Maps!

COMPARE the maps on pg. 377 and 379. How does the map on 377 reflect European knowledge, bias, and interests?

The map shown on page 377 is a political map, rather then a physical map, which shows that Europe was more interested in the local regions and trade routes rather then the major land marks of the world. The map is very detailed within the nearer European area, which I found interesting considering that a large part of the desires of states back then was to explore, and the areas outside of Europe seemed barren in comparison. It seems that Europe was more interested in becoming successful within itself, then expanding their empire. Even thought there are farther lands marked on the map, it looks like Europe became aware of their existence, and that was as far as they went. They had no interest in finding out what else was there.

THINK AND WRITE about what a Chinese map from the 16th century might look like. How about one drawn by Ottoman cartographers? (Using the other maps in ch. 13 may help in thinking about these questions.)

A Chinese map from the 16th century would probably depict all of their trade routes, and the lands that they have traveled to. It would show the best ways to get to the islands that they trade with and maybe also the goods that each different place had. Also, since the Ming Dynasty spent so much time and money reforesting and setting up new irrigation systems, it might show the physical features of China as well.

An Ottoman map would probably show a detailed layout of the Ottoman Empire, but not very much of the outside lands. Since they were almost constantly at war with the Safavid Empire for almost a century, they would not really know what Safavid lands looked like, so they would not be able to accurately depict them on a map. An Ottoman map would probably also show the boundaries of the lands that they had taken over whilst the were still spreading.

Map Comparison

The European map and the empire map are two completely different styles of maps. The European map was drawn by Europeans when they had much less knowledge of the world. Because they lived in Europe, and that was the center of the world for them, Europe is drawn as the center of the map with much attention to small cities and the natural shape of the land. However, beyond Europe, these small cities are left out in favor of the land's general shape, and the incompleteness of the Americas illustrates how little knowledge Europe had across the sea. On the other hand, the second map is a factual map that serves the sole purpose of showing the approximate reach of four major Islamic empires. As a modern map, it is able to provide a picture of how the world used to be without presenting any sort of bias. The European map is just an interpretation of how Europeans viewed the world at the time.

Similar to the European map, I think a map drawn from the Chinese's perspective would have similar flaws. It would include a highly detailed representation of China, with that level of detail continuing throughout much of Asia. I think that Europe for the Chinese would be about as accurate as the Europeans' view of China. The Ottoman empire map would cover the Ottoman empire, but chances are it would not be able to accurately depict the Safavid empire. Due to their religious conflicts, they would not know as much about the area of the Safavid empire and may be compelled to falsely represent them due to their bitter conflict. At the time these maps would have been drawn, no single empire could possibly have enough knowledge about the rest of the world to create a map that wouldn't be influenced by bias or limitation of knowledge.

European map

The 16th-century European map is way off in regions far from central Europe, but has much of the shape of the land correct. Europe, the Middle East and Asia are all far larger than in real life, probably because the Europeans had explored them the most, and so had discovered the most individual places, which all would have felt very far away from each other, making the entire continent larger. Africa is also far wider than in real life, because it would have been explored a fair amount due to its nearness to Europe, but because of the many cultural differences the Europeans probably found (in Africa and from Europe-Asia), each place would seem very far from the next. On the map, North and South America are both very far off from the truth. South America is far skinnier than in real life, and North America is almost non-existent, showing that knowledge of the two was very scarce, and that not many explorations to the Americas had been made. North America was particularly small, because even if expeditions had been made, the Europeans would not have found any large civilizations, and so would not have regarded it as of much importance.
A Chinese map might have portrayed China as larger than most of the world, but also would have most likely made the oceans between Africa and Asia larger, because of the large number of sea voyages. They also might have made the Americas much larger, especially North America, because it is possible that they made a voyage to the Western coast of what is now the U.S.
An Ottoman map might have portrayed the ottoman empire as larger than life, partly because they were very powerful, and most likely knew it.They might have portrayed the Americas even smaller, because they were probably of little significance to them.

Maps

The Waldseemüller map, if it had been a map of just Europe, the middle east, and Africa, it would have accurately shown the proportions of that area. It shows Africa a lot bigger than Europe, which it is. However the problem with this map is the way it shows the rest of the world. It has missed a large chunk of north and south America, which is why it is example of European knowledge of the rest of the world. The Europeans did not know much about the western hemisphere. Also if you look carefully, there are many markings in the Europe part of the map, but none in the Americas and very few in Asia. The Europeans also did not know a lot about Asia either. It again shows a lot about European bias and interests. Europe is in the center of the world, which it isn't in other maps. Another point about this map, is that Asia is very exaggerated. Especially east Asia. The Europeans did not know much about Asia except that it was very big and rich with goods that the Europeans wanted to trade for. Also another example of European bias is that there is a picture of Amerigo Vespuci and another European man at the top of the map.

A Chinese map would have been a little different. I think Asia would be more accurately drawn, and there would be a lot less islands because the Chinese knew their part of the world better than Europeans. I think Europe would be a little different as well because the Chinese did not know Europe as well as the Europeans knew it, obviously. Also, China would be in the center, showing their interests.

I think the Ottoman map would have shown the middle east a lot bigger, and it would have shown the Safavid, Songhay, and Mughal Empires, as they were all Muslim. I think the Americas would have been miniscule or not even shown at all, because the Muslims didn't go exploring that part of the world. Also, Africa might have been drawn with some accuracy, because in the Waldsemüller map, there are no geographic markings in Africa. But the Ottoman Empire had a small connection to Africa because the Songhay Empire was there, so there might be some geographic markings there.

The Waldseemüller Map

Despite the exaggeration and missing features on the Waldseemüller Map, it demonstrates a surprising amount of awareness of the globe for such an early period. That many geographical shapes are blown out of proportion is not surprising as the information they gleaned was mostly from maritime expeditions and no aerial view of the Earth was available. The continents of Europe and Asia were mapped out with a high accuracy, perhaps indicating what we already know, that these two continents were the center of the modern world then. China and Russia seem to run into each other, that part of Eurasia being much too thin to hold the size that we now know them to be. This might show that current-day Russia was not as well mapped or explored then, which is not surprising as weather conditions there tend to be extreme. I say Russia because we know that China was at that point already well-developed and organized by the Ming Dynasty which exchanged a great deal of information with the outside world. North and South America are also quite undersized, most likely because they had only just been discovered at that point. Considering the time and the knowledge that people had by then gained, this is a shockingly well laid out map of the world.
If we were to change the viewpoint and bias of this map to the side of the Ming Dynasty, the land masses exaggerated might be different. The most important, and therefore largest, features would be China itself as well as all land (or sea) stretching from Southeast Asia to East Africa. These areas were those best known by the Chinese fleet headed by Zheng He. They might have a hypothetical knowledge of the rest of the world from exchanges with traders or residents of the ports at which they called. An Ottoman map would focus on Europe and Northern Africa as these places were the center of their power and the most explored areas. Again, they may have gather more information on the format of the globe from merchants and what was common knowledge of that time.