "唐舩之圖" ("Scroll of Foreign Ships") dated to 1720 and made by Matsura Atsunobu, head of Hirado Domain, when the regime of Koxinga had fallen for decades(1683). By the way, this document is kept in 松浦史料博物館 (Officiall description dated it to "middle 18th century"), its content is about the types and structures of merchant ships which came from Qing or Southeastern Asia (Vietnam, Siam and Dutch East Indies), and has nothing to do with Koxinga. So the description of this image is totally wrong. Chenzhipeter (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this. It would be appropriate for you to announce that you are planning to change its description at the talk page for the image and, upon receiving any feedback, do so appropriately! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Koxinga Junk" ? 

message: Proposal: Eliminate gallery per WP:Gallery 
 The image gallery in this article appears to me to be just a collection of pictures that does not comport with WP:Gallery, which suggests that "a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images" and explains that one should "avoid similar or repetitive images unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made". Unless there is pushback on the value of this gallery or improvement to the captions that highlight points of contrast, I propose to eliminate it. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Image gallery

message: I've seen the 'typical' Hong Kong junks referred to as 'bat-winged junks'.  Not sure of the definition, and would appreciate anyone who does adding a note. - Onanoff (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  bat-winged junks 

message: In the section titled "Hull," there are two citations that don't have any publication information or link - one is just book title, page number (The Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology, p.185),  and the other is book title, page number, author (Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in Ancient China p. 452). It'd be really nice to see how the long quote from Needham is formatted - partially because it's unclear if Needham's quote contains another quote ("the following story, related by Liu Ching-Shu of the +5th century, in his book I Yuan (Garden of Strange Things)"). Anybody have more info on these volumes? 
It's also not clear to me why the sentence citing the Oxford Handbook needs to be there at all - are Roman water-wells that important to Asian hull design? (Or is it even possible that the Needham passage is being quoted in the Oxford Handbook?) --grant (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hull section, better citations possible? 

message: The first several words of the article currently  say that the Chinese for "junk" is 䑸 (Mandarin reading zōng). However, this is an extremely rare character, basically only attested to in dictionaries dedicated to rare characters; and invoking the character 䑸 so prominently in the article would give the casual reader the impression that the English word "junk" derives solely from zōng. Since the etymology section says nothing about the character 䑸 (indeed, the character is not even alluded anywhere other than in that first phrase), and currently seems to argue slightly in favor of an ultimately Javanese origin rather than Chinese, it seems like the character 䑸 should either be deleted, or moved and given additional citations in the etymology section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B011:1006:D11E:3CAB:EE8F:A8E5:A837 (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the review of the word 䑸 (zōng) in the etymology section, and replaced the script in the initial description to 船 (chuán). Surijeal (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite for the use of 䑸? 

message: This article uses a mixture of BC/AD and BCE/CE. Needs fixing, but I' m on my phone. PamD 23:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent eras