Talk:T and O map

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WhiteselC.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

[Spherical or circular earth]

at the time discussed, was the earth thought to be spherical, or just circular? i would wager that the author intended to write circular, but... Fufthmin 22:58, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Spherical. It is a myth that people didnt think the world was a globe. Common people did, but any learned person or sailor knew the world was round in the Middle Ages. The question was, how big, no one knew that (Columbus thought the world was much smaller or he would have never attempted his voyage to India, he never could have made it not knowing the Americas were in the way). Stbalbach 23:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This was common in the *late* Middle Ages, not in early MA. FellGleaming (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Latin text

Since the latin quote is right at the very start of the article, and is integral to the explanation being given on what the map is, it seems fairly important we have an english translation along side it. Otherwise it will just scare readers away, this is for a general audience, the opening section is supposed to draw readers in and peak their interest in the subject. Stbalbach 14:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

sure, do make a suggestion. For example, how shall we translate orbis? Let me have a go,

The world is referred to as an orb after the roundness of a circle, because it is like a wheel, just like a little wheel can also be called a little orb for short (?). Because of this, the Ocean flowing around the world is contained in a circular limit. The world is divided in three parts, one part being called Asia, the second Europe, and the third Africa.

I'm not too sure about this, I'll think about how to improve it. I'm not sure if the idea here is to explain the word orbis, which would indicate a spherical earth, as simply referring to the circular shape of a disk-shaped flat earth. dab (ᛏ) 16:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, how about,

The world is called "round" after the roundness of a circle, because it is like a wheel [...] Because of this, the Ocean flowing around it is contained in a circular limit, and it is divided in three parts, one part being called Asia, the second Europe, and the third Africa.

the [...] part would be untranslatable since it is about Latin terminology. dab (ᛏ) 16:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah I think the second translation is very understandable, thanks. Ill add it to the article and see how it looks, we can remove it or footnote it. Stbalbach 03:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Flat earth

Isidore therefore assumes a flat earth

I dont think that is accurate. As the article says, the map shows only the top half of the sphere. In fact the whole flat earth thing is pretty much debunked in the flat earth article, I dont think anyone of consequence beleived the world was flat in the middle ages, thats more of a 19th century artifact. Stbalbach 03:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• My mistake, the T-O map does indeed assume a flat earth. Stbalbach 04:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • hm, no: T-O does not necessarily assume a flat earth, but Isidore (the author, in his text) does happen to assume a flat earth. dab (ᛏ) 06:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Er, Stbalbach has just added (restoring a revert) that "Isidore therefore does not assume a flat earth". Maybe s/he is correct in the article and wrong here?? BTW I cannot find the words memnotic or comologies in the several dictionaries I've checked. I'm intrigued that Troy is the navel of the world in nordic comologies - this is true, is it? Nurg 04:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

True. It's confusing. I think the problem is, this article is about the map, not Isidore. There is too much attention being paid to Isidore and his interpretation which is confusing. -- Stbalbach 00:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the confusion is over the mention of Antipodes; they do not in of themselves indicate a belief either way (e.g. a flat earth has antipodes as well). If no one objects, I am thus removing the incorrect claim that Isidore's comments clearly indicate a belief in a spherical earth.

---

re: this line:

become common knowledge once again in Europe

This could be misleading, it portrays a Europe in which knowledge of a round world was lost. There was certainly confusion or different opinions amoung a thin veneer of learned men, but the idea of a round world was never lost (note the mast of a ship coming into port). I just want to make sure the article doesnt continue the historiographical mistake of the 19th century flat earthers, painting the middle ages as backwards in comparison to earlier or later periods. Stbalbach 21:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

well, we don't know whether people in general even had an opinion on the matter. Few people may have positively believed in a flat earth (although the influence of Isidore shouldn't be underestimated), but people didn't exactly walk around declaring "the earth is round". This is something we all heard as little children, and at that time, children weren't told so. So, in short, if people had any opinion, we don't know, and positive knowledge of the spherical shape of the earth spread again from roughly 1000 AD (i.e. from the beginning of the High Middle Ages: nobody claims "the Middle Ages believed in a flat earth". dab (ᛏ) 21:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Images

I reduced the number of images to two because that's about all it can handle without being cluttered and moved the rest to a gallery. I reduced the image size to a standard size as they look different on different monitors and resolutions. To zoom in on a picture either click the image, or use the browsers built-in zoom feature ("CNTRL +" on Firefox). -- Stbalbach 14:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed your Template:cleanup-gallery tag before I realized there was a way to create galleries in Commons, but I think the distinction between a Gallery and a Category in Commons is miniscule, and does not warrant a tag that says to move the images to Commons when they have been there since before you created the gallery. See commons:Category:T and O map — Joe Kress (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Isidore and flat earth

Can I ask why this article even has Isidore's quote? This article is about T&O maps - not flat earths and Isidore's flat earth theory. It might make an ok section at the bottom of the article or something. Also, it remains unclear what, exactly, Isidore thought - the prevailing cosmological view at the time was that the earth was divided into 5 spheres and it certainly could be interpreted that Isidore was talking about ONE of those spheres as being flat like a wheel, but within the context of a round earth. -- Stbalbach 12:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

um, because the very concept of T&O maps is derived from that quote? Note that even that 15th c. illustration says "this is the Earth according to Isidore" (le monde selon ysidore). dab (ᛏ) 15:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Isidore actually considered the Earth to be globular, it is well explained in the Flat Earth page. I changed the article according to the sourced information from there. As far as I know, the edits about Isidore in the Flat Earth article were made by the historian of science User:SteveMcCluskey, he may be a good source for further information about this. --201.9.60.131 17:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on T and O map. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/isidore/14
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060209042605/http://www.strangehorizons.com/2002/20020610/medieval_maps.shtml to http://www.strangehorizons.com/2002/20020610/medieval_maps.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Which way is up?

The text says that East is at the top, yet the map (in the picture) is actually oriented with East on the right. See Hereford Mappa Mundi for a clearer view.

Thanks! WesT (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

"The 4 rivers of the Holy Land"

"The four sacred rivers of the Holy Land were always present."

"Always" is clearly wrong, just look at the maps.

Does this refer to the biblical rivers of Paradise, of which 2 don't correspond to real ones? (Or rather: the identity of Pishon and Gihon has been long lost.)

A) Not on any of the reproduced maps, and

B) Pishon and Gihon would be of zero practical use.

And anyway, there's just one of the reproduced maps that has any real geographical detail, such as the Nile delta and its arms.

So what does this mean, i.e. which 4 rivers, and to what degree are "the" 4 rivers present on such maps?

If Paradise meant, not HL: change & add Wikilink to that article. Arminden (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@SteveMcCluskey and Dbachmann: hi, you two have been quite active at creating this article. Maybe you wish to take a short look. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)