Talk:Fra Mauro map
|WikiProject Maps||(Rated Low-importance)|
|A fact from Fra Mauro map appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 4 April 2005. The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
Thanks for the article!
"The map was completed on April 24, 1459, and sent to Portugal, but didn't survive." It didn't survive to present days or it didn't survive enough to reach Portugal? --188.8.131.52 17:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Name and merge
- Since Wikipedia is not a universal directory of names, it doesn't aid the reader to have a separate article for Fra Mauro, who is only encyclopediable for this map. I suggest the material there be merged here, and Fra Mauro be made a redirect. --Wetman 01:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The word ”miglia” links to an article that does not explain the word. Did he mean a Roman mile or what?
2009-02-21 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
Is this map really from 1450 (or earlier?) or is this a copy? (or even a hoax?)
For the 15th century, the Fra Mauro map is very detailed and colorful. Obviously the layout is odd, but at least the cartographer got the Mediterranean area nearly perfect. If I'm reading the article correctly, a copy was made from this particular map and lost. So this obviously cannot be that copy and is in fact the original. I have also read that it is a copy of one possessed by Marco Polo. Whether that is true of not, all maps of the time were likely copies, at least in part, of other existing maps.
If this map is indeed from 1450 or earlier, there are some anomalies that shouldn't be there. At least not according to our Western-centered historical filter. There is controversy about the Chinese junks and Africa, and obviously Pre-Colombian visitation to the Americas has been debated for centuries. These aren't the anomalies I am referring to though. Although if indeed there are portions of Africa here that had not been 'discovered' yet, that would only support investigation into the other anomalies.
The text is too small for me to read and translate, and there is a book which translates the text on the map but I haven't read it. Now, I know from looking at old maps created in Europe that Asian and African details were less reliable then Western Europe ones for obvious reasons. I know cartographers used multiple sources in piecing together their maps. Mistakes are common, mythological places often appear, and areas are mislabeled (or a blanket term like "Tatars" and/or "Barbarians" is used). The Fra Mauro maps has places labeled both correctly and incorrectly in Africa and Asia. For example, assuming Thebet is supposed to be Tibet, it's in the wrong place.
Why is Asia so large? This is where the anomalies I am speaking of are. The area labeled Sinvs Gangeticus (based on the name, I'm guessing that's supposed to be near India) is shown with mountains and rivers and features that are familiar. I'm not sure if this is a reliable source or not, but this person came to a similar conclusion:
http://www.marcopolovoyages.com/Articles/PortugueseMap1436.html (Dr.Gunnar Thompson)
Why is Florida and the Gulf of Mexico on this map in 1450? Why have only a few people noticed this? I know that our brains see things where they aren't there, but just fire up Google Earth and compare them. What's labeled here as Taprobana is probably part of Mexico. Taprobana has a rectangular shape on most other maps. Fra Mauro was likely using a map with North America attached to Asia and when he drew this he was applying places known to have existed in or around Asia (Java, the mythical Tapropbana) to Asia (which included an attached NA) from his source material. That's original research though. Which is why I won't argue about whether that smaller Giava is Ciava (hard to tell) not far from where Cuba would be. Or the curiously named Saylam island near where the Solomon Islands really are is called that for similar reasons.
Anyways, is the above link a reliable source to include anything about Marco Polo's map and the region which is obviously Florida? It's common sense when you look at it, but Wikipedia needs a little more than common sense. Pre-Colombian expeditions to the Americas from Moorish Spain and Portugal are getting more debate as historians are finally letting go of the whole Columbus thing. It's important not to let the Colombian propaganda cloud our best judgments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- No one believes or has believed for decades that Columbus was the first European. Thompson was an associate professor in Counselor education at the University of Hawaii with a PhD in rehabilitation counselling. He believes that the Americas had been visited by voyagers sent by Queen Hatshepsut, King Solomon, and Queen Elizabeth I, these including Marco Polo, Chinese adventurer Tzu Fu, Admiral Zheng He, Nicholas of Lynn, Amerigo Vespucci, Francis Drake, and King Arthur. In his self-published book American Discovery he wrote "Native Americans are the first discoverers, occupying the Americas for at least 300,000 years." In other words, before Homo Sapiens. So no, he's not a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thompson may not be a reliable source per Wikipedia standards, however, he may be on to something. It is a real shame few others are discussing this map (and others) and the resemblence to the Gulf of Mexico along with Florida. That would be one heck of a coincidence. Also do not have a high resolution version to determine if the Giava off the "Flordia" coast starts with a C or not. I doubt it relates to Cuba, but it would be phonetically similar. If this part of America was mapped and confused by cartographers to be part of the Asian continent, it would make sense considering how America was called India. Again, just a shame nobody reliable is stating what looks quite obvious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)