Jump to content

Talk:Mappa mundi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 131.228.182.252 (talk) at 14:55, 14 March 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mappa Mundi = medieval?

How come? What's the source of this affirmation? Mappa mundi means, literally, world map. Any map that represents the world is a mappa mundi. I challenge this concept of "only medieval" maps of the world are mappae mundi.

Zonal Maps

I was just reading Bede and his account of the zones places them clearly in the sky, not on the Earth. I think that in the Early Middle Ages Zonal Maps are (sometimes|often|usually) related to the zones in the celestial sphere, not to zones on the Earth. Are there any examples of an ancient or early medieval map (say before 1100) that shows the zones unambiguously on the surface of the Earth? If not, the discussion and accompanying illustration are seriously misleading. --SteveMcCluskey 19:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard my last. I checked Macrobius and he talks explicitly about the relation between the celestial parallels and their terrestrial equivalents. --SteveMcCluskey 00:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Mappaemundi" or "mappae mundi"?

If, according to the article, the plural of "mappa mundi" is "mappae mundi", should all the instances of "mappaemundi" in the article be replaced with "mappae mundi"?  Thanks, David Kernow 12:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same question went through my mind as I read this article. I'm pretty sure that it should be mappae mundi -- two words and italicized. --WikiPedant 22:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've peformed a simple find+replace on "mappaemundi" in the article, replacing it with "mappae mundi"; hope nothing has been broken in the process. Thanks for your input, David 03:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Since the T and O article is not, at this point, very long, it seemed to make more sense to have it as a section of this article rather than its own separate entity. Input would be much appreciated, as I've never suggested a merge before. Cheers. --Evan, guest editor; 19 Jul 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.225.53 (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The T and O article has developed quite well so perhaps should remain separate.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal has been removed.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]