**6. Intriguing geographical elements in relation to the 16th century geographical picture of Russia**

Taking into account the most intriguing geographical elements in the Jenkinson's map we have to mention: northern Volga river, lakes: *"volock lacvs"* and *"Kitaia Lacvs"*, as well as the rivers *"Amow fl."* and *"Ougus fl."* 

Every of the mentioned elements has been already considered in Polish articles published by the author (Szykuła K., 1995 & 2000) and in one published in English (2005) – available in the Internet, too. Unfortunately, the latest has been limited by the editor and therefore it is there not in its original form and without most of the figures.

The problem of north Volga river has been already described in the subchapter on the physiographic elements. To remind it, the error is a consequence of the incorrect name of the Volga river, because instead of *"Volgha fl."* it should be there today's Neva, Swir and Volkhov rivers. Quite a rich history have already the so-called *"volock lacvs".* We can find some information in very useful 18th century dictionary of geographical names *"Historisch=Politisch=Geographischer Atlas, 1774-1750".* This is the German version of the French Lexicon by Bruzen de la Martiniere. Under the head *"Wolochs, Volock"* we read there (in transl.): "*the city in Russia, see "Wolocz"*, and there: *"a small city in State Russia in the province Rzeva, on the border of the Dutch of Moscovia, not far from the Fronowo Lake, on the outer edge "Wolkonsky Forest"* (Volkonski les in Russian). The description could be correct in respect of the place of the lake in question in the Wied's map, however, this author carefully left this lake without geographical name. Herberstein placed the Fronowo Lake at the source of Dvina as *"Dwina Lacq."* We find another explanation in the history of cartography by well known Polish historian of cartography Stanisław Alexandrowicz in his book on the history of cartography of Lithuania (1989, p. 57, footnote 25). He considers there that the incorrect information has been found in Polish historiographer's Jan Długosz *"Chorographia",* and he quotes *"Annales seu cronicae*", lib. I, p. 99. There the author of the work writes about a big lake or marsh which lays 30 miles from Smolensk towards Novgorod, where three rivers have their mouth: so called western Dvina, Volga and Dnieper. This information has been used again by famous Polish cartographer Bernard Wapowski. He placed the lake in question in his not surviving map of the Northern Sarmatia. Then, the information has been taken over again by Wied and placed in his map. Finally, the lake's name has been retaken by Jenkinson. According to Professor Alexandrowicz (1989) the name of the lake comes from the city *"Wyšnij Woloček"* (Wyshni Wolochek). In turn in above mentioned map from 1525 (Gerasimow-Jovius-Agnese map) this lake is called *"Palus magna",* and there meets Volgha, Dnieper, Dvina, and additionally to Jenkinson's representation – the Neva river. Professor Samuel H. Baron (1993, p. 58, footnote 10) gives some other conception. He claims that this mistake comes from Gerasimov and then from Münster's map. This mistake could be also explained by the translation of the word *"volock"*– in Russian language it means "the carriage across the river". Then, it could be understood as the lake, especially that the terrain on which the lake is situated is full of marshes. The lake could be also identified with mentioned here Fronovo Lake, which is also mentioned by Jovius (Baron, S.H., 1986) and was confirmed above by the quotation from the Bruzen de la Martiniere Lexicon on the lake.

The next problematical element worth to be considered here is *"Kitaia Lacvs"* which has been already discussed several times in many articles, and which representation has been depicted on numerous maps. The number of conceptions, too, was presented. However, in spite of so many theories, which based on quite a real research results, it is difficult to resist an impression that both in shape and in its relation with the river Sur (Sir-Darya today), the lake can be automatically associated with the Aral Sea. Especially that it does not exist at all in its proper place in the Jenkinson's genuine map.

**Figure 12.** "Kitaia Lacvs" and Ob river in Jenkinson's map

142 Cartography – A Tool for Spatial Analysis

*covię tran*

model in this small north-western part of Russia.

**geographical picture of Russia** 

rivers *"Amow fl."* and *"Ougus fl."* 

there not in its original form and without most of the figures.

version *"Wollo*

the sentence *"Dux Mo*

*Sarmacia".* 

published in 1542 there is the city *"Wollozeck"* , but in the edition from 1570 – there is the

Wied's maps. Jenkinson called it *"Mare Septentrionale"*, whereas Wied (1542) – *"Mare* 

Jenkinson's map in relation to Herbestein's and Doetecum map gave interesting results in case of the name "Kiev": in Jenkinson's the name of the city is *"Kiou"*, in Herberstein – "*Kiow"*, and in Doetecum – *"Kioff".* In Wied's map we have even a typical Polish letter "ę" in

only touched. In *"Monograph",* however, it will be obviously extended. As far as the Borough's manuscript map is concerned we can find the similarities, but not in every respect. There are some cities or other geographical names which significantly differ geographically. We then may raise the question if Jenkinson used Borough's map at all as a

Taking into account the most intriguing geographical elements in the Jenkinson's map we have to mention: northern Volga river, lakes: *"volock lacvs"* and *"Kitaia Lacvs"*, as well as the

Every of the mentioned elements has been already considered in Polish articles published by the author (Szykuła K., 1995 & 2000) and in one published in English (2005) – available in the Internet, too. Unfortunately, the latest has been limited by the editor and therefore it is

The problem of north Volga river has been already described in the subchapter on the physiographic elements. To remind it, the error is a consequence of the incorrect name of the Volga river, because instead of *"Volgha fl."* it should be there today's Neva, Swir and Volkhov rivers. Quite a rich history have already the so-called *"volock lacvs".* We can find some information in very useful 18th century dictionary of geographical names *"Historisch=Politisch=Geographischer Atlas, 1774-1750".* This is the German version of the French Lexicon by Bruzen de la Martiniere. Under the head *"Wolochs, Volock"* we read there (in transl.): "*the city in Russia, see "Wolocz"*, and there: *"a small city in State Russia in the province Rzeva, on the border of the Dutch of Moscovia, not far from the Fronowo Lake, on the outer edge "Wolkonsky Forest"* (Volkonski les in Russian). The description could be correct in respect of the place of the lake in question in the Wied's map, however, this author carefully left this lake without geographical name. Herberstein placed the Fronowo Lake at the source of Dvina as *"Dwina Lacq."* We find another explanation in the history of cartography by well known Polish historian of cartography Stanisław Alexandrowicz in his book on the history of cartography of Lithuania (1989, p. 57, footnote 25). He considers there that the incorrect information has been found in Polish historiographer's Jan Długosz *"Chorographia",* and he quotes *"Annales seu cronicae*", lib. I, p. 99. There the author of the work writes about a big lake or marsh which lays 30 miles from Smolensk towards Novgorod, where three rivers

**6. Intriguing geographical elements in relation to the 16th century** 

*ek"*. Interesting as well as is the name of then north sea in Jenkinson's and

*fert".* To summarize, the mentioned subject has been here

Quite different but interesting is the attitude of the Russian scholars to this open question. In *"Zapiski"* by Herberstein (Gerberstein, S., 1988, footnote 546, 547), there are following theories presented by different scholars. As far as the Zajsan lake is concerned it has been

considered by A.F. Middendorf as an "*Upsa=Ubsa Nur*" or "*Uvs nuur*" by G. Genning and M. P. Alekseev, as the Aral sea by G. Michow , L.S. Berg, and K.M. Ber, and as the Teleckoye lake by A.Ch. Lerberg and D. N. Anucin. To the mentioned conception refer another Russian scholar, Vadim F. Starkov (1994), who writes about the participation of Gerasimov in creating the theories, like that of above mentioned professor Baron. Aleksey K. Zaytsev focuses on *"Teleckoye Lake"*. He explains that Teleckoye Lake is placed on the way of the Ob river, or rather its tributary called Bija, which joins with the Kotunia river and they create the Ob river. The note we can consider as the real one if we take into account mentioned here *"Historisch=Politisch=Geographische Atlas"* (Bd. 1, 1744,; Bd.4, 1746,), where under the entry we read (in transl. from German): *"Kitaius lacus",* so is in Latin named a great lake in the Kingdom of Altin, see "Altin" and then under the entry *"Altin"* we read – so is named (by somebody) the lake, which is situated in the eastern part of the kingdom of the same name. The completion of this information we find in another geographical dictionary (Šchekatov, 1808, č. 6, v. X, columns 164-165), where under the entry of the "lake" we read that the lake bears as well the name *"Altyn"* or *"Altaj"*18 and is situated in Tomsk Gubernya, and Kuznieck district. Having so many conceptions, it is necessary to consider their reliability. Then, we should look at lakes' geographical placement. Every one of the lakes is situated in the mountain region, close to the Altai mountains. When we look at the Jenkinson's map, east of Kitaia Lacvs, he depicted high mountain range. As has been already said, Teleckoe Lake is situated on the way of Bija river – the tributary of the Ob river, whereas the Zaisan Lake on the Irtysh river the tributary of the Ob river, too. Only Upsa is not connected with the Ob river. The latter is in most degree in the shape of "*Kitaia Lacvs",* because two other have, using the geographical vocabulary, the shape of finger lakes. There are, however, many indications against these theories on the three lakes. Mainly because they are situated far away to the east from the territory represented in the Jenkinson's map, i.e. above 1500 km. from the Aral Sea. The Altai mountains are situated to the south-eastern direction, but not in northern Siberia. On the other hand, the Teleckoye lake could be accepted to be "*Kitaia Lacvs*" because of the reasonable argument which has been already mentioned above and quoted from the geographical Lexicon by Bruzen de la Martiniere. Simultaneously we know that neither Jenkinson nor Herberstein entered so far in the Asia interior. They had been not able to get in so high ranges of mountains and because of wild tribes living east of Bokhara region. Then, to be remembered, there is yet the possibility that the Lake was retaken from Gerasimov, what has been already mentioned in Starkov's work (1994) and confirmed by S.H. Baron (see above).

Unexpected 16th Century Finding to Have Disappeared Just After Its Printing – Anthony Jenkinson's Map of Russia, 1562 145

However, coming back to the previous thought, that is *"Kitaia Lacus"*, at the times thanks to brothers Boroughs' voyages (Baron, S.H., 1989 & Mayers, K., 2005) there was known only the lower course of the Ob river, and yet before the Jenkinson's map has been made. Then it is very probable, that Jenkinson, who did not know the further course of the Ob river, could add up information acquired by the mentioned brothers with his own information collected during his second travel to Russia, when he reached Bokhara. Hence, he made similar mistake as Wied on his map - to join two pieces of news together - because he did not know the territory between the lower Ob river and the Ougus river. That is why there is also Sur extended to the south and the Aral Sea shifted too much to the north that was Wied's some

On the other hand there are still many unclear points in the presented "discussion". We should raise the question, why under the entry *"Arall"* in the quoted dictionary by Bruzen de la Martiniere there is only a short description on the settlement of the same name. *"Arall"* as a sea is only briefly mentioned there, however in the same dictionary is that the view is so great as the sea! Another argument which indicates that the Kitaia Lake is the Aral Sea is the opinion expressed by zoologist J. Bartmańska19, who claims that these kinds of animals as camels, tarpans and sheep should be presented on the latitudes 450 – 520 but not on the 600 – 650. However, some of them are situated in a correct place, too, for instance in northern direction of the Caspian Sea in the genuine map. We know that the latitude of the Aral Sea is about 450 and there is Kyzyl-Kum desert but not the region of the high mountains as it is

19 According to the manuscript expertise made during the Polish grant (1994/95) in the form of the order.

kind of idea or trick done by eliminating the unknown territory.

**Figure 13.** Funeral ceremony by Kirghizes

Then, maybe we should return to the Aral Sea conception. As it was already mentioned about its shape and the course of river Sur (Syr-Darya) there is *"Amow"* tributary of "*Sur"* river, too. It seems very unlikely if Jenkinson, who travelled across the territory between the Mare Caspium and Tashkent including Bukhara region, did not notice such a great lake as the Aral Sea. We are obviously not talking about today's drying up lake.

<sup>18</sup> Special work has been devoted to this "country" by two authors: Borodaev, V.B. & Kontev, A.V., Istoričeskij atlas Altajskogo kraja. Kartografičeskie materialy po istorii Verchnego Priob'ja i Priirtyš'ja (ot antičnosti do načala XXI veka). Vtoroe izdanie, ispravlennoe i dopolnennoe". Barnaul, Azbuka 2007 (in the Bibliography here, English title, too).

However, coming back to the previous thought, that is *"Kitaia Lacus"*, at the times thanks to brothers Boroughs' voyages (Baron, S.H., 1989 & Mayers, K., 2005) there was known only the lower course of the Ob river, and yet before the Jenkinson's map has been made. Then it is very probable, that Jenkinson, who did not know the further course of the Ob river, could add up information acquired by the mentioned brothers with his own information collected during his second travel to Russia, when he reached Bokhara. Hence, he made similar mistake as Wied on his map - to join two pieces of news together - because he did not know the territory between the lower Ob river and the Ougus river. That is why there is also Sur extended to the south and the Aral Sea shifted too much to the north that was Wied's some kind of idea or trick done by eliminating the unknown territory.

**Figure 13.** Funeral ceremony by Kirghizes

144 Cartography – A Tool for Spatial Analysis

above).

considered by A.F. Middendorf as an "*Upsa=Ubsa Nur*" or "*Uvs nuur*" by G. Genning and M. P. Alekseev, as the Aral sea by G. Michow , L.S. Berg, and K.M. Ber, and as the Teleckoye lake by A.Ch. Lerberg and D. N. Anucin. To the mentioned conception refer another Russian scholar, Vadim F. Starkov (1994), who writes about the participation of Gerasimov in creating the theories, like that of above mentioned professor Baron. Aleksey K. Zaytsev focuses on *"Teleckoye Lake"*. He explains that Teleckoye Lake is placed on the way of the Ob river, or rather its tributary called Bija, which joins with the Kotunia river and they create the Ob river. The note we can consider as the real one if we take into account mentioned here *"Historisch=Politisch=Geographische Atlas"* (Bd. 1, 1744,; Bd.4, 1746,), where under the entry we read (in transl. from German): *"Kitaius lacus",* so is in Latin named a great lake in the Kingdom of Altin, see "Altin" and then under the entry *"Altin"* we read – so is named (by somebody) the lake, which is situated in the eastern part of the kingdom of the same name. The completion of this information we find in another geographical dictionary (Šchekatov, 1808, č. 6, v. X, columns 164-165), where under the entry of the "lake" we read that the lake bears as well the name *"Altyn"* or *"Altaj"*18 and is situated in Tomsk Gubernya, and Kuznieck district. Having so many conceptions, it is necessary to consider their reliability. Then, we should look at lakes' geographical placement. Every one of the lakes is situated in the mountain region, close to the Altai mountains. When we look at the Jenkinson's map, east of Kitaia Lacvs, he depicted high mountain range. As has been already said, Teleckoe Lake is situated on the way of Bija river – the tributary of the Ob river, whereas the Zaisan Lake on the Irtysh river the tributary of the Ob river, too. Only Upsa is not connected with the Ob river. The latter is in most degree in the shape of "*Kitaia Lacvs",* because two other have, using the geographical vocabulary, the shape of finger lakes. There are, however, many indications against these theories on the three lakes. Mainly because they are situated far away to the east from the territory represented in the Jenkinson's map, i.e. above 1500 km. from the Aral Sea. The Altai mountains are situated to the south-eastern direction, but not in northern Siberia. On the other hand, the Teleckoye lake could be accepted to be "*Kitaia Lacvs*" because of the reasonable argument which has been already mentioned above and quoted from the geographical Lexicon by Bruzen de la Martiniere. Simultaneously we know that neither Jenkinson nor Herberstein entered so far in the Asia interior. They had been not able to get in so high ranges of mountains and because of wild tribes living east of Bokhara region. Then, to be remembered, there is yet the possibility that the Lake was retaken from Gerasimov, what has been already mentioned in Starkov's work (1994) and confirmed by S.H. Baron (see

Then, maybe we should return to the Aral Sea conception. As it was already mentioned about its shape and the course of river Sur (Syr-Darya) there is *"Amow"* tributary of "*Sur"* river, too. It seems very unlikely if Jenkinson, who travelled across the territory between the Mare Caspium and Tashkent including Bukhara region, did not notice such a great lake as

18 Special work has been devoted to this "country" by two authors: Borodaev, V.B. & Kontev, A.V., Istoričeskij atlas Altajskogo kraja. Kartografičeskie materialy po istorii Verchnego Priob'ja i Priirtyš'ja (ot antičnosti do načala XXI veka). Vtoroe izdanie, ispravlennoe i dopolnennoe". Barnaul, Azbuka 2007 (in the Bibliography here, English title, too).

the Aral Sea. We are obviously not talking about today's drying up lake.

On the other hand there are still many unclear points in the presented "discussion". We should raise the question, why under the entry *"Arall"* in the quoted dictionary by Bruzen de la Martiniere there is only a short description on the settlement of the same name. *"Arall"* as a sea is only briefly mentioned there, however in the same dictionary is that the view is so great as the sea! Another argument which indicates that the Kitaia Lake is the Aral Sea is the opinion expressed by zoologist J. Bartmańska19, who claims that these kinds of animals as camels, tarpans and sheep should be presented on the latitudes 450 – 520 but not on the 600 – 650. However, some of them are situated in a correct place, too, for instance in northern direction of the Caspian Sea in the genuine map. We know that the latitude of the Aral Sea is about 450 and there is Kyzyl-Kum desert but not the region of the high mountains as it is

<sup>19</sup> According to the manuscript expertise made during the Polish grant (1994/95) in the form of the order.

shown in the Jenkinson's map. Whereas the existence of the camels and sheep on the same latitude as *"Kitaia Lacvs"* and between the mountains steppes indicate in turn the Altai mountains. Then, as we can see, solving the problem is not so easy and probably it will be never solved. Some final conclusion could be supported, too, by the description of the name "*Kitaya*" in Wikipedia under the entry "*Kitay-gorod*".

Unexpected 16th Century Finding to Have Disappeared Just After Its Printing – Anthony Jenkinson's Map of Russia, 1562 147

we may presume, that the picture of the Ougus river in his map has been simply retaken from Ptolemaeus' map of this territory. The history of this early course of Amu-Darya comprehensively describes S.P. Tolstov in his another book (1962, pp. 17 – 26), where he

Every one of these theories could be taken into account in the light of the interesting text quoted in Internet from the famous book by Ryszard Kapuściński. In this description we are told a beautiful story of the Uzboj river, which was examinated by yet another Russian archeologist A.H. Jusupov. The story has been told to Kapuścinski by a local called "Raszyd"(Rashyd). The author writes: (transl."Raszyd has shown me on the map the course of the Uzboy river. The river Uzboy has taken its waters from the Amu-Darya river, the river has flown across the desert Kara-Kum into the Caspian Sea. It was a beautiful river – long as the

Seine river. This river died, as he said, and from the time of its death the war begun.")

In the article, the author tried to show a kind of sketch of the further full *Monograph* on the Jenkinson's map. The first conclusion which is easily noticeable is that the subject in question constitutes an inexhaustible material for investigation from different points of view. What one could notice if we enter more deeply into some of the described questions is that every one of them opens new paths to be further investigated. After all, we have here following questions: the history of geographical discoveries in Asia, relations between the two continents, Europe and Russia in relation to Asia, and next the subsequent regions – their history, ethnography, especially connected with Cossacks and Tartars, the history of links between England and Russia21, history of Persia, including the history of consecutive khans. In this subject it is difficult to neglect the Russian relations to the western frontier states or historical regions which, especially at that times, were Lithuania and Poland. Characteristic and equally very interesting is that the stories of several regions and states connects with one another. Thanks to this phenomenon new topics still emerge and it is difficult to resist them. New and equally very interesting riddles still arise. The sources which needed to be compared were very exciting for the author. Such was for instance the story of the course of the Amu-Darya river and the Aral Sea in connection with the *"Kitaia Lacus"* as well. Very interesting is the interdisciplinary character of the subject in question, too. For instance, some evidence is the participation of the archeologists in the examination of the bed of the Amu-Darya river, its significance and results. To continue the idea presented by the author it could be also worth using the infra-red pictures to confirm one more argument for the theory of the old river-bed of Amu-Darya. We can say the same about the other questions considered here. The long-lasting investigation of the author and the rich literature create valuable occasion for scientific contacts with other authors in the world. It was a very valuable exchange with mentioned here Professor S.H. Baron, Dr. K.

21 This investigation entitled "*Cartographical links between England and Russia in mid of 16th century"* has been carried out

in the British Academy Project by the author together with Magdalena Peszko in 2011.

gives the bibliography of this subject.

**7. Coclusion** 

There is one more interesting geographically questionable element in Jenkinson's map. This is the Amu-Darya river which as Ougus flows into the Caspian Sea. The problem have been already interestingly and accurately described by many authors (Menn G.F.C., 1839, Alenicin V.D., 1879, Barthold W., 1910). As have been here already mentioned the representation of the mouth of Ougus river can still be found in the 18th century maps. The history of the mouth of Amu-Darya from the oldest times had been very accurately described by G.F.C. Menn in Latin20. There are some interesting testimonies which we can find in Herodot's work in following sentence (translated: "the biggest river in this region is "*Arakses"* or "*Oksos"* and that one of the branch flows into the Caspian Sea"). What is interesting, he also calls the river as "marshes of Aral". Alenicin in turn asks himself a question – which way Jenkinson has gone when, as he writes in his diary, he met so-called "priasna" water, i.e. sweet water. The author comes to conclusion that at some point Jenkinson had to confuse the directions of the world. Alenicin realized that if Jenkinson met a sweet water it could be neither the Aral Sea nor the Caspian Sea – it must have been probably Sary-Kamysh – a big lake situated between the Caspian Sea and the Aral Sea, because it goes from Mangyshlak peninsula across the Ust'- Urt'. On the 12 page of his book Alenicin writes about yet another conception. He there claims that in 1878 came into the Caspian Sea a branch of the river which probably reached it. Interesting description on Amow river (a tributary of the Sur river on Jenkinson's map) we read in already quoted geographical dictionary (transl.: *"Amou or Amu it is the river of Asia, which by our contemporary geographers is named Amu. Because "Ab" word in Persian means water or river. Arabs call it Gibon, but accurately Balkh, river Balkh, because it flows across city of the same name. The old called it Oxus and Bactus. This river flows out from the Imaus mountains and directs its course from the east to the west. As a matter of fact, when it comes close to the Khovarezm country, it runs in meander way, and seems to flow to its source direction, however it comes back again, and flows into Caspian Sea in the west").* It is worth here to quote before mentioned Menn (G.F.C., 1839). In his book in the chapter I entitled *"Oxi fluminis vetustae navigationis in mare Caspium documenta"* on 5th page we read (transl.:"…Oxus flows into the Caspian Sea across Scythia…" W. Barthold (1910, s. 68), who discusses the Jenkinson's map writes (in transl.: "south branch flows to the lengthened gulf of the Caspian Sea, i.e. Sary-Kamysh" (see Tolstov 1962, pp. 261-267*)* where the author writes that the river Amu-daria at the beginning of the 10th century had flown into the Caspian Sea*.* This Russian archeologist Tolstov (1953, p. 62) recalls Jenkinson's opinions from his diary, which are opposite to his map's picture. Namely, Jenkinson claims that the water in his times did not flow into the Caspian Sea as it was in the early times. So

<sup>20</sup> For translation of the fragment of this interesting work I would here like to express my gratitude to Aleksandra Krajczyk, the teacher of Latin at the University of Wrocław.

we may presume, that the picture of the Ougus river in his map has been simply retaken from Ptolemaeus' map of this territory. The history of this early course of Amu-Darya comprehensively describes S.P. Tolstov in his another book (1962, pp. 17 – 26), where he gives the bibliography of this subject.

Every one of these theories could be taken into account in the light of the interesting text quoted in Internet from the famous book by Ryszard Kapuściński. In this description we are told a beautiful story of the Uzboj river, which was examinated by yet another Russian archeologist A.H. Jusupov. The story has been told to Kapuścinski by a local called "Raszyd"(Rashyd). The author writes: (transl."Raszyd has shown me on the map the course of the Uzboy river. The river Uzboy has taken its waters from the Amu-Darya river, the river has flown across the desert Kara-Kum into the Caspian Sea. It was a beautiful river – long as the Seine river. This river died, as he said, and from the time of its death the war begun.")
