- 1st Edition
- Continents - Worldometers
- What country are you looking for?
- You may also be interested in...
When they did make generalizations about the inhabitants of different continents, they usually limited their discussion to the contrast between Asians and Europeans; Libya was evidently considered too small and arid to merit more than passing consideration. Twofold or threefold, the continental system of the Greeks clearly had some utility for those whose geographical horizons did not extend much beyond the Aegean, eastern Mediterranean, and Black Seas. But its arbitrary nature was fully apparent by the fifth century B. Herodotus, in particular, consistently questioned the conventional three-part system, even while employing it.
Criticizing the overly theoretical orientation of Greek geographers, who attempted to apprehend the world through elegant geometrical models, he argued instead for an "empirical cartography founded on exploration and travel. After all, as he noted, Asia and Africa were actually contiguous, both with each other and with Europe: "Another thing that puzzles me is why three distinct women's names should have been given to what is really a single landmass; and why, too, the Nile and the Phasis--or, according to some, the Maeotic Tanais and the Cimmerian Strait--should have been fixed upon for the boundaries.
Nor have I been able to learn who it was that first marked the boundaries, or where they got their names from. Strabo, writing in the first century B. Furthermore, he argued, "in giving names to the three continents, the Greeks did not take into consideration the whole habitable earth, but merely their own country, and the land exactly opposite In regard to military matters, the term europeenses was deployed rather more precisely for the western zone.
Continents - Worldometers
Asia was also used in a more locally specific sense to refer to a political subdivision of the Roman Empire in western Anatolia. The continental scheme was reinforced in late antiquity when early Christian writers mapped onto it the story of Noah's successors. According to St. Jerome who died circa A. It also infused the Greeks' tripartite division of the world with religious significance. This sacralized continental model would persist with little alteration until the early modern period. Medieval Europe thus inherited the geographical ideas of the classical world, but in a calcified and increasingly mythologized form.
Whereas the best Greek geographers had recognized the conventional nature of the continents--and insisted that the Red Sea made a more appropriate boundary between Asia and Africa than the Nile River--such niceties were often lost on their counterparts in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages. Martianus Capella, whose compilation of knowledge became a standard medieval text, took it as gospel that the world was divided into Europe, Asia, and Africa, with the Nile separating the latter two landmasses.
Other influential encyclopedists of the period, including Orosius and Isidore of Seville, held similar views. During the Carolingian period, by contrast, the inherited framework of Greek geography began to recede from view. The term Europe in one form or another was sometimes used to refer to the emerging civilization in the largely Frankish lands of Latin Christendom, which were occasionally contrasted with an increasingly fabulous Asia to the east. In fact, proponents of both Carolingian and Ottonian German imperialism, as well as the papacy, employed the concept of Europe as "a topos of panegyric, [and] a cultural emblem.
Africa in particular did not figure prominently in the travel lore and fables of medieval Europeans. The southern continent at the time was dismissed as inferior, on the mistaken grounds that it was small in extent and dominated by deserts. Scholarly geographical studies, of course, were another matter.
Here the tripartite worldview of the Greeks was retained, but transposed into an abstract cosmographical model, abandoning all pretense to spatial accuracy. The famous "T-O" maps of the medieval period, representing the earth in the form of a cross, reflect the age's profoundly theological view of space.
What country are you looking for?
The cross symbol represented as a T within the circle of the world designated the bodies of water that supposedly divided Europe, Asia, and Africa; these landmasses in a sense served as the background on which the sacred symbol was inscribed. The Nile remained, in most cases, the dividing line between Africa and Asia. Classical precedence joined here with theological necessity, converting an empirical distortion into an expression of profound cosmographical order.
With the revival of Greek and Roman learning in the Renaissance, the older continental scheme was revived as well, becoming endowed with an unprecedented scientific authority. The noted sixteenth-century German geographer Sebastian Munster, for example, invoked "the ancient division of the Old World into three regions separated by the Don, the Mediterranean, and the Nile. On the contrary, it was in this period that the continental scheme became the authoritative frame of reference for sorting out the differences among various human societies.
The elevation of the continental scheme to the level of received truth was conditioned in part by an important historical juncture. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, just as classical writings were being revalued, the geography of Christianity was in flux on several fronts at once. Turkish conquests at its southeastern edge were causing the remaining Christian communities in Asia Minor to retreat, while Christian conquests and conversions in the northeast were vanquishing the last holdouts of paganism in the Baltic region.
Meanwhile, the rise of humanism was challenging the cultural unity of the Catholic world from within. These historical circumstances combined to give the Greek continental scheme new salience.
- New Testament Greek: An Introduction.
- The State and the Pattern of Health Information Technology Adoption.
- Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner, Jr: On the Occasion of His 65th Birthday.
On the one hand, as Christianity receded in the southeast and advanced in the northeast, the boundaries of Christendom increasingly although never perfectly coincided with those of the Greeks' Europe. On the other hand, humanist scholars began to search for a secular self-designation.
As a result, these centuries saw Europe begin to displace Christendom as the primary referent for Western society.
- Englands Long Reformation: 1500 - 1800.
- A Dictionary of Modern English Usage: The Classic First Edition (Oxford Worlds Classics)?
- Australia and Oceania: Human Geography | National Geographic Society!
- 6 Months to 6 Figures.
- [PDF] Inventory of World Topographic Mapping: Eastern Europe Asia Oceania and Antarctica Download.
- The Cost to Travel Everywhere in the World.
As Western Christians began to call themselves Europeans in the fifteenth century, the continental schema as a whole came into widespread use. But it was not long before the new partial geographical fit between Europe and Christendom was once again offset. Continuing Turkish conquests, combined with the final separation of the Eastern and Western Christian traditions, pulled southeastern Europe almost completely out of the orbit of the increasingly self-identified European civilization. Evidence of what appeared to be a single "new world" landmass somehow had to be taken into account.
The transition from a threefold to a fourfold continental scheme did not occur immediately after Columbus, however. First, America had to be intellectually "invented" as a distinct parcel of land--one that could be viewed geographically, if not culturally, as equivalent to the other continents. According to Eviatar Zerubavel, this reconceptualization took nearly a century to evolve, in part because it activated serious "cosmographic shock. The Spanish imperial imagination persisted in denying continental status to its transatlantic colonies for even longer.
According to Walter Mignolo, "The Castilian notion of 'the Indies' [remained] in place up to the end of the colonial empire; 'America' [began] to be employed by independentist intellectuals only toward the end of the eighteenth century.
While cartographic conventions of the period rendered the new landmass, like Africa, as distinctly inferior to Asia and Europe, virtually all global geographies by the seventeenth century at least acknowledged the Americas as one of the "four quarters of the world.
As Edmundo O'Gorman has brilliantly demonstrated, reckoning with the existence of previously unknown lands required a fundamental restructuring of European cosmography. For in the old conception, Europe, Africa, end Asia had usually been envisioned as forming a single, interconnected "world island," the Orbis Terrarum.
The existence of another such "island" in the antipodes of the Southern Hemisphere--an Orbis Alterius--had often been hypothesized, but it was assumed that it would constitute a world apart, inhabited, if at all, by sapient creatures of an entirely different species. Americans, by contrast, appeared to be of the same order as other humans, suggesting that their homeland must be a fourth part of the human world rather than a true alter-world.
Thus it was essentially anthropological data that undermined the established cosmographic order. In the long run, the discovery of a distant but recognizably human population in the Americas would irrevocably dash the world island to pieces. Over the next several centuries the fundamental relationship between the world's major landmasses was increasingly seen as one of separation, not contiguity.
In Ortelius divided the world into four constituent parts, yet his global maps did not emphasize divisional lines, and his regional maps sometimes spanned "continental" divisions. By the late seventeenth century, however, most global atlases unambiguously distinguished the world's main landmasses and classified all regional maps accordingly.
You may also be interested in...
The Greek notion of a unitary human terrain, in other words, was disassembled into its constituent continents, whose relative isolation was now ironically converted into their defining feature. Although the possibility of an Orbis Alterius was never again taken seriously, the boundaries dividing the known lands would henceforth be conceived in much more absolute terms than they had been in the past.
Even as the accuracy of mapping improved dramatically in this period, the conceptualization of global divisions was so hardened as to bring about a certain conceptual deterioration. If continents were to be meaningful geographical divisions of human geography, rather than mere reflections of an ordained cosmic plan, the Nile and the Don obviously formed inappropriate boundaries.
Similarly, by the sixteenth century, geographers began to realize that Europe and Asia were not separated by a narrow isthmus, that the Don River did not originate anywhere near the Arctic Sea, and that the Sea of Azov was smaller than had previously been imagined. While the old view was remarkably persistent, a new boundary for these two continents was eventually required as well.
The difficulty was that no convenient barrier like the Red Sea presented itself between Europe and Asia. The initial response was to specify precise linkages between south- and north-flowing rivers across the Russian plains; by the late seventeenth century, one strategy was to divide Europe from Asia along stretches of the Don, Volga, Kama, and Ob Rivers. This was considered an unsolved geographical issue, however, and geographers vied with each other to locate the most fitting divisional line. Only in the eighteenth century did a Swedish military officer, Philipp-Johann von Strahlenberg, argue that the Ural Mountains formed the most significant barrier.
Von Strahlenberg's proposal was enthusiastically seconded by Russian intellectuals associated with Peter the Great's Westernization program, particularly Vasilii Nikitich Tatishchev, in large part because of its ideological convenience. In highlighting the Ural divide, Russian Westernizers could at once emphasize the European nature of the historical Russian core while consigning Siberia to the position of an alien Asian realm suitable for colonial rule and exploitation. Indeed, many Russian texts at this time dropped the name Siberia in favor of the more Asiatic-sounding Great Tartary.
Controversy continued in Russian and German geographical circles, however, with some scholars attempting to push the boundary further east to the Ob or even the Yenisey River, while others argued for holding the line at the Don. Tatishchev's and von Strahlenberg's position was eventually to triumph not only in Russia but throughout Europe. After the noted French geographer M. Malte-Brun gave it his seal of approval in the nineteenth century, the Ural boundary gained near-universal acceptance.
Yet this move necessitated a series of further adjustments, since the Ural Mountains do not extend far enough south--or west--to form a complete border. In atlases of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the old and new divisions were often combined, with Europe shown as separated from Asia by the Don River, a stretch of the Volga River, and the Ural Mountains.