HOME (main menu)

TONY CAMPBELL articles

PORTOLAN CHARTS menu

INDEX

complete SITEMAP

What the site is ABOUT

WHAT'S NEW

A.1. RARE OR UNIQUE RED NAMES

Related table: A. Listing of the 35 names found, in Red, only on one or more of the four supposedly 'early' anonymous charts (a Microsoft Word document)

The following totals of red names were found uniquely in that form on the four works under consideration: Carte Pisane (16), Cortona chart (11), Lucca chart (4) and Riccardiana chart (0). Another four were shared between the Carte Pisane and Lucca chart, making a total of 35 toponyms. [To the above could probably be added further instances that were either illegible or unrecognisable at that point, particularly on the Lucca chart.] Nine of the 35 are found equally on the 'Liber de existencia riveriarum' and 'Lo compasso de navegare', a further three uniquely on the 'Liber', and another eight likewise on 'Lo compasso' (though of course not in red).

In other words, 20 of the 35 names – included here because they have been seen written in red only on one or more of those four charts – were known to have been in circulation in textual form before 1300. By contrast, eight of those names have not been recorded on any other chart even written in black. The remaining names appeared, in black, on the earliest Vesconte coverage. Thus the significance of those instances lies not in the mere fact of their inclusion on the four anonymous works but rather in the special status they were accorded there.

Unless archival evidence can be produced that a late 13th-century date for the Carte Pisane would be precociously early for those red marks of significance, despite their anticipation in the two portolani, the findings from this (admittedly very small sample) lead in a different direction. The analysis of those rare red names – no equivalent example of which is found on the Riccardiana chart – points up the singularity of the other three, particularly the Cortona chart (none of whose instances is repeated by the others), and the sharing by the Carte Pisane and Lucca chart of some of the same red toponyms.

But what of possible contrary indications? Four names, not included in that table, appeared in red on the Carte Pisane and can also be seen likewise on Venetian work of the early 15th century: No.764 in the Excel spreadsheet, mugia (red on the late 14th-century chart attributed by Pujades to the Pizzigani [his C 21], as well as the 1409 Virga chart, after which date it became standard), 776 s. joan (just on C 21), 1400 larso (on two unsigned Venetian atlases assigned by Pujades to the period 1425-50 [A 26 & 28]), and 1801 tanjer (on the early 15th century Venetian chart [C 28], and then on the 1439 Vallseca chart). A single name, 1098 zanuarda, appears in red also on one version of the 1403 chart by the Genoese, Francesco Beccari.

Do those four names provide sufficient ammunition for a c.1430 Carte Pisane date, given that twice that number are not included on charts of that period even in black? 615 rosano provides an example of a phenomenon that is not uncommon: late revival of the red marking and then erratic follow-up thereafter. This appears in red on the Carte Pisane, then on the chart by Jaume Bertran (when working in Majorca in 1482), after which it was apparently revived again about 1600 and repeated regularly thereafter.

It is certainly the case that names could be demoted from red to black. Eleven of the red names were not seen anywhere in red after 1373 (see Summary Table of Red Names: their appearance, frequency and disappearance – and sort on its column 17). Although a few of those toponyms appear in black on the Carte Pisane or Cortona chart, none is in red, so they are not relevant in this context.

Summary
Red ink was used to emphasise the importance of about 20% of a chart's toponyms. 35 instances were identified in red only on the four supposedly 'early' works. Of those, 20 can already be found in the 13th-century portolani, and eight were included on Vesconte's earliest works, though in black. The remaining eight were not noted, even in black, anywhere else. If the Carte Pisane's instances are discounted on the basis of a late date, four of its red toponyms would have appeared first on Venetian work of the early 15th century.

A.2. UNEXPECTED RED NAME EXCLUSIONS

Related table: B. The 'Standard' Red names shown in black, or intentionally omitted, on at least one of the four supposedly early anonymous charts (a Microsoft Word document)

The Summary Table of Red Names: their appearance, frequency and disappearance was used to select those toponyms that are usually or invariably shown in red throughout the entire period from 1311/13 to at least 1600 (repeated in Excel spreadsheet Column 36). For research into portolan chart development in general, those 138 names (representing about a quarter of the red name total noted on an average chart over those three centuries) have little use in determining either date or lineage. On the other hand, given that they comprise the names that were found in red from the time of the earliest Vesconte charts and then repeated regularly, often invariably thereafter, those habitual names do provide a checklist against which to assess the content of any supposedly very early chart, as compared to one produced, say, in the first half of the 15th century. From the patterns observed in the comprehensive analysis of red names, what could we expect to find on the Carte Pisane and its fellow contenders that would support a very early date or, conversely, place them firmly into the later period?

So as to provide the full picture, the entire global group of 138 'red throughout' names remains in Table B. However, it was reduced for the analysis by removing from consideration the 46 standard toponyms that are shown in red on all four of the charts under the spotlight (ignoring the areas they do not cover). These toponyms are indicated with a green 'modern name' on this table, but without any data in the right-hand columns. This left 92 instances to be considered where, on at least one of the four charts, a name that would generally have been shown in red was here written either in black or consciously omitted from an area for which there was toponymic coverage.

This table allows comparison across the 14th century. It does not represent complete coverage but samples the significant works. To repeat, the names have been considered in this listing only because they appear in red on both the earliest and later work of the Vescontes and continue thus as a regular feature up to at least 1600. Each cell indicates whether a name was in red or black, or omitted entirely. The table's columns 9-12 provide the profiles of the four works at the heart of this investigation: the Carte Pisane, Cortona and Lucca charts (all in blue) and the Riccardiana chart (in brown). Next comes a column conflating the content of the three charts by Dalorto/Dulceti, followed by four columns detailing, individually, the Genoese works assigned by Pujades to the second quarter of that century (his C 9bis, A 9, C 10 & C 11). The multiple productions of the Pizzigani brothers and the Majorcan Cresques school respectively, are then summarised in single columns. Finally, the anonymous Corbitis and Pinelli-Walckenaer atlases – clearly in the same hand and likely to have been produced near the beginning of the 15th century – are combined in a single column since their patterns are virtually identical. To provide a prior reference point for knowledge within maritime circles of the 13th century, incidences or absences are noted also on the two early portolani, the 'Liber de existencia riveriarum' and 'Lo compasso de navegare', though the red distinction does not apply there.

The first observation that needs to be made is that, of the 92 red names whose omission from one or more of the putative (blue and brown) precursor works is the subject of this investigation, the pattern is very different from that seen in the groups of charts documented in the right-hand eight columns (1330 onwards). To help make sense of the data, sub-totals are given towards the end of the table, in the penultimate section. These invite comparison between the number of names in red and those either shown in black or absent altogether. Other sub-totals are provided for doubtful or illegible names and for those situated in the missing sections of a few works.

The profiles of the Carte Pisane, Cortona and Lucca charts, shown in blue, are markedly dissimilar to those in the columns to their right, covering the period from Dalorto/Dulceti in 1330 to just after 1400. The unquestionably early, but uncertainly dated, Riccardiana chart (in brown) would seem to act as a bridge between the 'Vescontian' corpus of red toponyms – the basis on which this listing was selected, because each of these names is already found in red on his earliest works – and those of Dulceti and later Genoese, Majorcan and Venetian chartmakers alike. That said, the Riccardiana's links with the three charts to its left in the table are tenuous, whereas its connections to the Genoese and other works that apparently followed to its right are very close.

If this was the only piece of evidence on which a judgement had to be made as to whether the three 'precursor' charts can be confirmed as pre-Vescontian or, alternatively, placed at least a century later, it is hard to envisage the argument that could justify the radical re-ordering of the present tentative arrangement of the columns. The first three columns would have to be moved after the final one, i.e. the combined listing for the jointly authored Corbitis and Pinelli-Walckenaer atlases, whose likely date precedes by perhaps three decades the latest date proposed by Pujades for the Carte Pisane. It needs to be underlined, however, that what is being discussed here is the chronology of the toponymy, which might not necessarily match the actual dates of chart construction. Before that central question can be faced, a number of other aspects will need to be scrutinised.

Two of the table's last three rows provide totals for the red names on the one hand and those in black or omitted on the other. The final row expresses the proportion of red names as a percentage, which therefore removes any distortion from the truncation, through subsequent trimming down, of five of the works considered. Given the large number of black alternatives found on the three 'precursor' charts, as well as significant omissions (see the penultimate row), their percentages for the inclusion of 'standard' names in red were as follows: Carte Pisane (32%), Cortona chart (15%) and Lucca chart (50%).

It is however worth pointing out, with regard to the Cortona chart, that Armignacco (1957, p.188) had discerned a unique feature of that work, namely the lack of red names in the Black Sea and along the European Atlantic coast. She also drew attention to the scarcity of toponyms around the (much-enlarged) Sea of Azov. That said, the Cortona chart's author was highly selective in his use of red names, also omitting any around the coast of Greece (apart from the Peloponnese).

In marked contrast to the three blue columns, the remainder, including the Riccardiana chart, incorporated between 90 and 100% of the possible red names (as shown in the final row). The eight right-hand (uncoloured) columns record altogether a total of no more than 21 instances where a standard red name was downgraded to black or definitely omitted altogether (i.e. the combined total of the 'in black' and 'not present' columns). However, because the same toponym was often involved, the number of different names not invariably shown in red from 1330 onwards was just twelve (13% of the 92).

It might be argued that the idiosyncratic award or withholding of enhanced red status by those who created the three charts of the 'precursor' group does no more than underline their separateness from the main schools of which we are aware, those in Genoa, Venice and Majorca, rather than provide clear evidence of early dating. This might be true in one or two isolated instances and, although this analysis concerns general patterns, the names are listed and can all be checked individually. But that will not explain why the picture drawn from the Carte Pisane, Cortona and Lucca charts is, to a considerable extent, a reverse image of the well defined norm, with large numbers of the 'standard' red names written alternatively in black, or omitted. The Cortona's peculiar reticence with regard to red names has already been mentioned (just above), but the Carte Pisane conveys in red less than half the total number of standard names it could have shown in that way (24 against 52, not forgetting the 20 found uniquely on it or the Lucca chart – see A.1. Rare & Unique red names). No other surviving chart is remotely similar. The names it treats in black only – Bordeaux, Santander, Seville, etc – were hardly inconspicuous at the time, any more than those it omits altogether, such as tortosa, jaffa and lucho in the eastern Mediterranean.

[For a graphic portrayal of the preceding, see Graphs: 'A. Comparing the treatment of the 92 'standard' RED names on the 'precursor' charts and those from the remainder of the 14th century: whether shown in red, black or omitted'.]

What of those twelve individual 'standard' names (out of the 92 being considered – see just above) which were omitted altogether or that appear, at least once, in black rather than in red on one or more of the post-Vescontian productions? Might they be added to the argument in favour of a later dating for the three 'precursor' charts, on the grounds that they might have provided an intermediate link?

The dozen exceptions are all found on unattributed works rather than on those emanating from Dulceti, the Pizzigani or the Cresques atelier. Five of the names of Italian ports are in this group because they were treated in black on the Corbitis and Pinelli-Walckenaer atlases alone. The remainder appear in black on one or more of the four unsigned Genoese works assigned to the second quarter of the 14th century. There is no obvious reason why Pescara [No. 681 in the general Excel listing and again in this table] was treated as being of little importance on so many of the works considered, though it had also been omitted from the late 13th-century 'Lo compasso de navegare'. It seems that it suffered seriously after the conquest by Roger of Sicily in 1140 and may have lost its maritime relevance for some time thereafter. But, if that suggests local knowledge, it does not explain why Pescara was still emphasised in red by those, such as Vesconte and the Pizzigani, who were working in the same Adriatic basin.

This exercise is largely concerned with general patterns of incidence rather than with individual instances. A single red name might easily be omitted by accident (it would probably have been part of a separate operation using the differently coloured ink, and almost certainly carried out later). Against the significant overall level of consistency, occasional specific exceptions are to be expected. However, attention can be drawn individually to seven of those dozen names, omitted or downgraded on some of those post-Vescontian productions, a few of which have already been cited. 681 Pescara, 716 Rimini, 723 Ravenna and 1780 Melilla do not appear in red, either, on the Carte Pisane or the other three works under the spotlight with it. Furthermore, 657 Manfredonia, 761 Trieste (occupied by Venice in the 1280s) and 1617 zenara, all predictable red names from 1311 onwards, seem to have been considered of insufficient significance to mariners to merit inclusion at all in either of the very early portolani. By contrast, the Carte Pisane gives the red distinction to ancient Siponto, abandoned after an earthquake, while including, in black ink, Manfredonia, the town that replaced it after 1256. [Coincidentally, Vesconte did something similar, if in reverse, labelling Manfredonia in red in 1311 and then adding Siponto to that, in black, as an afterthought, in one of his latest works.] The Lucca chart is the only one from the group of three to include Trieste in red, while zenara appears thus only on the clearly unconnected Riccardiana chart. These are the kind of exceptions that might be expected; they do not change the overall findings. Nor do they demonstrate that the early Genoese works or the Corbitis and Pinelli-Walckenaer atlases could represent a toponymic bridge between the early 14th and early 15th centuries.

If an early 14th-century context has been confirmed, how do the four supposedly early charts fit into it? The first general comment is that the pattern found on the unsigned and undated chart in the Biblioteca Riccardiana, Florence is, at the same time, noticeably different from the Carte Pisane, Cortona and Lucca charts, and broadly very similar to that found on all the other 14th-century works. Specifically, only three of the eight names [out of 92] that the Riccardiana chart presents in black ink are not found likewise on the other, slightly later, Genoese works. As stated before, this does not, in itself, constitute chronological proof but it does underline the extent to which the three other named charts represent a lineage that is distinct from all the others, whether that was Genoese, Catalan or Venetian, while the Riccardiana fits neatly into an earlier slot in the output of the Genoese 'school'.

Were the Riccardiana column to be mentally shifted to join those to its right (or had its brown colouring removed), the remarkable coherence of the three blue columns to its left would become even more apparent.

The Summary Table of Red Names: their appearance, frequency and disappearance lends itself to a different diagnostic approach. Its column 13, 'Standard name from... (approximate date)', can be used in conjunction with the list of anonymous charts in its column 12, to note the instances of red names, specifically those that would be expected after 1318, which appear on the three supposedly early charts as well as the Riccardiana chart (Pujades C 4, of c.1320). Out of around 65 possible toponyms that became predictably red at some point between 1318 and 1420, the Carte Pisane and Lucca charts have just seven each and the Riccardiana chart ten. Those small minorities are in keeping with what has already been described and mark those four works out from all later charts.

We will need to look, in the full toponymic analysis that follows, to see if those findings are corroborated when the majority black names are considered as well.

Summary
138 'standard' names were regularly included, in red, on almost all portolan charts between 1311/13 and 1600. Of those, 92 are considered here because, on one or all of the four supposedly early charts, these prominent names are shown in black not red, or are omitted altogether. On the Carte Pisane, Cortona and Lucca charts no more than 15-50% of those names appear in red, despite being standard elsewhere, whereas on the Riccardiana chart and others throughout the rest of the 14th century the figures are 90-100%. Only 12 of the 92 names were definitely written in black or omitted on that second, later group, and in half the cases that affected no more than a single chartmaker. Hence there is a marked and consistent disparity between the 'patterns of incidence' found on the three charts in blue and all the others.

A.3. RED NAME 'PRECURSORS': THOSE THAT PRE-EMPT LATER CHARTS OR, ALTERNATIVELY, ARE EVIDENCE OF THEIR OWN LATER DATE

Related table: C. Listing of the 55 Red 'Precursor' names found on one or more of the four supposedly early anonymous charts, which otherwise appear first, in red, on works dated or dateable later than 1311/13 (a Microsoft Word document)

For the full picture see: 'Red Names noted first (?) on Anonymous 14th-century charts' (a Microsoft Word document) and/or Excel spreadsheet Column 35.

This section will look at the potential anachronisms represented by 'Precursor Names', and then at the repetitions of those among the four charts under the spotlight. 'Precursor' names are defined as toponyms which were first noted, in this case in red, on a work of a given date but were also seen on one or more undated charts that are considered to be earlier. Though that situation can occur for any period, the focus here is on the 'Precursor' names seen on the Carte Pisane, Cortona, Lucca and Riccardiana charts. Pujades relied heavily on such instances in his justification for a 15th-century date for the Carte Pisane. Taken together the four anonymous charts include fifty-five red names, which otherwise appear for the first time, in red, on works dated or dateable from 1318 onwards (although two 1313 Vesconte names, coron and foia, were included in this list since they do not appear on the 1311 chart).

The arrangement of Table C is the same as for Table B. By sorting on Column 7 'Red on first dated chart' [keep the default 'Text' option], the instances can be compared between the Carte Pisane, Cortona and Lucca charts (in blue), the Riccardiana chart (brown) and the nine columns to the right (black), according to their first dated appearances during the period 1318-c.1400. As in the preceding analysis of 'standard' names (A.2. 'Unexpected red name exclusions'), the patterns in the three blue columns are at the same time similar to one another and yet dissimilar to the others. Again, in almost all the instances, the Riccardiana chart (c.1320) looks to the later works to its right rather than to the blue columns of the three charts under closest investigation. The 1421 Cesanis chart was added as a later 'control' for the period to which Pujades argues the Carte Pisane should be assigned, and demonstrates a continuation of the pattern established by the Pizzigani in the later 14th century.

While it is convenient to assign to each toponym the year of its first appearance on a securely dated or dateable work, describing it for example as 'Vescontian', 'Pizziganian', and so on, it must at all times be realised that any of those names - and, by the law of averages, certainly some – will have actually appeared first on an unsigned and undated work. If we knew that such and such a name had been introduced to the portolan charts by Vesconte in, say, 1321, any instance on a work purporting to precede that would indeed invalidate that dating and force it to be moved, in that case, to a date later than 1321.

That is the simplest line of reasoning. It is also the weakest. Any thorough study of portolan chart toponymy will uncover sufficient examples of intermittent, erratic, and 're-discovered' names to make perfectly plausible a pre-emption of a specific name by a few years, decades or even a century or more. It is the general patterns that should be relied upon and not individual instances, unless there are other sound arguments involved. [See further on Precursor names, B.1. Should 'Precursor' names necessarily be treated as anachronisms?, and the comment on Vescontian 'revivals', B.5. Totals of Rare and Unique names on charts up to 1430 – towards the end.]

Nevertheless, even if these 55 'Precursor' names represent only a small proportion of the total (altogether more than 600 red names can be seen on charts up to 1600 – see Red Names Statistics), the presence, particularly on the Carte Pisane, of names not securely dated until later has obvious relevance for an argument in favour of a later date. The Precursor figures for red names on the Carte Pisane, Cortona and Lucca charts, considered together, are as follows: found after Vesconte's earliest output (6, out of a possible 29), Dalorto/Dulceti (13 out of 51), Pizzigani (10 out of 73), Catalan Atlas (1 out of 6), Corbitis & Pinelli-Walckenaer atlases (1), 15th century (7, which includes just three of the 29 names apparently introduced in red by Francesco Beccari), and post-1500 (4). The other 13 that make up the total of 55 were first noted on the Riccardiana chart, and eight of those relate to the period after its own suggested date of c.1320.

Considered alone, the Carte Pisane includes no more than 20 of the 179 toponyms that have been first observed as added, in red, to works dated between 1318 and 1403. This represents 11% of that total. Almost half (26) of the 55 'Precursor' red names discussed above can be seen earlier on the 'Liber' or 'Lo compasso'; in other words there was no general novelty in them. Since Pujades considered that the Carte Pisane, Cortona and Lucca charts reflected what he called 'the new hybrid Pizziganian model' (2013(b), p.25), it is instructive to note that the Cortona chart does not include a single one of the 72 'Pizziganian' red names that are considered to be innovations (see Summary Table of Red Names: their appearance, frequency and disappearance – sort on column 9).

These findings need to be placed alongside those for the toponymic selections considered as a whole, which follows in Section B, since there may have been specific, if unknown, reasons for particular names to have been honoured in red or ignored entirely.

Summary
If the Carte Pisane, Cortona and Lucca charts had been produced post-Dulceti (1339), post-Pizzigani (1373) or post-Beccari (1403), they would be expected to include a significant number of the red names introduced in those periods. In fact the proportion was no more than 15%. There are 55 'Precursor' red names – those not otherwise seen on dated charts until 1318 or later – but these represent less than 10% of what could have been included. In general, the pre-empting of names on undated works is sufficiently usual to be unremarkable, per se.

For names not found elsewhere, which cannot therefore be termed 'Precursor', see A listing of the 35 names found, in Red, only on one or more of the four supposedly 'early' anonymous charts. And for 'Precursor' names in general, i.e. black and red combined, see Comparison of the 'Precursor' and 'Antecedent' names on two 13th-century portolani and four supposedly very early anonymous charts.

On red names see additionally, CartePisaneHydrographyTables: 5. RED names from Calais to Seville (including instances in black for the four anonymous works).

B. BLACK AND RED NAMES CONSIDERED TOGETHER

Attention now turns to the toponymy as a whole, bringing in the great majority (around 80%) that were regularly written in black not red. The Excel listing provides an overview of the names found along the mainland coastlines between Dunkerque in northern France, round the entire Mediterranean and Black Sea to Mogador (Essaouira) in western Morocco. The names for islands and inland toponyms have not been included.

Seeking out the minority of highly visible red names was relatively straightforward, if time-consuming, and meant that the results could claim a high level of completeness. However, this general investigation – done in various different ways over the past 30 or more years – was originally focused on identifying the first and last appearance of a particular toponym or distinct variant thereof, whether written in red or black. Only recently have the less usual, even unique, names been added to the listing, which now numbers almost 3,000 entries. Undoubtedly, many more remain to be documented, particularly for the 15th century onwards (as demonstrated by Anton Gordyeyev's recently published full toponymic census of the Black Sea [2014]). However, the systematic inclusion (or sampling) in the Red names survey of almost all the works produced before 1450 would have brought to light any major departures from the norm. It is possible but unlikely that later investigation will unearth any significant new toponymic source, at least up to 1469 because of the microscopic examination provided by Pujades (2007, pp. 350-97) for the kingdom of Valencia and the northern Adriatic.

The discussion that follows is closely linked to a succession of Microsoft Word tables: Comparison of the 'Precursor' and 'Antecedent' names on two 13th-century portolani and four supposedly very early anonymous charts. Their statistical information attempts to present the underlying patterns in a convenient and readily comprehensible way. However, since all the information is derived from the Excel spreadsheet, it is possible to recreate the source for each statement and identify the individual names involved, along with additional pieces of information about many of them.

C.3. TOPONYMIC TIME-LAG (DELAY IN THE REPETITION OF NEW TOPONYMS)

Pujades's major study of 2007 included comprehensive toponymic listings, from the earliest times up to 1469, for two areas in the Mediterranean: Catalonia/Valencia and the northern Adriatic. In an exercise carried out in 2012 this was mined by myself to reveal where and when new names were repeated on dated works. The results were set out statistically in two online Microsoft Word documents, each containing several tables:

ValenciaReappearances
AdriaticReappearances [which includes joint summaries for the two areas]
(with commentary at 'Toponymic transmission after 1313')

Dealing altogether with a sizeable sample of 189 names, these tables trace the route taken subsequently by those toponyms after their introduction, while also recording the initial time-lag between their first and second reappearances, whether in the same place of production or elsewhere. Table C (on the Adriatic page cited above) compares both areas in summary form. Overall, most of the innovations (70%) are attributable to Vesconte. However, there were different patterns in the two regions: for Catalonia, 90% of the names followed the same route, namely from the initial introduction by Vesconte via Dulceti (1330-39) to the Pizzigani (1367-83); but for the Adriatic the equivalent figure was no more than 51%, or still only 77% when 'Vescontian' names that passed straight to the Pizzigani were also considered. In other words, the transmission was not a straightforward chronological one, but with a different national bias in each case. This is readily understandable as it is hardly surprising that chartmakers in Majorca would be less involved in Adriatic affairs than those who were practising in Venice.

The fresh 'Dulcetian' introductions for the two areas provides a very small sample (12) but no more than five of those toponyms can be seen in the Pizziganian charts of 30-40 years later. Evidently the Pizzigani obtained the Vescontian names via Italian sources (probably Venetian) rather than from Catalan ones. To seek corroboration of that we need to look at other tables in the Valencia and Adriatic analysis, namely Table B (on each Microsoft Word page separately – for the details see above) and the combined tables C and D on the Adriatic page.

Here the time-lags were measured, summarised and quantified in turn, as the corpus of largely 'Vescontian' names was absorbed, first by Dalorto/Dulceti and then by the Pizzigani brothers. But, whereas most toponyms followed that path, a number did not. Considering the much larger Adriatic totals, Table B reveals that seven of the 89 Vescontian innovations were not revived at all, that two were repeated by Dulceti but are not found thereafter, 11 were not repeated by the Pizzigani, six were not reproduced on Italian charts until 80-100 years later, 14 of those names were not repeated at all on Catalan charts, and a further 22 re-appear in Palma well over 100 years later – significantly not all at once but on seven separate occasions and on the work of two different chartmakers. It is therefore not unreasonable to suggest that if a proportion of the names associated with so influential a figure as Vesconte could lie fallow for a considerable time, how much greater is the likelihood that the same would apply to any novel component of charts that had been produced well outside the portolan chart mainstream, like the Carte Pisane and its associates.

Neither the 'Vescontian' nor 'Dulcetian' names automatically found immediate favour. Nevertheless, in most cases, their absence cannot be attributed to irrelevance or obsolescence because later chartmakers did decide to reinstate many of them. As a result – and the proportions are almost identical for Valencia and the Adriatic - no more than 9% of such names had disappeared entirely by 1500, with a further 15% being removed during the 16th century. Thus the great majority of the early toponymic injections for each of those two areas remained available to mariners for up to 300 years if not more. If the Carte Pisane, Cortona and Lucca charts were indeed 15th-century productions, we would therefore expect them to contain a large proportion of the innovations attributable to Vesconte and Dulceti, but they do not (see Black and red names considered together – Table A).

We have no comparable authoritative data for the areas that were not covered by Pujades's comprehensive survey. But the remarks in the 'Comments' column of the Excel spreadsheet (X) and the classification of 'Rare', however tentative in each case, can help us to understand, for example, what happened to the 'Vescontian' names afterwards. By sorting on the Excel spreadsheet's Column 39 ('portolani, Rare, Unique') and then F ('Date first seen in black or red'), and scrolling down to the 'R[are]' section, the names introduced by Vesconte which failed to make their way into the communal toponymic bloodstream, or at least not for some time, can be distinguished from both standard and unique names. Column 41 documents, albeit probably not exhaustively, the incidence of later revivals of the 'Vescontian' names.

Summary
The majority of the place-names first reliably dated via the works of Vesconte and Dulceti found their way into the shared toponymic bloodstream and had become a regular feature of Italian charts by the 1430s, a time when Pujades suggests the Carte Pisane might have been produced. Yet that chart does not include most of them (see Black and red names considered together – Table A). Names introduced by Vesconte were likely to be imitated thereafter but a delay in the second appearance of a number of those names, particularly in a different production centre, makes it reasonable to suggest that the same time-lag might have occurred with the late repetition of some names found on the Carte Pisane, Cortona and Lucca charts.

This section considered toponymic transmission in terms of lineage and routes. See G.3, 'The mechanisms for the staged introduction and repetition of new names', for thoughts about how names reached the charts in the first place, as well as Section C.4 (next) and G.5 for further comments on transmission.

C.4. WHAT 15TH-CENTURY MODEL COULD THERE HAVE BEEN FOR THE CARTE PISANE?

What names would generally have been expected on Italian charts of the first decades of the 15th century, and how many of those can be found on the Carte Pisane? The previous section used the comprehensive toponymic data gathered by Ramon Pujades, but that covered two sample areas only. We will now look for corroboration of those findings in an earlier analysis, which considered the entire continental coastlines on the early portolan charts.

That research, which coincidentally covered the period up to 1430, was published in 1987 in Volume 1 of The History of Cartography (in Table 19.3, pp. 416-20) – (pp.46- in the online format). It documented the toponymic borrowings (or, alternatively, pre-figurings) on a selection of undated works, but excluded the Carte Pisane, Lucca and Riccardiana charts (in the last two cases from lack of availability at that time). But the plotting of such incidences on other works (pp.416-17) demonstrated that, whereas roughly half of the supposedly 'Vescontian' names were incorporated during the 14th century onto all subsequent charts, the pattern of imitation was different with 'Dulcetian' names. Not surprisingly, those following in Dulceti's tracks in Palma, Majorca adopted his new names almost in their entirety, as did the apparently Genoese author of the Medici Atlas ('Italian 14' in that 1987 Table 19.3). However, charts produced in Venice, and perhaps elsewhere in Italy, followed Dulceti less slavishly.

Using the original 1987 figures (since that particular analysis has not been re-run against the latest version of the expanded comprehensive Excel name listing) the toponymic profiles of the seven latest works ('Italian 16 to 23' – omitting No.19, the later Medici Atlas sheets) can be used to assess the volume of 'Vescontian' and 'Dulcetian' names that might be anticipated on unsigned Italian work from the first half of the 15th century, i.e. the period to which Pujades proposes to re-assign the Carte Pisane.

The uptake of 'Pizziganian' names was modest and erratic, both on the charts being investigated in this essay and on those analysed in 1987. But the inclusion on that group of seven works (most, if not all, Venetian) of uniformly high totals of names first seen on the work of the Vescontes and Dulceti contrast strongly with the equivalent patterns on the Carte Pisane, Cortona and Lucca charts. Most of the seven, definitely later, charts included over 50% (sometimes well over that proportion) of 'Vescontian' and 'Dulcetian' names. In Black and red names considered together (Table A), the equivalent figure for the three contentious charts, on the basis of recent research, is no more than 21%.

Paradoxically, given Pujades's suggestion of a link between the toponymic innovations attributable to the Pizzigani brothers and the Carte Pisane and Lucca chart, the overall pattern shows a very modest connection between those and the 84 'Pizziganian' introductions. Indeed the concurrence of those toponyms proves to be the least significant among any of the tranches added in the 14th century. Just one of those 'Pizziganian' toponyms (No.891 gomenisa) is pre-figured on the Carte Pisane and no more than five on the Lucca chart. There are good reasons for that because even though the Pizzigani brothers were operating in Venice, one of the three main chartmaking centres, their toponymy was less widely imitated elsewhere than were the Vescontian and Dulcetian name lists. (On name transmission see the 2012 Table A. 'Second appearance of names on Italian and Catalan charts respectively (up to 1469)' and the accompanying text, Toponymic transmission after 1313).

Insofar as unique (or at least very rare) names provide a significant part of each chart's personal 'toponymic signature', the figures in the current Table E. 'Totals of Rare and Unique names on charts up to 1430' supply valuable evidence, particularly about the repetition of innovations by others. In the case of the Venetian, Albertin de Virga, for example, less than one third of the 27 first dated appearances identified on his chart of 1409 were generally repeated afterwards. The fate of the introductions by another Venetian Zuane Pizzigano in 1424 and the 1430 chart by Cola de Briaticho (named after his native Calabrian town) was similar.

Given the lack of the expected level of commonality, even among practitioners in Venice, there is no reliable yardstick against which to measure the Carte Pisane's toponymic complement. Nevertheless, that only seven of the 93 'Beccarian' innovations of 1403 can be seen on the Carte Pisane [Excel Columns 12, 28], followed by just six of the over 200 that were apparently added by further Italian practitioners up to 1430 [Columns F, G], does not assist the argument in favour of a 15th-century date for the Carte Pisane.

Summary
A search for the toponyms likely to be present on Italian charts of the period up to 1430 identified over half of those that had been introduced by Vesconte and Dulceti, whereas the Carte Pisane, Cortona and Lucca charts have just 20%. A noticeable majority of Italian innovations from 1403-30 were shunned by their fellow practitioners anyway. Nevertheless the Carte Pisane's included no more than 13 out of about 300 Italian innovations in that period.

C.5. IS THE CARTE PISANE A LATE COPY?

It is Pujades's contention that,

"based on an old Venetian model of Vescontian roots also reproduced in a highly simplified manner in eastern-central Italy during the second half of the 14th century (the Cortona Chart provides direct evidence of this), a certain southern artisan with very poor calligraphic and pictorial training, who geometrically simplified the professional designs, attempted, in the 1420s or 30s, to update that already obsolete cartographic model by introducing some innovations supplied by the Venetian cartography of his time" (2013(b), p.25b).

The following section of this essay asks if the 'old Venetian model' for the Carte Pisane can perhaps be identified. Yet the Carte Pisane is noticeably, and undeniably different from any other survivor (with the partial exception of the Cortona and Lucca charts). It is, in numerous ways, unique – more so than any other portolan work.

All portolan charts are copies, nearly always literal imitations with few if any creative additions. It was rare for portolan draftsmen to alter the 'pattern' they were following, except perhaps through the accident of carelessness, though that appears to have been rarer than might have been expected. That comment applies particularly to the coastal outlines, pointing to a sophisticated technique of direct copying, particularly of the headland positions, that is not yet adequately understood. Even the celebrated innovator Francesco Beccari, responsible for bringing the Atlantic scale into alignment with that for the Mediterranean, was basically copying existing charts. The charts' toponymy, on the other hand, while broadly conservative, reveals continual, usually minor, adjustments and additions, on the part of almost all the chartmakers until the mid-15th century ('new names can be found on the work of each of the 16 chartmakers who signed and dated their productions up to 1440' (see Introduction to the 2012 toponymy essay). A few even made significant changes to the toponymic canon of the time, sometimes adding a quantity of new names or radically altering their form. The differing number of toponymic introductions or disappearances attributable to each chartmaker (on the basis of what has survived) can be seen in an earlier exercise: 'The addition of 'Significant Names' to the 31 sections of coastline' (a Microsoft Word table). That is in need of updating but the innovations that can be assigned to each chartmaker can be retrieved from the Excel spreadsheet (Columns F, G).

Those innovative instances concerned master craftsmen who must have been provided by their seamen customers with new information which they might then choose to incorporate. Apprentices would not have been accorded such licence, probably not even when they had completed their training and were working as journeymen. Into a quite different category would fall works that, while no doubt based on a professional chart, were copied outside the atelier environment. We cannot be sure but in a few cases it would appear that such imitations were unauthorised and drawn by somebody with less skill than would be expected from a chartmaker who had completed their seven years or so of training. On this see 'Copies and imitations'.

But what of a later copy of a much earlier document, which Pujades has partly proposed? Why might that have been made? We occasionally find a literal reproduction of a past model, perhaps for some antiquarian or archival purpose. The Cornaro Atlas collection of copies of 15th-century charts provides the best (although unique) example of that but if just a single one of its sheets had survived, even without the name of its original author, it would still have been recognisable as a precise, late copy (see 'A note on the Cornaro Atlas').

A straightforward copy of a chart from, say, the 1420s, whether by a clumsy amateur or a professional scribe, would precisely reproduce what had been in front of him. It would be as outmoded or as up to date as its model. Pujades is proposing a third possibility, a hybrid, where an isolated chartmaker, working with a pattern then 100 or more years old, had access to, and incorporated, a limited amount of contemporary information as well. This is highly unlikely and would, according to what has survived, be unprecedented [at least for the early period but see a comment on a partial 16th-century throw-back (BnF EE 5610) in B.5 'Totals of Rare and Unique names on charts up to 1430' (towards the end).] And what might have been the purpose of such a work?

For Pujades, "It seemed absolutely clear that the chart was not the work of a professional clerk, not only because of the crudeness of its calligraphy, but also because no handwriting professional would have had trouble maintaining the horizontal when writing as the person who copied the Pisana Chart did" (2013(b), p.18b). Patrick Gautier Dalché expressed a similar view in a conference paper published in 2001, where he passed judgement about the Carte Pisane on the grounds that "son aspect grossier, comparé à la qualité des premiers témoins datés, devrait amener à vérifier l’hypothèse selon laquelle il s’agirait plutôt d’une copie maladroite tardive" (pp.11-12). [This article in Castrum 7 is freely available online via Google Books.]

Despite being the arguments of respected scholars, the claim from Pujades and Gautier Dalché that the Carte Pisane is both a late copy and one created by an inexperienced, presumably amateur scribe, yet (in the Pujades contention) incorporating fresh material, is trebly improbable. First, because there is no work that can be conjured up as even a remote model for it, and second, whether the result is expected to have been either archaic or clumsy, the Carte Pisane's mixture of coastal outlines that are sometimes close to the reality displayed by Vesconte and at others wildly different, cannot be reconciled with being the product of a second-rate copyist, or indeed a copyist at all. The third reason for rejecting the demotion of the Carte Pisane is because part of the Pujades argument depends on the contradictory supposition that its creator (or that of its model) would have been alert to political and mercantile developments, as evidenced by his inclusion of the supposedly 'new' names he describes. As Pujades asserted, the unknown copyist had apparently been able to update an "obsolete cartographic model by introducing some innovations supplied by the Venetian cartography of his time" (2013(b), p.25b). [For comments on the coastal outlines and supposed geopolitical or mercantile awareness, see the later sections D & E.]

Why should we think that an inexperienced copyist, working in some unknown back-water, would have had the necessary editing skills to knit together old and new and, at the same time, have been able to demonstrate a level of contemporary awareness not even found in the work of the best-known practitioners? As described below (D.2, Historical Time-lag (from physical creation to recognition by mariners) it usually took decades before the charts reflected historical events; and that involved cases where we have a confirmed date, for example when applied to an act of foundation, rather than the ingenious, but unprovable, dating implications that Pujades proffers.

There is a central paradox here. If the Carte Pisane, Cortona and Lucca charts are as early as most previous historians have claimed, there is nothing, beside perhaps the earliest Vesconte work, to compare them with. Gautier Dalché's comment, comparing the Carte Pisane's coarse appearance with the quality of the early dated witnesses (i.e. the Vescontes) ['son aspect grossier, comparé à la qualité des premiers témoins datés' – 2001, p.11], actually supports rather than contradicts the interpretation that sees the Carte Pisane as a representative of an earlier evolutionary branch that died out soon afterwards – Neanderthal not homo sapiens (and perhaps, like the first of those, ready for rehabilitation). There is no justification for assuming that what has survived is in any way representative of the full range of what might actually have been produced. Indeed, looking at what has emerged over recent decades, particularly fragments preserved in book bindings, it is not unreasonable to predict that should another very early chart, or more likely a portion of one, emerge it would have a number of surprising features.

If, however, the thesis of a much later date were to be accepted, we do have the advantage of sufficient surviving works to give us a dependable idea of the comparative context, at least partly for the late 14th century and rather more so for a date in the first half of the 15th century, which is much more heavily populated with survivors.

It also needs to be accepted that even if a few of the specific anachronisms Pujades claims to identify can be sustained (and I argue against them individually below in Section D), or if palaeography (strangely absent from the discussion of a document potentially left in a 150-year limbo between the late 13th century and the 1430s) is able to offer a confident verdict for a later dating, the nearest we might come to a compromise that is true to the evidence would be to see the Carte Pisane as a slightly updated copy of a very early original. The few names inserted later on the Cortona chart and the elements, specifically the Black Sea, added to 'Lo compasso de navegare' might provide parallel instances, though – and this is significant – neither interpolation affects the argument about the dating in those cases. Whether the Carte Pisane's Atlantic outlines, for example, were actually placed on that piece of vellum in about 1290 or 1420, would not, of itself, be of great historical significance. It is the date of the information displayed that is crucial, not the year of the work's construction. That, however, is not to deny that such a scenario is highly improbable. Nor does it answer the obvious question: why would anybody want to copy, and sparingly amend, such an 'antique' and obviously out-of-date chart a century or more later? The copies in the Cornaro Atlas of c.1489 date back to the beginning of that century but the coastal outlines remained broadly the same throughout that period.

Summary
Pujades claims that the Carte Pisane stems from a simplified copy of 'Vescontian roots' compiled in the second half of the 14th century, and updated in the 1420s or 30s by an unskilled artisan from southern Italy who incorporated some contemporary Venetian innovations. This is challenged here on various grounds, e.g. that the Carte Pisane is notably dissimilar from any surviving chart (whether Vescontian or otherwise and of whatever period, but specifically relating to Venetian work of the first half of the 15th century) and that the supposition that its creator was ignorant and careless, yet simultaneously innovative is self-contradictory.

D. SPECIFIC NAMES ANALYSIS

D.1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Tabulated Totals: Carte Pisane Specific Names Tables, Table A . 'Toponymic and other evidence purporting to show that the Carte Pisane, Cortona and Lucca charts are post-Pizzigani, and probably no earlier than the first part of the 15th century'

Detailed data: Excel spreadsheet listing almost 3,000 names. Before using the analytical columns you are advised to consult the Explanatory Notes

The arguments marshalled by Ramon Pujades in his Paris conference paper of December 2012, 'The Pisana Chart: really a primitive portolan chart made in the 13th century?' – published in Cartes & Géomatique, 216 (June 2013), pp.17-32) – focus mainly on some 50 individual toponyms and the depictions of two North African hydrographical features. The various analyses already described above have been concerned with the competing overall contexts that might have produced the Carte Pisane, as well as the Cortona and Lucca charts. Does the Carte Pisane rightly belong where it has almost always been placed up to now, somewhere in the pre-Vescontian period before the first surviving dated chart of 1311? Or should all three charts be moved to at least the late 14th century and perhaps even further, on to the 1420s or 1430s?

We will look later at the other, non-toponymic elements of those charts but first we need to consider the detailed evidence that Pujades offers. Carte Pisane Specific Names Tables Table A . 'Toponymic and other evidence purporting to show that the Carte Pisane, Cortona and Lucca charts are post-Pizzigani, and probably no earlier than the first part of the 15th century', lists the individual names to which Pujades refers in his 2012 conference paper. Since this is a sortable Microsoft Word table it is possible to arrange it either in the order of the original Pujades sequence (via his page numbers), or in geographical order around the coast (via its Column 1), or by selecting a combination of up to three columns. Separate columns indicate if the name appeared in the early portolani, the 'Liber' or 'Lo compasso', or in the Carte Pisane, Cortona, Lucca or Riccardiana charts.

My argument, that names found on the Carte Pisane and/or the Cortona and Lucca charts, but not noted on dated works until after the first full coverage by Vesconte (1311, and 1313 for the western sections), should be considered as 'Precursor Names', i.e. those that can be seen as anticipating the dated instances, is challenged by him on a number of grounds. At the time that term was coined, in February 2012, few, if any, serious doubts were being cast on a very early dating for the Carte Pisane. 'Precursor Name' was applied as a matter of supposed fact. Such a name found on a chart assumed to date from the late 13th or very early 14th century must anticipate one first seen on a dated work of, say, 1327.

With the re-dating for the Carte Pisane newly proposed by Pujades, such names now appear as evidence for the prosecution rather than the defence. In his contention they are now seen as anachronisms, or rather as making sense only in terms of a 15th-century creation [nobody suggests that the Carte Pisane is not wholly genuine]. This applies to several of the names he specifically cites. Some of the toponyms might seem to have a claim to archaic status on the basis of their inclusion in the pages of one or other of the early portolani, the 'Liber' or 'Lo compasso'. However, the strength of such corroboration is considered by Pujades to be seriously weakened because of the fundamental differences, on which he insists, between a portolan and a portolan chart. There is certainly some truth in that but it is not always relevant, particularly when, as not infrequently happened, a portolano name was indeed added to a chart somewhat later (as has already been pointed out, see 'Precursor' names).

As was noted previously, just 29 of the Carte Pisane's 677 names (4%) would need to be investigated as potential anachronisms. Half of those, in turn, are otherwise found for the first time on Vescontian works in or before 1325. Note also that the volume of 'Precursor' names identified in each of the portolani is comparable to that found on the Carte Pisane.

In two of the individual cases cited by Pujades, however, there is strong corroboration for an early cartographic rather than just textual date. No.1443 quirpastor appears on the Riccardiana chart of about 1320 and 1802a cibo on the Carignano map (whose author was dead by 1330) (Pujades's note 21 & p.21b respectively).

Difficulties first in reading and then interpreting the names have led us to different conclusions in a few cases, and one or two of those Pujades considered not to be present in the portolani can, I think, be seen there, for example, my No.412 lates [treating grado de lacte and lacte as the same], 426 port-mill [as pomege], 543 castelu [Castellamare], 544 c. de mesene, and 1388 sosanto.

We come now to the crux of Pujades's thesis, namely that several names found on the Carte Pisane – which is closely linked to the Lucca chart, and 'by extension' to the Cortona chart (on which we agree) – can be shown by historical evidence to have had insufficient relevance to mariners for inclusion on a chart until at least the late 14th century. These instances can be conveniently divided into two categories:

those involving indisputable evidence, for example a known creation or renaming (the 13th-century instances of which are considered in this section, the remainder in the next, D. 2)
those relying on extrapolation from documented political or commercial developments to the world of maritime cartography (on this, see section D.3, Historical evidence)

D.2. HISTORICAL TIME-LAG (FROM PHYSICAL CREATION TO RECOGNITION BY MARINERS)

Tabulated Totals: Carte Pisane Specific Names Tables: Table B. 'Toponymic time-lag (from physical creation to recognition by mariners)'

Detailed data: Excel spreadsheet listing almost 3,000 names. Before using the analytical columns you are advised to consult the Explanatory Notes

To widen the discussion, it may be instructive at this point to look at the augmented, though still modest, list of portolan toponyms, securely dated in the historical record, which were originally set out in the 1987 chapter in The History of Cartography (pp.426-7). If the charts were as responsive as Pujades claims we would expect many more instances of up-to-date geopolitical information. In fact the reverse is clearly demonstrated in Table B. 'Toponymic time-lag (from physical creation to recognition by mariners)'.

Nine names in this group were initially seen on dated charts produced in the first half of the 14th century (sort on the table's 4th column 'First seen....'). Since the initial four appear first on the earliest possible dated work, the notional time-lag of up to half a century between the historical event and its reflection on the portolan charts is meaningless, though those gaps would be significantly reduced if the Carte Pisane, Cortona and Lucca charts were accepted as early productions.

The remaining toponyms comprise too small and arbitrary a sample on which to base a confident generalisation, particularly as the charts available to us today represent a minute fraction of what must have been produced,. This applies especially during that large gap in the record of dated works between 1339 and 1367. Nevertheless, in several cases the name in question could have appeared on an earlier extant dated chart. The two Vesconte additions of 1325 (Palamos and Novi Vinodolski) could have been added at any time from 1313 onwards, just as the two incorporated by Dulceti in 1339 (Belforte and Bilbao) could have been introduced in 1330, and the Pizzigani could have added Mola di Bari in 1367 rather than 1373.

But what is clearly revealed by this sample of fixed historical baselines, however small, is a consistent pattern of delayed introduction, in no case less than a generation and sometimes more than a century. From this it is evident that cartographic introduction must have depended on perceived relevance for the chartmaker and his clients, or perhaps, more importantly, on the preferences of the returning voyagers who passed the information on to the port-based practitioner. We can do no more than speculate about what that relevance might have been in most cases. It may be that the places to which Pujades has given the most attention, for instance, No. 371 Portu Alfacso, 376 El Torm, 402 Canet de Rosselló, 505 Livorno and 764 Muggia (see Table A . 'Toponymic and other evidence purporting to show that the Carte Pisane, Cortona and Lucca charts are post-Pizzigani, and probably no earlier than the first part of the 15th century'), were of unusual concern, for example because of changes that carried commercial implications, but the group of early introductions already mentioned does not support any assumption about the likelihood of an immediate response from the chartmakers. When considered overall, the thirteen names in Table B whose origin is reliably anchored in the historical record, and for which meaningful time-lags can be cited, took an average of 76 years to achieve acknowledgement on a surviving portolan chart.

In addition, the survey of overseas trading posts and colonies, which was undertaken in 2013 as part of a comprehensive analysis of the charts' red names, showed that many of those toponyms were never incorporated into the charts at all, whereas others, by contrast, continued there indefinitely, long after the place had been lost to the Ottomans. [On this see 'Red names of overseas trading-posts'.]

The conclusions above are supported by the judgement of David Jacoby, in the context of the early portolani: '... there always was a time lag between developments in navigation and trade and the integration of new information in nautical guides and commercial manuals' (2012, p.76). {This sentence added 15 November 2015}

With those considerations in mind we now need to examine the handful of names at the heart of the Pujades claim. He has rightly warned that, "given the dangerous mistakes that can be made when relying excessively on elements such as the absence of a toponym or the presence of archaisms (included when a previous tradition had been uncritically perpetuated), it is obvious that it is the introduction of new elements that allows more reliable dating of such works" [my italics] (p.19b). What I have said above underlines another danger, not apparently considered by Pujades. That is to assume, without the chartmakers having any opportunity for explaining their reasons, that we can take it for granted they would necessarily have had immediate access to a specific piece of local knowledge (now being unearthed in an archive) or that they would inevitably and speedily have realised its significance for their sailor customers.

Pujades feeds into his argument the absence of some of his supposedly anachronistic place-names from the pages of the two early portolani, the 'Liber' and 'Lo compasso', and their presence on the Carte Pisane, Cortona or Lucca charts. It is therefore worth drawing attention to a comparable, if reverse, effect, namely the much later first repetition of some of those 13th-century names. Excel spreadsheet Column 33 allows easy access to names re-introduced, perhaps centuries later on the c.1489 copy of the Zuan Soligo chart in the Cornaro Atlas, and Column 40 documents in a similar way late revivals on 15th-century portolani. This applies particularly to the 1490 Rizo portolano (whose text was included in Kretschmer, 1909, pp.420-552).

Summary
In seventeen cases the introduction of a toponym can be related with reasonable precision to the date of a place's foundation or [re]-naming. Contrary to Pujades's assumption that portolan chartmakers were generally responsive to geopolitical change, the average gap between the naming of a place and its subsequent recognition on a surviving chart (after 1313) was 76 years. In five instances the name could have been included on previous work by the chartmaker involved.

D.3. HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

Tabulated Totals: Carte Pisane Specific Names Tables, Table A . 'Toponymic and other evidence purporting to show that the Carte Pisane, Cortona and Lucca charts are post-Pizzigani, and probably no earlier than the first part of the 15th century'

Detailed data: Excel spreadsheet listing almost 3,000 names. Before using the analytical columns you are advised to consult the Explanatory Notes

We now take in turn five of the specific instances cited by Pujades on the grounds that archival evidence he had unearthed demonstrated that it would not have been relevant for the name in question to have appeared on a chart before a given date: Livorno, Port del Fangar (p.alfacso), El Torm, Oriola and Muggia.

Livorno

Of the names described by Pujades as evidence of anachronism on the three charts under scrutiny undoubtedly the most compelling is my No.505 Livorno (Pujades, 2013(b), pp.22-3). Like the others in this group it is not a case of a physical foundation or name-change but rather relates to a pivotal moment in the town's history. In 1406 Genoa gained control of the port, which they would hold until 1421. It had previously formed a subsidiary part of Porto Pisano. I had already noted the significance of this event in my 1987 chapter (p.427), but that was before the discovery of both the 'Liber de existencia riveriarum' and the Lucca chart, each of which names Livorno. The bald facts are these. The name is an old one, already recorded in the early 10th century, but it is first seen on a dated chart on Battista Beccari's of 1426. However, whereas his father Francesco did not show it on his sole surviving chart of 1403, it can be found on the undated copy of a lost Francesco work (presumed to be a little later than 1403) in the British Library's Cornaro Atlas of c.1489.

The complications arise because Livorno or liburne occurs in the early 13th-century 'Liber', though apparently referring to its fortress rather than to its status as a port. The 'Compasso de navegare' omits it altogether, and it otherwise appears only on the Cortona chart (but clearly as a later addition), and also, integrally, on the Lucca chart. It is Pujades's contention that nobody, and certainly not a Genoese, would have drawn attention to Livorno before 1406. On that basis, he also moves the jointly-authored Corbitis and Pinelli-Walckenaer atlases slightly later than their previous c.1400 dating, to no earlier than 1406. Does that evidence not provide conclusive proof for a 15th-century dating for the Lucca chart and hence the Carte Pisane to which it is undeniably related?

It cannot be denied that the argument is a strong one. But it is not so impregnable as it seems at first sight.

A name on a portolan chart may be prefaced by a word or initial to denote a port, bay, headland, river and so on. It may have a word such as castle after it. But not necessarily. Whether from lack of space or for other reasons, such prefixes or suffixes were quite often omitted. At other times we are left to guess which use of the name was being referred to. "What, for example, is the meaning of agulones, introduced just north of La Rochelle by the Pizzigani brothers in 1373 [No.92 in my listing]? Is it the port of L'Aiguillon, the Pointe de l'Aiguillon (a headland) or Anse de l'Aiguillon (an inlet)?" Or perhaps a convenient shorthand for all three (see The meaning of names).

Livorno was already of sufficient importance to sailors to be cited four times in the 'Liber' (Gautier Dalché, 1995, lines 1642, 1751, 1753, 1757) – always in conjunction with Porto Pisano. In the first two instances it is clear that this refers to its fortress but in the latter pair the word Liburnia is given on its own.

It is also worth noting that, after Livorno's first appearance on a chart, according to Pujades's hypothesis shortly after 1406, it was not immediately adopted by other chartmakers. Historically, the port did not fully supersede Porto Pisano until the middle of the 16th century. A census in the 1420s found only a few hundred inhabitants. This might explain why, for example, it is not named on either the 1421 Cesanis chart (produced in Venice) or that by Vallsecca of 1439 (made in Majorca). The first instance we can find where the toponym is written in red as a mark of significance comes on the 1436 Bianco chart (also Venetian). Surprisingly perhaps, the next red instance I could locate was on a work by Battista Agnese more than a century later.

It is not out of the question to suggest that the Lucca chart's reference to Porto Pisano could refer to Livorno's fortress, which port-seeking sailors would see first of all, and that a reference of this type would not have been out of place on an early 14th-century chart. The Pujades argument rests on a number of assumptions. In the first place it is surprising that the addition of a name, particularly one in so central a location, should be determined solely on the basis of whether or not it was accessible to the ships of one city state. Are there any other comparable instances? There are certainly toponyms (for example along the eastern Adriatic) which are absent from charts produced in a particular centre, and others again unique to that same place. But the mouth of the River Arno, which is itself often named on the charts, was hardly a backwater. Nor is it easy to reconcile the lively trade in portolan charts carried by travelling merchants (as documented by Pujades 2007, pp.459-60 and 2012, pp.60-7) with the concept of Genoese charts made exclusively for Genoese sailors.

That Christian vessels were more than simply debarred from many Muslim ports did not lead to the removal of those names from the charts. Nor did the loss by Genoa and Venice of their Black Sea holdings in the 15th century lead to much toponymic culling. True, the Genoese Batista Beccari did remove Livorno from his later chart of 1435 but, since Genoa had already sold Livorno to Florence five years before it had been included on his 1426 chart, this may reflect no more than its still modest maritime significance at that time.

Another major assumption by Pujades is that the charts, which surely reflected the priorities of their users as well as, if not more than, those of their creators, would favour political considerations over the very practical concerns of those charged with a ship's navigation. Doubtless, sailors would anyway be aware where they would be welcome or which ports to shun. If they relied on their charts to tell them that, perhaps in terms of the political allegiance read from the town's armorial on an illustrated chart, they would frequently have run into trouble, given the lack of care, or perhaps concern, about updating that element of the charts' iconography (see, for various references, Stylistic development).

On the basis of overall patterns of toponymic development, it appears that whether a port was noted or ignored, or even marked out in red, was a reflection of its perceived importance. Livorno did not achieve significant status until the late 16th century. Its successive castles, on the other hand, would always have been a useful landmark, visible from the sea.

There is evident circularity in the Pujades argument. Once the 1406 terminus post quem had been established, at least to his satisfaction, it was used, without any other corroboration, to re-date the Cornaro Atlas copy of the Francesco Beccari chart as well as the Corbitis and Pinelli-Walckenaer atlases. This was on the further assumption that both those authors would have responded immediately to Livorno's changed overlordship, despite the usual pattern of very delayed reaction already described, and the fact that the creator of that pair of anonymous atlases was Venetian not Genoese.

OTHER SUPPOSED ANACHRONISMS:

Four other names, considered to be anachronisms, were identified by Pujades. Three fall within the bounds of the Valencia and Catalonia portion of Spain's east coast, to which he devoted a detailed toponymic study in his major work of 2007. All three of those appear on the Lucca chart. They are p. alfacso and el torm, both featured on p.23b in the 2012 Paris talk (2013(b)), as well as Oriola (discussed elsewhere, in a 2011 article, p.271). The final name in this group is Muggia, south of Trieste. These will be considered separately.

While No. 371 Port del Fangar (p.fangos) can be seen in Vesconte's first atlas (1313), the concern here is with the Lucca chart's variant form, portu alfacso, noted first by Pujades on that faithful 1489 copy of a Francesco Beccari chart, already referred to, whose original version can probably be dated a little later than his sole surviving production, the chart of 1403. The detailed explanation about the Port del Fangar's history during the 14th century is given by Pujades elsewhere (2011, note 27, pp.275-6).

In the case of No. 376 El Torm – whose name Pujades was able to read as torme on the Lucca chart – its confirmed introduction onto the portolan charts, by Gabriel Vallseca in 1439, is seen to be related to "the construction from 1405 to 1411 of a cart road connecting the riverside city of Mora d'Ebre with the coast, through the initiative of the city of Barcelona." This, Pujades explains, transformed an isolated spot into "the perfect haven for loading and unloading merchandise coming from or bound for inland towns or cities" (2003(b), p.23b). Like the preceding example, the identification of these toponyms as anachronisms if present on a supposedly very early chart depends on unproven, and untypical, chartmakers' responsiveness.

Oriola

Until the discovery of the Lucca chart, No. 338 Oriola had been noted only on the Carte Pisane. It is now one of at least 42 names that uniquely link those two unsigned works (Excel spreadsheet Column 21, and select the coded entries ending in 3). Pujades described Oriola in 2011 (p.271) as being a reference to the town of Orihuela, which passed in 1296 from the crown of Castille to that of Catalonia-Aragon. In his 2007 listing (p.386) he had treated it as the equivalent of today's R. Segura (the river on which it sits).

The town itself is some 20 km inland, on a river that was evidently not navigable, and it is not clear why it should have been included on a portolan chart, even if it was a major source of the salt sent down to the sea at Guardamar del Segura. Kretschmer (1909, p.584) refers to a mention in the portolano of 1490, published by Bernardino Rizo in Venice, noting that he had only seen Oriola there and in what he describes as the Magliabecchi 'Parallel-Portolan' (evidently 15th century). The Rizo text can be found on p.452 in Kretschmer or online via the Bibliothèque nationale de France (Gentiluomo veneziano, Un. Portolano per i naviganti), where it is page 38 [to get there you seem to have to jump in tens via the link at the bottom left of the page; 'Aller Page' does not help]. The Rizo portolano (attributed in the past to Alvise Cadamosto), was working from south to north, in the apparent sequence here (in my number order): 332 c. de pali, 334 c. ceruer, 338(a) oriola, 337 guardamar, 338(c) p. vedres de balzuch, 339 c. de iupo, 340 la cantara.

The entry [line 9 in Kretschmer and nine lines from the end in the online version] reads: 'Dal chauo ceruer al oriola ostro [i.e. south] e tramontana [north]. mia 6'. [From Cape Ceruer to Oriola going [?] south and [or better, 'to'?] north, 6 miles]. Five lines further down we see: 'Dal chauo ceruer a guarda mar tra maistro (NW) e tramontana (N). mia 5'. Guardamar is north of Cape Cervera so that entry is correct. Orihuela, however, lies north-west of C. Cervera and much further inland. It seems, for the creators of the Carte Pisane and Lucca chart, that the river may have been known by the name of the most important town found along it. If so, the two charts would be referring to the mouth of what is now the R. Segura. Since this is indeed a little to the north of Guardamar, the difference in the portolano's figures of six and five miles makes sense. That the Catalan form of the town's name was used – a change effected in practice in 1296 although ratified only in 1304, as Pujades points out – is interpreted by him as just one example on the Carte Pisane of the extensive use of indigenous name forms. He sees that as a diagnostic feature because such linguistic mixtures, he explains, are not found on dated charts until much later.

However, it is possible that 'oriola', on the Carte Pisane and Lucca charts and certainly much later on the 1490 Rizo, was something quite different, perhaps an insignificant coastal settlement. The Rizo reference does not mention a river. An alternative hypothesis might be that this is a further illustration of the way that the Rizo portolano 'resurrected' a number of earlier names, sometimes after a century or more [Column 40 lists the Rizo instances as '(port.(R)'); the Comments column (X) provides an explanation for the more than 100 entries involved]. Around 20 of those names have not been noted between the time of the 13th-century 'Liber' or 'Lo compasso' and the Rizo text, while a further five are not seen between their appearance on the Carte Pisane or Cortona chart and 1490. How that transmission occurred is just one of the outstanding questions for future research. Perhaps a fuller toponymic analysis might be able to identify intermediate steps.

Muggia

Muggia, just south of Trieste (No.764 and Pujades, 2003(b), pp.18-19), is another supposed anachronism, found this time on the Carte Pisane and Cortona chart, rather than on the manuscript now preserved in Lucca. Its first appearance on a printed work is in 1409 on the chart by the Venetian, Albertin de Virga, though it can also be seen on the undated chart attributed to the Pizzigani brothers (Pujades C 21 – 'last quarter 14th century'). This late appearance is explained by Pujades on the grounds that that date coincided with the period when the town 'ceased to be under the authority of the Patriarch of Aquileia to definitively become part of the Venetian dominions.' Venice overlordship seems to date from 1420, and again it has to objected that it is highly unlikely that makers of portolan charts, and those who were simultaneously their users and informants, would have been uninterested in a toponym just because entering that harbour might present difficulties. Indeed, mariners would surely have had even greater need of such negative information, if the Pujades interpretation of 'relevancy' is followed. An alternative, common-sense, interpretation of such toponymic additions is that sailors would have wanted a coastal sequence comprising all the more prominent natural features, along with the trading ports. The political affiliation of the latter, on the other hand, was not an element they could expect to find, in up-to-date form, on their chart. As has been discussed elsewhere and under 'time-lag' above (D.2. Historical time-lag), it is rare to find, among the many hundreds of toponyms added to the charts over the centuries, names that had gained any clearly documented fresh significance in the short period before the date borne by the work in question. A gap of many decades was more usual.

The toponym mugla was one of those that was already written in red on its first appearance, whether that is considered to be the Carte Pisane (though not the Cortona chart which shows it in black), the anonymous Venetian chart from before 1400 or Virga's of 1409. After that date it was regularly written in red. The Carte Pisane's usage, civitas de mugla, presumably refers to the city status it had claimed, possibly in the 13th century. It should also be underlined that Muggia is the only name to be included on the Carte Pisane out of 27 first noticed on that 1409 Virga chart.

None of the foregoing should be considered as challenges to the historical facts cited by Pujades but rather offers a different interpretation of them based on the pattern observable in portolan chart toponymy in general. That was one of conservatism rather than responsiveness to geopolitical or mercantile change. Even if the motivation described by Pujades for the incorporation of those specific toponyms into the charts fits into our imperfect understanding of the possible reasons for such choices, the speed with which this is supposed to have happened in those cases would have been unprecedented, as far as our current knowledge allows.

Historical evidence Summary
Pujades argues that several names found on the Carte Pisane, Cortona or Lucca charts can be shown by the historical evidence to have had insufficient relevance to mariners for inclusion on a chart until at least the late 14th century. These instances depend on extrapolating from documented political or commercial developments to the world of maritime cartography. Pujades's underlying assumptions are challenged and alternative interpretations proposed for the more significant of his specific examples.

D.4. THE CORBITIS AND PINELLI-WALCKENAER ATLASES

Detailed data: Excel spreadsheet listing almost 3,000 names. Before using the analytical columns you are advised to consult the Explanatory Notes

For a general note see: Brief notes on the main documents discussed

Pujades noted some similarities between the Carte Pisane and Lucca charts on the one hand and, on the other, this pair of very similar Venetian atlases, both clearly in the same hand, which he dated to shortly after 1406 at the earliest (as discussed above: Livorno). The instances he itemised, indicating the sharing of distinct erroneous and imaginary toponymic forms, as well as one small stylistic feature (pp. 24-5), are too close for coincidence and leave no doubt that the three unidentified chartmakers concerned had some kind of direct or indirect connection. But which was the model and who was the imitator, albeit indirectly? As we shall see, there was almost no general toponymic overlap between these two atlases and the Carte Pisane or Lucca chart.

An attempt must first be made to understand the nature of these productions. The Corbitis and Pinelli-Walckenaer [CPW] atlases (named after their earlier owners – the former's signature having been corrected by Piero Falchetta from the earlier reading, Combitis) are distinctive and significant. However, their lack of a stated production date frustrates efforts to incorporate them with confidence into the general chronological narrative. The c.1406 date proposed by Pujades may be correct but, if so, it must be acknowledged that a number of their names are otherwise first seen on works dated later than that. A full transcription has not yet been made of the content of the two atlases and the statistics cited below may need amending in future. However, it is apparent that at least ten of the CPW toponyms anticipate those on the 1409 Virga chart or, alternatively, were copied from it. [Since that represents more than one third of the total innovations ascribed to that 1409 chart, this might suggest moving the date of these two atlases to post-1409.] There is then a 12-year gap in the record of surviving dated Italian charts but the following apparent anachronisms in the two atlases – or, as I would prefer to call them, 'Precursor' names – can be noted: 1421 (8 new names, out of 44), 1424 (2), 1426 (3 from two different chartmakers), 1443, 1447, 1459, 1461, 1462 and 1465 (1 each) – in other words 29 in all [to retrieve those, sort on Column 33 in the Excel listing, then Column F and scroll down to 'CPW'].

Other CPW names, also brought together in Column 33, represent revivals of much earlier toponyms: two are of at least 13th-century origin, visible in both the 'Liber' and 'Lo compasso'. By scrolling further down the Excel column to reach the entries labelled 'CPWr' [for 'revived'] some 'Vescontian' names can also be observed coming out of obscurity on those two atlases about a century later (although only very temporarily, it seems). Two of the names – No. 935 Proti and 1605a larsis – were revivals of names seen in Genoese works of the period 1325-50, but no suggestion has been made that those should, as a result of that, be moved to a 15th-century date. On the contrary, these aberrations can be considered as surprising only if numerous similar examples elsewhere in the overall record are ignored. They may serve no more than to reinforce what has already been said about the need to give potential credit to anonymous works for anticipating dated ones.

Besides 'Precursors names', the revivals of those found on much earlier dated charts, and toponyms classified as 'rare', 68 toponyms are found uniquely on one or other, but usually both, of the Corbitis and Pinelli-Walckenaer atlases. To retrieve those scroll a little further down the Excel column to 'CPWu' [i.e. unique or very rare]. That said, when the 15th-century anonymous Italian works come to be fully transcribed, recurrences of some of those names may be expected elsewhere. Besides those examples, the analysis of names written in red on the portolan charts reveal several instances where these atlases were the first or only works to treat the names in that distinctive way (see Summary Table of Red Names: their appearance, frequency and disappearance – sort on its column 12).

This further testimony to the individuality of the unknown author of that pair of atlases is, coincidentally, reminiscent of the similarly large bodies of names not seen, in red or black, on dated charts but noted only on the Carte Pisane (88), Cortona (88) and Lucca (79) charts. Yet I have not been able to find a single one of the apparently unique Corbitis and Pinelli-Walckenaer names on any of the three charts [compare the Column 33 CPWu entries with the absence of names in Columns S, T & U]. Even though names in the three supposedly early works, loosely termed 'unique', overlap with one another to a certain extent (on which see the numbered codes in Column 21) the combined total of their unrepeated names still comes to 138 (Columns 39, 11, 19 – scroll down to 'U' in Column 39).

Pujades claims that the errors and peculiarities he has identified as being shared between two of the claimants for a very early dating (the Carte Pisane and Lucca chart) and the co-authored Corbitis and Pinelli-Walckenaer atlases are to be seen as evidence of some kind of interchange, in toponymic terms. The analysis above firmly contradicts that. Overall, 123 unusual names can be seen on the two CPW atlases but the Carte Pisane and Lucca chart have just six of those each (three of them not shared – Columns 12, 33; and 19, 33). Indeed, looked at overall, it is the dissimilarities between those two charts and the paired atlases that are most striking.

Summary
The Lucca chart, and sometimes the Carte Pisane as well, share a few distinctive stylistic features with the Corbitis and Pinelli-Walckenaer atlases, which are probably dateable to the first decade of the 15th century. Nevertheless, each of those pairs has a large number of unique names not found on the other pair. Toponymically, they are clearly distinct.

D.5. CESANIS AND THE LUXORO ATLAS

A few comments about Francesco de Cesanis may be helpful here. Only one signed and dated work by him is known, his chart of 1421, which was referred to above as having eight of its names anticipated on the Corbitis and Pinelli-Walckenaer atlases. However, as was pointed out in my 1987 History of Cartography chapter (p.403), the anonymous Luxoro Atlas (Biblioteca Berio, Genoa) is clearly in the hand of Cesanis and can therefore be given a similar date to the 1421 chart. Besides those, two versions survive of an Adriatic chart, headed 'Francesco Cexano', included in the Cornaro Atlas (British Library, Egerton MS 73), a collection of copied charts made in Venice in, or shortly after, 1489. These are placed on a single vellum leaf, arranged head to toe. It is logical to assume that the authorship inscription refers to both versions, although there are noticeable differences between them. To facilitate the joint study of the toponymy of Francesco de Cesanis the names he introduced have been gathered together in Excel spreadsheet Column 34. [There was also an Alvise de Cesanis, a close imitator, still alive in 1496, and, presumably a descendant, Aloisio Cesani, author of a 1574 atlas in the Biblioteca Palatina, Parma.]

When Column 34 is used in conjunction with Column F it can be seen that both the Cornaro Atlas copies and the Luxoro Atlas include names not recorded on dated charts at all. In addition, the Luxoro Atlas has three names first seen on charts dated later than 1421, which may not be significant, but the 14 equivalent instances on the Cornaro Atlas copies presumably point to a date for those later than 1421. Taken together, the combined list of 91 'Cesanian' names gives a better indication of his toponymic contribution than the 44 first reliably dated by his 1421 chart.

D.6. THE TOPONYMIC CONTRIBUTION OF THE PORTOLANI

There is an unsurprising connection between the portolan charts and their textual counterparts, the volumes of sailing directions or 'portolans'. Such textual manuscripts provide a littoral toponymic itinerary, giving the direction and distance from one place to the next. There are also digressions to nearby islands as well as lists of distances between one significant headland and a string of others (pelagi), usually hundreds of miles away Because of the frequent confusion in the literature, with charts sometimes unhelpfully labelled 'portolans', the Italian term for the texts, portolani, is preferred here.

The Excel broadsheet includes toponymic information from the two earliest complete surviving portolani. Columns Q and R set out the relevant names in the 'Liber de existencia riveriarum' (Gautier Dalché, 1995) and from 'Lo compasso de navegare' (Debanne, 2011). The Excel default sequence is geographical (clockwise from northern France round to west Morocco), but because selecting their own column will automatically leave the names of those portolani in their alphabetical sequence, separate analytical columns have been provided so that those can be selected and then freely sorted (Column 3, for the two together, 4 for the 'Liber' alone and 5 for 'Lo compasso'). [For more on each of those, see Brief notes on the main documents discussed.]

Information about other, later portolani has been obtained from the invaluable work of Konrad Kretschmer (1909). He identified and discussed a number of such texts and extracted names from eight of them (see his numbers 12-18 on p.556), ranging in date from the early 14th-century Sanudo to the edition printed by Bernadino Rizo in Venice in 1490. Other portolani cited regularly by Kretschmer in his detailed toponymical listing (for which Column L gives the relevant page number) are those by Pietro de Versi (Michael of Rhodes) (1444-5) and one, dating from the mid-15th century, preserved in Parma (Codex Palatinus 246). It might have been expected that the portolano compiled in 1435-45 by Grazioso Benincasa, then a ship's officer and later to become a noted chartmaker, would have been a rich source of toponyms. Perhaps it would provide earlier instances of the 37 names whose first appearance is attributed to him on the charts he produced after 1461 (Columns G, F). In fact, coastal names are sparse in his text, and Kretschmer gives few references to the portolano, none of which seems to precede the first use of that name on the charts of others.

Column 39 (select the 'P' entries) isolates the names found on one or more of those five works mentioned above (with their Kretschmer page numbers), whereas Column 40, 'portolani: unique, rare or reinstated names', allows separate retrieval of the instances found in the same five works. [Most of the Benincasa portolano references in Column 40 are part of multiple entries, coded simply as 'port'.] To get the full picture of the portolani contribution, add in to the sort command, the combined names found on the 'Liber' and 'Lo compasso' (Column 3).

Whereas interchanges between the written and cartographic formats are usual, there are some toponyms that appear mostly, or sometimes exclusively, in the portolani. Leaving aside, for example, the inland names included in the 'Liber' on account of their classical or biblical interest, the exclusion of certain names from the charts may be explained by different selection mechanisms being applied perhaps to the two geographical genres. Most interesting are the various exceptions: rare names found equally in cartographic and textual form (cross-over, if you like) or rare names revived much later, especially on the 1490 Rizo portolano.

Information about the toponyms found in those portolani can be retrieved in various ways from the Excel listing. But note that the names in those texts have been recorded only when they are unique, rare, or either earlier or later than those observed on the charts. To retrieve those, select Column 40 ('P, R, U'). The entries in Column 39, under 'P' for portolano, list the names that have so far been noted only in the texts. The sub-group in Column 9, retrieves over 60 toponyms that had appeared in the 'Liber' and/or 'Lo compasso' and were then apparently revived in the 15th century, in most cases not until the 1490 Rizo publication.

Summary
While numerous names were shared between the portolan charts and the written navigation manuals, the portolani, some have been noted only on the latter. It was not unusual for toponyms found in the two 13th-century portolani, the 'Liber' and 'Lo compasso', to be noted next on 15th-century examples. For instance, 60 such names were not observed between the 13th century and 1490.

E. HYDROGRAPHY

The strongest arguments in favour of the Carte Pisane's primary chronological position have always focused on its 'primitive' coastal outlines. These will be looked at in turn, in a geographic sequence starting with the British Isles and then moving down the European Atlantic coastline. That will be followed by a separate examination of areas within the Mediterranean, where the outlines have sufficient sophistication to challenge Pujades's argument that the Carte Pisane is a consistently poor copy. Finally, a fresh analysis will focus on the Black Sea.

The developing hydrography was discussed in outline in Campbell (1987, pp. 403-15). The discovery of the Lucca chart and recognition by Pujades of the early dating of the Riccardiana chart, neither of which were discussed a quarter of a century ago, assisted by the literature of the intervening period and the availability of high resolution images, has led to a number of further significant insights. No reason has been found, though, to change my earlier overall conclusions.