Iamgo Mundi:Cosmology and Cartography

BY KWA CHONG GUAN

Adapted from a Keynote Address at the Sarbica Seminar on the Management of Architectural and Cartographic Records, Singapore, 6th-8th November 1991.

This paper begins with an old problem

in the historiography of early Southeast

Asia. The problem is: what can a map of

the world allegedly drawn by an obscure

2nd century Greek cartographer and

astronomer Klaudios Ptolemaios tell us

about the history of Southeast Asia in the

2nd century A.D.? By now three, perhaps

four generations of scholars have dedicated

a vast amount of energy into unravelling

what Ptolemy may have been telling us.

1 2 SPAFA JOURNAL

This unravelling is a complex taskbecause the earliest surviving copiesof the Ptolemic text in question, theGeographia or Cosmographia, are copiesmade by Byzantine monks in the late13th and early 14th centuries. Andthere are several different versions ofthese early copies of the Geographia. The map that we have all beenstudying is part of a series of 26 or64 maps, depending upon whichversion one consults.

Of the series, the map in questionoutlines a Golden Peninsula and theaccompanying text provides a list ofco-ordinates for about 30 settlementson that Aurea Khersonesus. Is thisGolden Peninsula the MalayanPeninsula? If the Golden Peninsulais the Malayan Peninsula, as mostscholars assume, then is the Sabaraemporion located at the southern tipof this peninsula the island weknow as Singapore today? It willindeed be wonderful and reassuringto know that Singapore has beenaround for a thousand and eighthundred years.

I will not discuss the identificationof Ptolemaic place-names in earlySoutheast Asia, but I will discusswhat is, for me, the morefundamental issue and itsimplications, of why we havedevoted so much attention to thework of a 2nd century Greekcartographer and astronomer.

This attention to Ptolemy has tosome extent been at the expense ofother geographers like the 15thcentury Arab mu' allim Ahmad ibnMajid or the Tang dynasty scholarJia Dan. Paul Pelliot's study of JiaDan is still the only major and

definitive study of the Huang hua si da ji. It was published in 1904. IbnMajid has been more fortunate.G.R. Tibbetts in 1971 published a major study and translation of IbnMajid's Kitab a\' Fawa'id fi usul a\' bahr wa' l-qawa' id. Before that wewere dependent on Gabriel Ferrand's1925 study. In contrast, Ptolemycontinues to hold the attention ofmajor scholars like Louis Malleret,Paul Wheatley and W J. van derMeulen.

I find this attention to Ptolemyespecially strange since most of ushave accepted the conclusions of LeoBagrow's 1943 study that theByzantine copies of Ptolemy'sGeographia were not faithful andaccurate copies of earlier texts writtenby Ptolemy and now lost or nolonger existing. Bagrow argued thatPtolemy probably wrote only the firstof the eight books of the Geographia attributed to him. The other sevenbooks are the result of 12 centuriesof compilation and edition andattributed to Ptolemy to give it morecredence and authority. The mapsare an even later addition. The onlymap that may be of an earlier date isthe world map by Agathodaimon.In other words, Ptolemy's Geographia gives us a map of the world, a mappa mundi, in the 14th century,and not the 2nd century.

But all this is not to decry Ptolemy.For Ptolemy and the Geographia attributed to him were critical to thehistorical development of our world.Ptolemy is important because hedeveloped in the first book of hisGeographia a system of describing andmapping the world which latergenerations and we today accept.

Ptolemy developed a grid system formapping the world which remainsthe basis of cartography today. Forthis system of mapping the world,Ptolemy borrowed from earlierGreek geographers, especially Strabo(64 B.C.? - A.D. 24?), Eratosthenes(276-196 B.C.?) and Hipparchus ofNicaea (c. 165-c. 127 B.C.). Commonto these early Greek geographerswas the assumption that geographywas more a science derived fromphilosophy and developed byphilosophers than a tradition ofsailors and navigators. These Greekphilosophers were not interested incompiling descriptions and accountsof foreign lands brought back bysailors and travellers. They weremore interested in fundamentalquestions of the nature and shape ofthe earth — was it a flat disc floatingon the sea or a segment of a cylinder or a sphere?

As far as we can ascertain it wasPlato in his Phaedo who argued thatthe earth must be spherical becausethe sphere is the most perfectmathematical form. Later Greekphilosophers like Aristotle refinedthe mathematics for a spherical earthand provided some astronomicalobservations to back up their ideas.It was Eratosthenes, perhaps thegreatest of the ancient Greekgeographers, to first calculate thecircumference of the earth from thedifference in the length of theshadows cast by the sun at noon atAlexandria (where he resided and atSyene (or modern Aswan).Eratosthenes, incidentally, was only15% off in his calculation of thecircumference of the earth at 28,700miles. Eratosthenes also attempted todevelop a grid for his maps based,

SPAFA JOURNAL 13

in deference to the demands ofsailors and human convenience, onprominent landmarks such asAlexandria, the Pillars of Hercules,Sicily, among others. It was anirregular network which hissuccessor the astronomer Hipparchusradically improved upon.

Hipparchus refused to peg his gridto geographical and historicallandmarks, and instead worked outa grid pegged to the position ofstars and other astronomicalphenomena. The idea of dividingthe world into 360 latitude parts and180 parallel longitude parts isHipparchus'. Ptolemy's skill andgreatness was his ability tosynthesise and attempt to improveupon the work of his predecessors.But, like his predecessors, Ptolemylacked facts and data to verify andcorroborate his theories and ideas.The consequences of this lack offacts and data we shall examinelater.

If historians of early Southeast Asiasee more value in the Ptolemicimage of early Southeast Asia thanin a medieval European world map,it is because the Ptolemic image ofearly Southeast Asia and itsaccompanying list of coordinates fortoponym is based upon an imagomundi and cosmography that wesubscribe to and identify with today.In contrast, the medieval Europeanworld maps offer a view of theworld we would have difficultyidentifying with today. Take forexample the well known 13thcentury world map found in a Benedictine monastery in Ebstorf,near Ulzenon the Luneburg Heathwhich was rediscovered in 1830 but

14 SPAFA JOURNAL

unfortunately destroyed in WorldWar II. The circular map hasJerusalem in the centre and is drawnon a background of the figure ofChrist crucified, with the head at thetop of the map, the feet at thebottom and the two handsprotruding out of the left and rightof the map. The 'shoe' of Italy canjust about be discerned, while therest of the Europe can hardly beidentified and Africa is distorted.

This Ebstorf world map and othermedieval European world mapsproject a 'Christian topography'which rejects the shape of the worldas a globe and reverts to the olderconcept of a flat disc-shaped earthsurrounded by ocean. It is animago mundi based on theTopographia Christiana of the 6thcentury monk Cosmas with thenickname Indicopleustes or 'Indiantraveller' because he was a Byzantinetraveller and trader who travelled asfar east as Ceylon before becoming a convert to Christianity. HisTopographia Christiana is a literalinterpretation of what Saint Paul andthe other disciples said about thegeography of their world and set theframework for the cartography ofEurope for the next six centuries. Itis an imago mundi based upon a cosmography which none of uswould subscribe to today. Notsurprisingly, no historian of earlySoutheast Asia has even consideredany medieval European map as a possible evidence on Southeast Asianhistory.

The relevance of the very few earlyIndian maps as evidence for earlySoutheast Asian history is also verylittle, in spite of the strong Indian

link to the region through much ofthe first millenium. This is becausethe early Indian maps, like themedieval European maps, are basedupon a vision of the nature andshape of the world described in thesacred literature known as thePuranas. In the puranic vision, theworld is structured around themythical home of the gods onMount Meru located in theHimalayas.

This Mount Meru, or Sumeru forthe Buddhist, is situated in themiddle of the continent Jambudvipaor India. Surrounding Jambudvipais the ocean and four othercontinents located at the cardinalpoints of Jambudvipa. According tochapter 48 of the Vayu Purana, theparts of Southeast Asia better knownto Indians—Sumatra and Java—areone of the six provinces ofJambudvipa.

This puranic structure of the worldcan be discerned in a Maratha mapof unknown date (now deposited inthe India Office Library). Thepuranic cosmos is inscribed in thecircle on the left of the map. Thepuranic continents are listed in thelower left corner of the map. Thispuranic cosmos sits at the north ofthe Indian subcontinent, which issurrounded by a heavily patternedsea. The triangular island on theextreme right of the map (i.e. south)is Lanka. The puranic cosmos isdivided from the rest of the Indiansubcontinent by the Himalayanrange. For the historian of earlySoutheast Asia, making sense ofthese classical Indian textualreferences to the region has not beeneasy.

The Islamic maps in contrast appearmore relevant for early SoutheastAsian history. That may be becausethe early Islamic maps were largelybased upon the Ptolemic image ofthe world. But the Arabgeographers did not blindly followPtolemy. They challenged andchanged parts of the Ptolemic vision.This is quite clearly seen in one ofthe earliest surviving Islamic worldmaps drawn by the astronomer-mathematician Mohammed IbnMusa al-Khwarizmi in his Kitab Surat al-ard written in the early half of theninth century. In the Ptolemicvision, east of the Golden Khersoneseis a large gulf Sinus magnus, to theeast of which is the coast of Chinawhich extends southwards and thenruns west to link up with Africa,completely enclosing the IndianOcean. Khwarizmi in contrast, hasthe Chinese coast extending south asa large peninsula, parallel to theGolden Khersonese. Khwarizmi hasin effect, created two peninsulas inthe east and a new ocean he namesBahr al Muslim, the Sea ofDarkness.

Khwarizmi, as an astronomer-mathematician did not attempt toincorporate his map of the worldwith the descriptions brought backby Arab sailors and traders, butother cartographers and geographersdid. And they amended andchanged the Ptolemic vision evenmore. The mid-ninth century IbnKhurdadhbih, an official in thepostal service of the Caliph Al-Mu'tamid, was commissioned by theCaliph to compile a Kitab al-masalik al' l-mamalik (Book of the roads andkingdoms). His conception ofSoutheast Asia, based on the

descriptions of sailors and traders isvery different from that ofKhwarizmi. Unfortunately IbnKhurdadhbih did not leave us anycharts or maps, only sailingdirections. The Arab vision ofSoutheast Asia was to continue tochange over the next six centuries asArab sailors and traders broughtback more detailed accounts ofplaces they visited and theirnavigational techniques improved.We find Ptolemy, the Arabgeographers of the ninth to thefourteenth centuries and the Arabnavigators of the 15th and 16thcenturies more reliable recorders ofwhat may have been the state ofour region than the Indian ormedieval European cartographers. Itis because the Greeks and the Arabsbased their descriptions of ourregion upon a set of assumptionsand more improtant, a vision of theshape and nature of the worldwhich we subscribe to and thereforewe can identify with.

In this context it may be interestingto speculate on the potential forIndian cartography if it had notadopted the puranic cosmogony ofthe world as a clod of earth bobbingon the cosmic ocean, which Indra asking of the Gods, pegged to theocean floor with a great shaft.What if they perceived the worldshaped as the Hiranyagarbha, theGolden Embryo or Cosmic Egg ofthe Vedas from which the universedeveloped?

Which brings us to an importantimplication. Our disagreement withthe cosmography underlying a mapis no justification to disregard anddiscard that map. It would be, I

want to suggest, rather Eurocentric toevaluate maps according to howaccurately and objectively theyrepresent the landscape. Maps arenot only a scaled two-dimensionalrepresentation of a landscape. Mapsare more a graphic representation ofhow we experience and structure thespace around us. And to the extentthat we experience the world andthe space around us differently, thenthe maps we draw will be verydifferent. To dismiss Indian mapswould be to fail to understandIndian concepts and cognition ofspace.

Maps can therefore be veryrevealing of how the cartographerand his society experiences the spacearound them and how they perceivethe world they are mapping.Ptolemy's location of an AureaKhersonese or the Ramayanadescription of Southeast Asia as a Suvarnadvipa, Golden Island orPeninsula may not only be anattempt to indicate that there weregold mines in Southeast Aisa, butperhaps more a perception ofSoutheast Aisa as a wealthy andrich region. By way of studyingPtolemy we can see that maps shapehow others should view andperceive the landscape they depict.Ptolemy's influence on the course ofour historical development has inthis context, I suggest, been ratherunder rated.

Going back to Ptolemy, refugeesfleeing the Turkish advance onConstantinople brought with them toItaly a number of Byzantinemanuscripts, including Ptolemy'sGeographia. The 1405 Latintranslation of the Geographia caused a

SPAFA JOURNAL 1 5

sensation for at least two reasons.European sailors and navigators werestarting to sail further in the searchfor alternative sea routes to the east.They were revising and expandingthe classical navigation guides orperiplus to the coasts they sailedalong. The Italian navigators startedproducing from the 14th century a series of sea charts now known to usas portolanos to accompany thenavigational guides. Understandably,the Italian navigators found Ptolemy'simago mundi and system oflongitude and latitude coordinates a far better guide to their work thanthe medieval world maps.Fur the rmore , Ptolemy's mapsand description of what lay overthe hor izon of the oceanprovided a more credible guideand insp i ra t ion than theTopographia Christiana.

Ptolemy's influence is clear among

the leading cartographers of the 16thcentury. Sebastian Munster forexample produced a new edition ofPtolemy in 1540 with 12 new mapsand a major text Cosmographia in1544 which went through 56 editionsin six languages in one century.Munster's world map followsPtolemy's imago mundi ofcontinents, all linked and enclosingthe Indian Ocean. MartinWaldseemuller also produced anedition of Ptolemy and a worldmap which shows Ptolemy'sinfluence. It was only in the 17thcentury that this Ptolemic image ofAsia was corrected and revisedwhen the European navigatorsbecame more familiar with ourterrain.

Ptolemy not only providedEuropean but also earlier Arabnavigators the techniques to chart thewaters they were exploring; more

important, he provided the visionand inspiration of rich and vast lands—of golden peninsulas—waiting to beexplored and exploited. ThePtolemic maps also helped shapeEuropean perceptions of Asia andinfluenced European attitudes andactions towards Asia.

As archivists we should not onlyevaluate and collect maps whichmeet western cartographic standardsof accurate and objectiverepresentation of terrain. I have triedto show how we tend to accept orreject maps because of thecosmography underlying the map.And I argue this should not be thecase. A map based on a cosmographywe do not subscribe to and depictingthe landscape in a manner we cannotidentify with is still valuable because itcan shape the attitude and behaviourof its viewers to the landscape depictedin the map.

16 SPAFA JOURNAL