Talk:Piri Reis map

Spilhaus projection

Strangely resemble the Spilhaus Projection from XX century 83.11.112.161 (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Piri Reis map contains the only surviving piece of an otherwise lost map of Christopher Columbus? Source: Gerber, Albrecht (2010), Deissmann the Philologist, p. 199:
  Concerning this last category, an international sensation was created when a sizable section was discovered of the world map drawn by Piri Re’‚s’ (c. 1470–1554), an Ottoman admiral, writer and cartographer,172 since it provided the only known (partial) copy of Christopher Columbus’ lost chart and, therefore, tangible evidence on how the latter visualised the earth geographically.
  
  McIntosh, Gregory C. (2000a), The Piri Reis Map of 1513, pp. 1–2:
  [1] Many diverse claims have been made regarding this map: that it includes a copy of a map made in 1498 by Christopher Columbus,...
  [2] It will also be shown that the Piri Reis map of 1513 may be one of the most important maps of the time to have survived because it probably does contain a copy of a map made by Columbus,
  
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/NBA–ABA All-Star Game
  • Comment: The page numbers in the article's citation not quoted above are about the response to the discovery and not relevant for the hook.

Improved to Good Article status by Rjjiii (talk). Self-nominated at 05:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Piri Reis map; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Newly promoted good article. I see no neutrality issues, the sources used appear to be high-quality academic sources. Earwig returns one false positive due to a hefty quote in one of the footnotes, I note the GA review also resolved a false positive from a Wikipedia mirror. The hook is interesting and sourced with inline citations to reliable sources (as copied above). QPQ is done and no image has been proposed for DYK, which I can understand as the small resolution might not do it favours. Thanks User:Rjjiii for your work in bringing this article on an important historical document up to scratch! ITBF (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

A source calls the Columbus map claim a "diverse claim". Bruxton (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Bruxton. Yes, that's the same work that I am quoting and citing above. McIntosh's book investigates several claims about the map. "Diverse" is not a description of this idea but of the range of ideas. He comes down either saying "no" or saying there's no evidence for the weirder claims. See above for a quote on the Columbus map. He also comes out in support of this on page 69 in that book (at the beginning of Chapter 7) and on page 113. The final paragraph of the book is maybe the most explicit version of his conclusion on the Columbus claim, "The Piri Reis map, however, displays the earliest, most primitive, and most rudimentary cartography of these islands, more primitive than even the celebrated Juan de la Cosa map,* a primitiveness which indicates that the earliest of all cartographic records of the discoveries in the New World—a map made by Christopher Columbus or under his supervision about 1495 or 1496—is preserved in the Piri Reis map of 1513." I think this is McIntosh's first major scholarly work which would explain that kind of hyper-specific way he phrases some of his thoughts. In the 2014 source cited in the article, McIntosh puts it as, "First, the map incorporates an early map by Christopher Columbus of his discoveries in the West Indies preserving for us Columbus’s earliest geographical and cartographic ideas." Rjjiii (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Edit: To give some idea of the diversity of claims, people have attributed the Piri Reis source maps to Chinese emperors, Atlanteans, spies, and spacemen. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: Looks like you are prepared to defend the hook if it goes to errors. Bruxton (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton: I have only done a few of these, so I must confess that I don't know what "goes to errors" would mean. Rjjiii (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Edit: Oh, I didn't notice this at first. Bruxton, you've removed the check.[1] Do you have objections to the hook or to the reference?Rjjiii (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: In order to be promoted I think it is best if we say "may be" as in the map may be the only surviving piece. Otherwise I fear we will have the hook questioned. And errors is when a hook is on the main page and someone reports a discrepancy or error, they do that here. Bruxton (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• ALT0a ... that the Piri Reis map may be the only surviving piece of an otherwise lost map of Christopher Columbus? is my suggestion. Only changing the claim from it is to it might be based on the references. Bruxton (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, gotcha. I'm okay with qualifying it but it should be "likely" or "most probably" or something along those lines. Maybe is a higher level of doubt than what I see in the sources. I'll post an alternative hook below and I'll try to bullet point some quotes from the sources below.

• ALT1 ... that the Piri Reis map likely contains the only surviving piece of an otherwise lost map of Christopher Columbus?Rjjiii (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, as I mentioned earlier today, I snipped some quotes from major scholars. Scholars quoted in the article:

• Akçura (1935) p. 30: "Did the Turkish admiral, who was [a] recognized scholar and cartographer, really have Columbus' map in his possession and did he make use of it in drawing his own map as he claims? After long and serious investigation of the question, Professor Kahle arrived at the conclusion that Piri Reis['s] claim was correct."
• Casale (2019) p. 871: "Piri gave a full account of the sources consulted in compiling his map, a list including 'charts made by four Portuguese who applied mathematical methods to represent India and China,' as well as a map of the 'western seas' that had been drawn by Columbus himself."
• Gaspar (2015) p. 1: "According to one of its inscriptions, the lands shown on the western side were copied from a map drawn by Columbus himself, which was found in the hands of a sailor who had accompanied the Admiral on three of his trips and was later captured by the Ottomans. Our natural skepticism about the plausibility of this story begins to dissipate when the map is studied in light of Columbus’s ideas about the geography of the world and his claim of having reached Asia."
• Gerber (2010) p. 199: "Concerning this last category, an international sensation was created when a sizable section was discovered of the world map drawn by Piri Re’‚s’ (c. 1470–1554), an Ottoman admiral, writer and cartographer,172 since it provided the only known (partial) copy of Christopher Columbus’ lost chart and, therefore, tangible evidence on how the latter visualised the earth geographically."
• Inan (1954) p. 37: "Close studies confirm the idea that the map possessed all the important information that was on the map of C. Columbus..."
• Kahle (1933) p. 624: "The startling reference to a map drawn by Columbus is fully confirmed by a critical examination of the northwestern part of Piri Reis'map ..."
• McIntosh (2014): " "First, the map incorporates an early map by Christopher Columbus of his discoveries in the West Indies preserving for us Columbus’s earliest geographical and cartographic ideas."
• Soucek (1994) p. 134: "Piri Reis wrote on it a long account of America's discovery, and stated that the map was partly based on Columbus's own map, which the Turkish corsairs found in a ship they had captured off Valencia. Internal evidence does indeed support this cliam, and the model may even have been the earliest map the explorer had made of the Caribean."
• Tekeli (1985) p. 675: "However, today neither the original nor any of its copies can be found. The only map that has survived until now is that of Pîrî Reîs, who drew it using the map of Columbus as a model."

Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: Thanks for pointing out that I removed the green check. I meant to remove the stop. Sorry, just replaced it Rjjiii. Bruxton (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@ITBF: can you approve ALT1? Bruxton (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Bruxton it's approved, but the original hook is fine too - I don't really understand why you want to equivocate when none of the sources presented have any ambiguity? ITBF (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@ITBF: understood. I am not able to promote ALT0 because I do not see it as clearly attributed. I can promote ALT1. Thank you. Bruxton (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The whole first section is missing citations

"A disproven 20th-century hypothesis identified the southern landmass with an ice-free Antarctic coast."

Really? When? By whom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.249.92 (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

per WP:LEADCITE: the lead section of an article is a summary of the (cited) article body. Citations can be found with the corresponding prose being summarized in the article itself. Remsense诉 08:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Does it "depict[] Cuba as part of the Asian mainland"?

This seems a very odd turn of phrase to me, but my attempts to 'improve' it have been reverted more than once now. I can't access the original source, but even the description in the body seems very different from this. Does it really 'depict' Asia -- either as it is, or as it was thought to be at the time -- or does it more straightforwardly rather mislabel the American mainland? Or does the Columbus map being now lost make this hard to say with any clarity? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

From Martin Waldseemüller's Carta Marina Navigatoria (1516): "TERRA DE CUBA • ASIE PARTIS [Land of Cuba • Part of Asia]"

"mislabel the American mainland" assumes that Piri Reis or his sources had modern information about the North American mainland. WP:RS say that this map (and several contemporary maps like Waldseemüller's Carta Marina or the 1506 map by Nicolay de Caveri) reflect a misconception that Cuba and possibly several discoveries across the Atlantic Ocean were known parts of Asia or directly connected to known parts of Asia. They could only map what they knew, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't assume that at all -- just the reverse, as clearly they did not, and that's precisely why they labelled it incorrectly. Yes, I agree that they 'reflect the misconception' -- but that's a different (and IMO better) characterisation than that it 'depicts Asia'. Do you have a direct quote from the cited source -- or from any other such -- that suggests it's essentially a c'n'p from Asia as it was then or previously mapped? Or generally clarifies what the source does say. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Gaspar (2015) p. 2: "To the east of Hispaniola and Puerto Rico is a peninsula containing a long north-south oriented coastline, which historians unanimously identify as the coast of Cuba, as described by Columbus in his diary." [Article text cited to it: "The peculiar configuration of the Caribbean is usually attributed to the usage of an early map of Columbus, now lost."]

McIntosh (2000a) p. 114: "The Columbian conception of the transatlantic lands and islands (as recorded in Columbus's writings and the writings of his contemporaries) and the Toscanelli-Martellus-Rosselli-Behaim conception of the East Asian coast are combined with the geography of the West Indies and the Caribbean to produce the configurations of the Piri Reis map—configurations that are copied from Columbus's map. The Piri Reis map of 1513 and most other maps of the first two decades of the sixteenth century depict the results of the attempts at combining the reported geography of the new lands with the differing conceptions of East Asia envisaged by Ptolemy, Marco Polo, Toscanelli, Martellus, Columbus, and the Portuguese." [Article text cited to it: "The western coast on the map combines features of Central America and Cuba, reflecting Columbus's claim that Cuba was part of an Asian mainland."] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 09:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, much obliged. Can we accordingly say something closer to this second quote regarding what's being 'depicted'? i.e. the combination, rather than simply Asia. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Something like: "Scholars attribute the peculiar arrangement of the Caribbean to a now-lost map from Columbus that depicted Cuba as part of the Asian mainland and Hispaniola according to Marco Polo's description of Japan. This reflects Columbus's erroneous claim that he had found a route to Asia." → "The northwestern coast combines features of Central America and Cuba into a mainland. Scholars attribute the peculiar arrangement of the Caribbean to a now-lost map from Columbus that merged Cuba with Asia and Hispaniola with Marco Polo's description of Japan. This reflects Columbus's erroneous claim that he had found a route to Asia." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've edited in something indeed 'like' that, please correct if I've strayed too far or otherwise erred. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I did two edits just now. I've added some explanation of elements of Hispaniola (on Piri Reis' map) that are clearly from Columbus and not a map of Japan to the body, and then took out "equated" for Hispaniola/Japan as "merge" is the more appropriate verb. I hope this also goes some way towards addressing your concern that the lead can be read to mean that either Piri Reis or Columbus did "essentially a c'n'p from Asia". Modern WP:RS covering the map pretty much all describe it as a synthesis or combination rather than just copying. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Right. That all makes sense to me, great stuff. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)