156 - China’s 1418 World Map
The Turks have Piri Reis, whose 1513 map shows parts of America and Antarctica with astonishing and, in the case of Antarctica, frankly inexplicable accuracy. The Chinese have this map to demonstrate that the story of how the ‘West’ discovered the World is only one of many versions of the very earliest form of globalisation.
The map is similar to many present-day Chinese world maps in that it positions at the centre of the map China (which used self-confidently to refer to itself as the “Middle Kingdom”), and not Europe. It states that it is a 1763 copy of a fifteenth-century original. Chinese characters written beside the map say it was drawn by Mo Yi Tong and copied from a map made in the 16th year of the Emperor Yongle, or 1418.
The double dating of this map implies that America was explored and mapped by the Chinese at least 70 years before Columbus made landfall in what he then still thought was India. Furthermore, it shows Africa and Australia in fairly accurate detail. Europeans only stumbled across Australia after 1600.
This map supports the controversial claim that a Chinese mega-flotilla under an admiral named Zheng He sailed around the world in 1421. Zheng He is an historical figure, and he is known to have visited South East Asia, India and Africa - his explorations span a 30-year period from 1405 to 1435. However, the claim that he visited America is not sufficiently proven, many experts hold.
Zheng He´s discovery of America is defended in Gavin Menzies’ book ‘1421 – The Year China Discovered the World’. But the story behind this map only works if one supposes an even earlier Chinese discovery of America - as the map predates Zheng He´s trip by three years. The Chinese admiral´s American voyage would therefore be to re-visited lands that were discovered earlier by Chinese explorers, or by himself.
This map was in the news at the beginning of 2006. It had been bought for $500 in Shanghai in 2001 by a Mr Liu Gang, a Chinese map collector. He at first suspected it to be a fake and only became aware of its possible significance after reading Mr Menzies’ book.
News reports in January 2006 stated the map would be examined to check the age of paper and ink. But even if it were proven the map was made in 1763, this would still not prove it wasn’t a contemporary forgery…
Tests on this map were supposed to be finished in February 2006, but I haven’t heard a peep since. A bad sign? It might not have been significant if the map were real, but the British Isles aren´t marked on this map. If it were a forgery, could it be a snub bythe (supposedly Chinese) forger at that little kingdom at the edge of the world that came to rule the waves and a quarter of the globe´s land surface, thus stealing mighty China´s thunder?
Another anomaly: California is presented as an island, which is a particularly European cartographic misconception, as it not only follows from the shape of the Baja California peninsula, but also from a Spanish literary tradition of an island called California,way out west (see post #71 on this blog on that very subject).
This map is certainly bogus.
The chinese certainly did their explorations, they really had pretty good sailors and ships and they *might* have reached the american continent before the europeans did, but there’s no way the chinese could have had such a good idea of the shape of the Atlantic coasts in the same year the most advanced european sailors of the rime, the Portuguese, discovered the Madeira archipelago, just in the outskirts of the European continent.
In fact, in this map all the Atlantic coasts, except perhaps the coast of southwestern North America, are far more accurate than the Pacific coasts, which implies that the information was gathered by people based in the Atlantic, not in the Pacific. Maps are more accurate close to home, because the closest the waters the more ships cross them and the less time it takes for a given voyage to bring home results.
This is an obvious forgery. It might not have been made in the XXth or XXIst century, but it is a forgery.
Comment by Jorge — July 28, 2007 @
This map could possibly be bogus… but it was published in the news several months ago and has passed dozens of inspections by the proper authorities.
Comment by Roy Davis — July 28, 2007 @
I know. But all the proper authorities can really say is that is it consistent with a map made in the 1700s. There’s nothing they can say as to the veracity of the claim that it’s a copy of a 1418 map. That is just an unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiainable) claim.
Comment by Jorge — July 29, 2007 @
“Furthermore, it shows Africa and Australia in fairly accurate detail. Europeans only stumbled across Australia after 1600″
Really?? Australia is not even on this map! Unless you’re talking about the ‘blob’ - which is not even remotely accurate of Australia.
For a geography blog, you’d think you’d have at least a vague of Australia’s shape. Hmmmm
Comment by Johnau — July 29, 2007 @
The “Liu/Menzies” World Map: A Critique
Geoff Wade
Asia Research Institute
National University of Singapore
1. Introduction
It was in late 2005 that Mr. Gavin Menzies, author of the infamous 1421: the Year China Discovered the World (or 1421: the Year China Discovered America in the U.S. version) began hinting that “further evidence” in support of his thesis had become available through a map, newly-discovered in China. In his interview with the Shenzhen Economic Daily of 19 November 2006, he showed the interviewing journalist a copy of a Chinese map of the world which he claimed had been drawn in 1418. He noted that the map was the first to show Australia and New Zealand, and that a European map which was drawn in 1419 was a copy of this Chinese map. He also advised that the map was undergoing isotopic (C14) dating.
Those who had had experience with Mr Menzies’ modus operandi and his repeated dubious claims were not terribly excited. All Mr. Menzies’ claims of great discoveries had, in the end, invariably shown themselves to be damp squibs with neither the nature nor the potential to fulfil the promises of new discoveries. This new map was to prove no exception.
On 12 January 2006, all was revealed. The Economist magazine of that date carried in both its print and online editions, an article on the promised map along with an image. The accompanying article, penned by one Stephen Fay, read like a media release by Mr. Menzies’ publicists, including statements such as: “It seems more likely that the world and all its continents were discovered by a Chinese admiral named Zheng He, whose fleets roamed the oceans between 1405 and 1435.” Most disingenuous is the conclusion reached in the final paragraph, which baldly claims: “It is no less interesting that the Chinese, having discovered the extent of the world, did not exploit it, politically or commercially.”
Why should anyone choose to publicize a map through a news magazine, prior to any scientific study or attestation of veracity? It was obviously to maximize exposure. And that is what this whole process has been about — maximizing publicity and exposure so that Mr. Menzies can attract more attention for his 1421 volumes and Mr. Liu Gang, the owner of the map, can gain his few minutes of fame and advertise his map to potential buyers. It is the typical circus which has accompanied all Mr. Menzies’ claims since 2002, even prior to the publication of his book.
Why has this conclusion been reached? Firstly because, as a student of Ming China’s foreign relations, I have been a close observer of the 1421 phenomenon since it began, and have followed the repeated instances of Mr. Menzies trying to drum up excitement for his cause through fabricated evidence. Secondly, the map comprises a litany of errors which show clearly that the map is a complete fake, likely produced within the last decade.
The Economist article was the opening salvo for a number of publicity events. Liu Gang “launched” the map in Beijing on 16 January 2006, while Menzies presented it to the Friends of the National Maritime Museum (a private body) in Greenwich on 17 January 2006. Amazing claims about how the history of world discovery would have to be rewritten were followed by statements such as “every continent, ocean, island and river shown on the 1418 map, acts as corroborative evidence that Zheng He’s fleets had visited those sites.” The speciousness and brazen nature of the claims left many in the cartographic history world speechless, but the claims were quickly relayed around the world by gullible and uncritical media organisations.
Chinese scholars were quick to respond, and in February and March, Jin Guo-ping, Hou Yang-fang, Zhou Zhen-he and Gong Ying-yan penned individual pieces which picked gaping holes in the historicity of the map. Several of these critiques are available in English-language translation.
Attempts to salvage some veracity for the map were then made by Mr. Menzies himself, who averred that this map is “absolutely, completely authentic,” further noting “There are several reasons why. There are a number of European maps based on this one, and they would also be forgeries if this were a fake. There is a mass of corroborative evidence, and everything in the map appears in separate Chinese records. Finally, European explorers found Chinese junks and evidence of Chinese people in North America. This shows the Chinese were there first.” Every sentence of this statement is specious. As will be shown below, the map is not authentic. Ergo, there are no European maps based upon it, and there can be no corroborative evidence. In addition, the features on the map cannot be found in any earlier Chinese map, and no early European explorers found attested evidence of Chinese junks or Chinese people in the Americas.
Further efforts to bring some respectability to the map were made by Mr. Liu Gang and Dr Gunnar Thompson, the latter declaring himself to be serving his second year “as cartographic consultant to British author Gavin Menzies and the 1421 Team.” By March 2006, the results of the C14 dating had been obtained and a press conference was held by Messrs Menzies, Liu and Thompson at a Beijing book shop. To nobody’s surprise, the carbon date, obtained from a Waikato University laboratory, was shown to indicate that the sample of paper submitted to it very likely came from the 18th century. However, there was no proof at all that the sample submitted came from the map, as the place where the piece was allegedly taken from has never been illustrated and the tested piece had no ink or any other markings on it.. Challenges issued on the online Map History Discussion Group (http://www.maphist.nl/) in May 2006 by Mr. Michael Ross, President of the Australian Map Circle, to Mr. Liu Gang, seeking some evidence proving that the sample came from the map, have been met with a stony silence from Mr. Liu. We thus really have no attested evidence as to the real date of the map or the paper it is drawn on.
In their attempts to prove themselves legitimate members of the scholarly community, Mr. Liu and Dr Thompson also began frequent communications to the MapHist list in April and May, putting forward claims about the map and its veracity. Gunnar Thompson also claimed that the dual hemisphere map format was actually a Chinese rather than a European innovation, deriving from Taoist iconography. This map, he claimed, was thus the basis by which this dual-hemisphere format passed to European cartographers!! These two gentlemen left the list as quickly as they appeared when it became apparent that the many map historians and others specialists on the list required some basic evidence for the claims being made.
Most recently, Mr. Menzies travelled to Australia and New Zealand in April/May 2006, and regaled the Antipodeans with claims that their cartography began with Zheng He’s fleets in the 1420s, and that this cartography proves that the Chinese navigators had a means for calculating latitude and longitude. The nonsense being purveyed is somewhat dangerous and, while the map is but one component of the Menzies’ global hoax, it needs to be shown for what it is—a fabrication intended to deceive.
2. The Liu/Menzies Map
The map in question, variously called by its supporters the “1418 map”, the “1418/1763 map” or the “Zheng He map”, will be here referred to as the “Liu/Menzies” map, given that it has no proven connection with 1418, 1763 or Zheng He, and given that its prime publicists are Mr. Liu and Mr. Menzies. As noted above, the first opportunity that the world had to view this map came with an illustration in The Economist in January 2006. More recently, a high resolution version has become available.
The first thing that impresses is the fact that this is a dual hemisphere map. At the top right of the map are the characters Tian-xia quan-yu zong-tu (天下全輿總圖), which can be approximately translated as “Overall Map of the Complete Geography of all Under Heaven”.
(Illustration 1 here)
In the bottom left-hand corner of the map, we find characters which translate as: “Copied by Imperial subject Mo Yi-tong in the second month of spring in the kui-wei year of the Qian-long reign [1763] from a map of tributary barbarians from all under Heaven of the 16th year of Yong-le reign of the Ming dynasty [1418]”
(Illustration 2 here)
In the top left-hand corner of the map, there are characters which translate as: “Those annotations without red borders are not from the original map”. Liu Gang explains it thus: This means that there were some annotations which were on the original “Map of tributary barbarians from all under Heaven” and some were added later by the copier. The original annotations are enclosed on this map within red borders. In other words, all those annotations within red borders were from the original map.
(Illustration 3 here)
In a square box located in the sea just south-west of the modern California, there is contained a text which can be translated as follows: “In the 13th year of the Yong-le reign (1415), I followed the senior envoy, the eunuch director Ma San-bao, and others to Bengal and other barbarian lands all the way to Hormuz and such countries, to read the royal proclamations and confer rewards. In the 16th year (1418), I returned to the capital.”
(Illustration 4 here)
Here then are the key elements suggested by the Liu/Menzies map. A person who supposedly accompanied the eunuch envoy Zheng He (the Ma San-bao mentioned above) “all the way to Hormuz” during a voyage over the years equivalent to 1415-1418 C.E. is claimed to have drawn a map which served as the basis for the “1763 map” we are examining. The place names and descriptions which were allegedly copied from the “15th-century map” are circled in red to indicate that they were from the original map. The other toponyms and descriptions are by implication from 1763, the date this map is said to have been drawn by the alleged map-maker Mo Yi-tong.
3. The Critique
This map was purportedly derived from a map produced by an individual who accompanied Zheng He from China to Hormuz and back to China. The voyages of Zheng He and his commanders from 1406 to the 1430s are well-known and have attracted much attention. The 15th-century texts available to us which directly bear on these voyages include the various references to Zheng He within the Ming shi-lu (or Veritable Records of the Ming Dynasty). In addition, three persons who accompanied these voyages left us with fairly detailed accounts of the routes and the places visited — Ma Huan, Fei Xin and Gong Zhen. Louise Levathes’ 20th century study of the voyages — When China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne 1405 – 1433 — is a popular yet reasonably accurate account of the voyages. All of the available documentation informs us that these fleets sailed from Eastern China to what is today called Southeast Asia, to South Asia, the Middle East and the East Coast of Africa. Ports and polities all along this route are well-described in the books mentioned above. There is no indication from any Chinese text, however, that the fleets went any further. Of course, Mr. Gavin Menzies in his fabricated work 1421: The Year China Discovered the World claims, on the basis of distorted or invented “evidence,” that commanders of these fleets circumnavigated the globe, “discovering” the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, Greenland, sailing across the Artic Circle and into the Antarctic and, in the process, mapping the world.
The correlation between Mr. Menzies’ claims and the conclusions one could draw from this map are stunning. It is thus not surprising that Mr. Menzies features the map on his website, participates in press briefings publicizing the map, and provides Mr. Liu Gang with much space on the 1421 website to declaim on why he feels the map is genuine. We could thus reasonably conclude either that Mr. Menzies’ thesis does have some basis, or that the map is a fake and likely created to support the Menzies’ thesis. I will provide evidence that the latter is the case.
4. The Evidence Against the Veracity of the Map
The evidence against the map can be divided into a number of areas. First some general statements are in order. The map is drawn in a dual-hemisphere format, a European cartographic tradition beginning in the early 16th century. Some have claimed that this map was, at least in part, copied from a 17th-century European map, as California is represented as an island. However, as China is placed at the centre of the map — as it was in early Jesuit maps of the world produced in China — it is more likely that it is a rough copy of a Jesuit-inspired Chinese map of the world, with modern additions detailed below.
However, the map’s supporters suggest that the map in fact derives from the early 15th century, predating the Jesuits arrival in China by 150 years. There are a number of factors which militate against this. The creation of such a map is conditional upon recognition that the world is a sphere. No indigenous Ming maps show that there was a Chinese belief in the 15th century that the world was a sphere. Further, for a sphere to be represented on a flat plane, there needs to be knowledge of and methods for projection. Chinese cartographers did not have this knowledge until after the arrival of the Jesuits.
The map’s owner and his fellow travellers also claim that the map was produced by voyagers who accompanied Zheng He’s ships on their journeys around the world. That is to say, they suggest that the map was produced by mariner cartographers. However, the amount of non-coastal detail (including riverine systems extending thousands of miles inland from the coast) indicate that this map could not have been produced by maritime voyagers. The information in the maps was obviously amassed over a considerable number of centuries by cultures which had travelled the world widely. It fits perfectly within the history of European cartography, but is a complete anomaly in Chinese cartography.
The map was supposedly drawn in 1763 for submission to the Court by someone called Mo Yi-tong, based partially on a “map of tributary barbarians from all under Heaven of the 16th year of Yong-le reign of the Ming dynasty [1418/19],” and with the annotations of the earlier map circled in red on the extant version. Such a mode of attribution is not a part of Chinese cartographic tradition and neither is circling of particular names in red to indicate that they derive from an earlier map. Further, the representation of China is poor. Why should Chinese cartographers have represented the lands with which they were so familiar (and which are shown in other earlier maps much more accurately) so poorly? And, tellingly, there is no historical source, Chinese or otherwise, which attests the existence of the supposed author Mo Yi-tong.
But it is the annotations which demonstrate most clearly the nature of the map as a fake. As noted, the map distinguishes between the annotations within red borders (supposedly from a 1418/19 map) and those unbordered which are implicitly from 1763. We will examine these separately.
The 1763 Annotations
Firstly, the name of the map presents problems. The map is entitled Tian-xia quan-yu zong-tu (天下全輿總圖). This makes no sense as a map name, “quan yu” (complete geography) and “zong tu” (overall map) cannot be used in the same title. In fact, the term “quan-yu” (complete geography) was never used in Chinese cartographic description. This suggests a modern faker with little knowledge of traditional Chinese cartographic description.
In describing the original map, the author uses the term “shi-gong-tu” (識貢圖) to refer to the 15th-century Ming map of tributaries. There is no such genre in classical Chinese literature. What is alluded to is the “zhi-gong-tu” (職貢圖) – “Illustrated Tributaries”– a genre of description and illustration of tributaries (but certainly not maps), extending back as far as the Liang dynasty. The graphic similarities of the two characters shi (識) and zhi (職) and their similarity of pronunciation in the Shanghai dialect clearly show how the confusion came about and again underlines the fact that the faker was a modern person unfamiliar with the institutions and literature of imperial China.
(Illustration 5 somewhere here)
Further proof of the modernity of our map creator can be gleaned from a close examination of the characters used in the annotations. In at least three cases, the cartographer uses simplified characters. The character “yu” to indicate “–plus” is repeatedly written as 余 rather than the formal 餘. While this simplified form did indeed exist as short-hand in the 18th century, it would certainly not have been used on a formal document intended for submission to the court. For a modern Chinese person, educated within the last 50 years, however, the simplified form is the standard character and it is easy to understand how our faker would not have been aware of the distinction, thereby providing us with another clue for dismissing the map.
(Illustrations 6 and 7 somewhere here)
A number of other anachronisms can also be found. On this supposedly 18th-century map, the annotation located on the Himalayas tells us that these are the highest (literally: the “Number one”) mountains in the world. The knowledge that the Himalayas contained the highest peaks in the world, however, was only gained in the 19th-century after all of the tallest peaks in the world had been measured. How was an 18th-century Chinese map-maker to have known this?
Further anachronisms of geographical knowledge have been pointed out by Liu Gang himself in his article. He notes that the map shows the Amery Ice Shelf in Antarctica, first depicted on world maps in the 1960s! Kerguelan Island is also shown, supposedly before it was even “discovered” by Kerguelan. Mr. Liu suggests that these characteristics point to the veracity of the map. I suggest that they point in precisely the opposite direction.
The Red-Bordered Annotations
The map claims that the annotations bordered in red are from the original (15th -century) map. Again, the historical inaccuracies and anachronisms of the annotations within red demonstrate that the creator of the map was a far from competent faker. Anyone with a basic competence in Ming texts will be able to identify the language of this map as not being congruent with usual Ming language, cartographic or otherwise. It is a modern attempt at sounding “classical”. But that is of course a subjective assessment. Let us proceed to some of the more objective indicators of fabrication.
To begin with, the eunuch commander Zheng He is referred to on the map as Ma San-bao, Ma being the original name of Zheng He. No-one in 1418 would have dared to use the eunuch’s original name given that the Yong-le emperor had assigned him the surname Zheng. But it is the toponyms and annotations per se which are most telling. A few examples will suffice
• In eastern Europe, there is an annotation within a red border which notes: “The people here all worship God (shang-di) and their religion is called ‘Jing’.” The term “shang-di” in reference to the Christian God was adopted by the Jesuits only in the late 16th century, and the recognition in China of Nestorianism (“Jing”) as a branch of Christianity occurred only in the early 17th century. There is no possible way that these could have appeared in this context on a 15th-century map.
(Illustration 8 somewhere here)
• In an annotation situated north of India in what is today Central Asia, the text reads: “Travelling from East to West, after leaving Jia-yu Gate, in any city where one arrives, the people will all be believers in Islam and worship Muhammad…” Two issues are immediately apparent. Muslims, of course, worship Allah and do not worship Muhammad. In no other Chinese text, Ming or otherwise, is the claim made that Muslims worship Muhammad. This would not have been written by someone who had accompanied the Muslim eunuch commander on his voyages, and is likely a product of the ignorance of the modern map-maker. In addition, the characters used to represent the name Muhammad—Mo-ha-mo-de (莫哈莫德) — are not used in any Ming text to represent the prophet Muhammad. They are, however, precisely those used by 21st-century Chinese persons to represent the Arab name Muhammad!
(illustration 9 somewhere here)
• The name of Korea is given as Gao-li. By 1418, the Chinese name of this polity had long been changed to Chao-xian.
• The name of Vietnam is given as Annam. By 1418, this had long become the Chinese province of Jiao-zhi.
• The Chinese provincial names Hu-bei and Hu-nan are given in their modern locations. In 1418, these provinces had not even been created, and the areas were part of the predecessor province of Hu-guang.
• There are a number of red-bordered annotations reading “Great Qing Ocean” in the seas off China. These purportedly date from 1418, 230 years before the Qing dynasty had been established.
• The island of Taiwan is named as “Ryukyu”. During the Ming, the country of Ryukyu was a tributary of the Ming and the Ming certainly knew where it was. There is no evidence that Taiwan was referred to as Ryukyu during the Ming.
• The map refers to the southern and northern Chinese “capital areas” by the term zhi-li, but this referent was only created with the designating of the new capital of Beijing in 1421, 3 years after the map was supposedly drawn.
In short, these anachronisms in toto entirely undercut any possibility that the red-bordered annotations are from a map drawn in 1418.
Mr. Liu seems to place great store in the aged appearance, “vermin holes,” smell and other attributes of the map to validate its age. Those familiar with the faked “ancient books” now freely available in the markets of China and Hong Kong will recognise the “insect holes” and other “ageing” techniques used on this map. The methods are identical.
In short, the map is simply a litany of errors, many simplistic. There is absolutely no possibility that it is anything but a product of the last 50 years, and quite possibly of the last five years. Not a single Chinese scholar of cartography assigns it any veracity at all. In an article carried in The Beijing News, Professor Zhou Zhen-he (周振鹤), a prominent historical geographer employed in the Chinese Geography Research Institute of Fu-dan University in Shanghai, noted of the map: “The methods used in producing this fake map are so poor and low-quality, with even descriptions in recent newspapers being sufficient to show that it is a fake ‘ancient map’.” When the senior experts in Chinese cartography are so convinced of the fraudulence of this map, Mr. Menzies and Mr. Liu are going to be hard-pressed to convince the world elsewise.
Comment by geoff Wade — July 29, 2007 @
See also:
http://www.1421exposed.com
Comment by geoff Wade — July 29, 2007 @
By the way, Chinese still calls itself the Middle Kingdom. That’s its name in Japanese as well.
Comment by Paul D — July 29, 2007 @
[...] China had it righter, sooner. I will add this map to my list of reasons that superiority should not be assigned to a group simply because they broadcast best or loudest. [...]
Pingback by Link Escapism < Just Kristin — July 29, 2007 @
[...] 156 - China’s 1418 World Map « strange maps (tags: maps y7_maps_atlases) [...]
Pingback by geography blogging alltheway » Blog Archiv » links for 2007-07-29 — July 29, 2007 @
Before the Europeans? You Americans need to study actual history, not your national myths. Columbus (who never set foot on North American soil, by the way) was late to the party. Vikings out of Iceland and Greenland were the first Europeans to discover North America. They even established a colony in Newfoundland & Labrador (it failed, but the buildings are there).
Comment by rek — July 29, 2007 @
I was going to point out a couple of things (e.g. Australia is hardly on there in any form of accuracy!) but clearly i’m not quick enough :)
I’d also point out that this map completely lacks the Malaysian “peninsula”, not to mention some of the major islands of the Indonesian archipelago, which is puzzling given that they are reasonably close to China and a significant feature on the way from China to Africa, as suggested by the apparent story behind it.
Comment by karan — July 29, 2007 @
@Johnau:
Well, the blob and the two dots to the south-east thereof are consistent with the sizes of Australia and New Zealand and their relative position to each other (if less so with their absolute position and their exact shape).
@Geoff Wade:
Thanks for that extensive critique of this map. After reading it, there can be little doubt that the “1418 map” is anything but a very recent forgery.
@Paul D:
I didn´t know that; I assumed the term was in disuse, also because of the monarchial ring it has - conflicting with what still has to be a communist, egalitarian ideology (at least in theory).
@rek:
I refer you to an earlier post on this blog, dealing with the Vinland map - which has a remarkably similar background to this one (which is not to say that the Vikings *didn´t* discover America, just that this map also quite possibly is a forgery):
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2006/12/30/56-the-vinland-map/
@karan:
The point you make about the Malaysian peninsula and the Indonesian archipelago is indeed a powerful one: if the mapmaker botched them up so badly, how could Chinese ships ever have sailed past them to discover the rest of the world so accurately rendered here?
Comment by strangemaps — July 29, 2007 @
As for corrupting the Antipodeans, I’ve never heard of this map. It’s a very pretty looking map, albeit dodgy.
Comment by Colleen — July 29, 2007 @
I’m Australian; As for corrupting the Antipodeans, I’ve never heard of this map. It’s a very pretty looking map, albeit dodgy.
Comment by Colleen — July 29, 2007 @
“Zheng He is an historical figure, and he is known to have visited South East Asia, India and Africa”: as I understand it, he was visiting places that were already well known to literate societies that were neighbours of China. Is there any evidence of exploration, properly so called?
Comment by dearieme — July 29, 2007 @
Rek, the Vikings and their landing in North America is taught in American schools at a young age. The president even declares October 9th as Leif Erikson day every year.
But the settlers that landed had little interest in mapping the areas, exploring, or conquering them. Nor did they have the means to broadcast the “discovery” to the world as a show of superiority– as was the case for the Columbus expedition. So as a dating point, a bunch of haphazard colonists isn’t particularly useful.
Comment by Andrew — July 29, 2007 @
I get so tired of Euro-trash going ‘you Americans’ when ever they have a snide comment to put on the internet.
Comment by Abestar — July 29, 2007 @
[...] 156 - China’s 1418 World Map [image] The Turks have Piri Reis, whose 1513 map shows parts of America and Antarctica with astonishing and, in the […] [...]
Pingback by Top Posts « WordPress.com — July 29, 2007 @
-Re: “Middle Kingdom” nomenclature
This is the popular translation of the Chinese name for their own country, but the word “guo” in Chinese is used interchangeably for “kingdom”, “country”, “nation”, etc. It has no connotation specific to any form of government.
-Re: inaccurate depictions on the 1418 map
In my opinion, this is not even a good map of China. It seems very odd that the Bohai Sea is exaggerated relative to the south of China, which is the heart of the Ming dynasty.
Comment by Wilson — July 30, 2007 @
Rek:
The islands of the Caribbean Sea are considered by geographers to be part of North America.
Comment by Sartorius — July 30, 2007 @
Definitely a fake. Chinese maps were oriented SOUTH up.
Comment by miborovsky — July 30, 2007 @
I’m coming back when i have much more time to read….this is Realy cool..t
Comment by toni — July 30, 2007 @
Mapa del mundo 70 años antes del descubrimiento de América
El mapa original según su autor es de 1418, y en el ya se muestra el continente Americano.
Trackback by meneame.net — July 30, 2007 @
It’s always such a treat to read real scholarship - thanks Geoff for posting the whole critique - although I know little of the history of cartography it was an interesting insight into the discipline.
Comment by snowqueen — July 30, 2007 @
Hello and thanks for your incredible work on this website. You provide us very valuable geographical commodities.
I have a question that rounded in my head since my forst reading of that post: from the very moment you discover a land (especially if it is as big as north and south america) how much time will it takes to have a credible map even only for its coasts?
I was wondering that because of the dates you (in quoting others books) mention for the chinese “discovery” of america and the possible “drawing” of the map? The question remains even if it appears (and the great critique provided by Geoff Wade might prove it easily) that the map is a fake.
Go on,
a french map lover
Comment by Laurent — July 31, 2007 @
That is really a cool map! I love it!
Comment by Alic — July 31, 2007 @
a french map lover: why do you think the map is a fake? The map is strange, but that dose not mean it must be a fake. Who made such “fake” map, if you think it is fake.
Comment by Alic — July 31, 2007 @
In the map the south-american continent shows clearly the Amazon River running from north-west to south-east. Also the river seems to begin at the region corresponding to the northern Andes.Those details could never be known by explorers who certainly only did go very few miles inside from the south-american Atlantic coast.If they aproached from the Pacific coast and found the origin of de Amazon probably they could not know where the river would end.
Comment by Ralf J.Kyrmse. — July 31, 2007 @
@ Alic:
If it is a fake (as purported by the article quoted in depth by geoff wade in his post: read especially the 3d part), i don’t know who made it: perhaps a reckless seller who wanted cash, a professor who wanted quick fame…
I would like to believe it’s a true map but there are too many mistakes, errors and weirds things about it. By the way, if the map is a fake, it doesn’t mean that chinese didn’t have discovered America first…
And so my first question remains valid anyway ^^
Comment by Laurent — August 1, 2007 @
I think the thing you’re calling California is actually the Washington peninsula. If you looked at it from the coast without going inland you might get the idea that the Washington peninsula goes from the Straight of Juan de Fuca (sp?) to the mouth of the Columbia.
I’m basing my guess on the proximity of the island to the Gulf of Alaska.
Comment by Judah — August 1, 2007 @
I wonder whether someone could tell me who and when did survey on the Amazon River? Thanks.
Comment by Abram Alexander — August 2, 2007 @
Laurent,
First of all, I should say that I am NOT a fans of Gavin Menzies and I also have some questions on the map. But I think that many of the detractors of the map actually took very little time to examine the map and study the original source regarding this map. They just pick and choose one side of arguments which they preferred and search relevant arguments to sustain their beliefs. This is a very slapdash endeavors for the historians to disprove the authenticity of map in question. Mr. Geoff Wade is a good example.
In Wade’s paper, he makes several dreadful mistakes. For exsample, Wade claims that “The character “yu” to indicate “–plus” is repeatedly written as 余 rather than the formal 餘. While this simplified form did indeed exist as short-hand in the 18th century, it would certainly not have been used on a formal document intended for submission to the court. ” Lots of Chinese scholars treat this comment as a joke. Every Chinese know that 余 is one of Chinese family names. Such 余character has indeed existed since BC. I do not know where Wade get this idea to say 余 is a simplified form of Chinese character. Wage further claims that “the name of the map presents problems. The map is entitled Tian-xia quan-yu zong-tu (天下全輿總圖). This makes no sense as a map name, “quan yu” (complete geography) and “zong tu” (overall map) cannot be used in the same title…….. This suggests a modern faker with little knowledge of traditional Chinese cartographic description.” If we agree with Wade, we will find out that the well-know map made by Matteo Ricci in 17th century also makes no sense as a map name. The name of map is Kun-YU Wan-Guo Quan-Tu (坤舆萬國全圖). “Kun-Yu”means “complete geography”, “Wan-Guo” means “a great number of countries” and “Quan-Tu”means “overall map”. You can see the name of Matteo Ricci (坤舆萬國全圖) is much worse than the Tian-xia quan-yu zong-tu (天下全輿總圖).
Actually, the claims made by Wade are not his, he just picks and chooses some arguments raised by several poor Chinese Prof., how has a limited knowledge of maps and Chinese glossology. He did not do any research on such arguments and just cited them whitout thinking. That is too bad for him.
Now, I turn to your arguments, Laurent. I agree with you that there are too many mistakes, errors and weirds things on the map, which do not match with our understanding about the history. But the question is whether our understanding is correct or not. Those mistakes, errors and weirds things are too simple and easily can be discoved. The issue is why the “forger” creats this complex map leaving so obvious “mistakes, errors and weirds things”? If “forger” is, like you say, a reckless seller who wanted cash or a professor who wanted quick fame, why he or she leaves such simple “mistakes, errors and weirds things”?
Comment by Alic — August 2, 2007 @
[...] Another goodie from Strange Maps: [...]
Pingback by Infonaut - Infonaut Blog — August 3, 2007 @
[...] real world mappers yang tengah nak blasah saya sebab keluar topik, i give you this. [...]
Pingback by melihat lihat « Meniti di Titian Hati — August 6, 2007 @
I have to say, that I could not agree with you in 100% regarding o.us poetry, but it’s just my opinion, which could be wrong :)
Comment by Daniel — August 6, 2007 @
[...] Posted by ale1980italy on August 7th, 2007 China’s 1418 World Map [...]
Pingback by China’s 1418 World Map « Alessio in Asia — August 7, 2007 @
I believe that this map is quite interesting. It might change our
view of our history completely!
Please read my comments on #71
yesterday
although I got some more surprizing conclusions today.
Comment by zdg — August 10, 2007 @
I have done some research on this map, it turn to be more interesting! woo woo woo!
Comment by Abram Alexander — August 10, 2007 @
It is very interesting. Nobody can be definitely sure it is a real or fake map.
Comment by Tom — August 14, 2007 @
[...] one of the many interesting maps at strangemaps.wordpress.com - such as this one, China’s 1418 map of the world, showing surprising acurracy, and suggesting Columbus [...]
Pingback by The Lowdown — August 15, 2007 @
Evidence suggests some new theory.
It might not be true and might be wrong. Just like the evolution theory
of Darvin. So this map is fake or
not it might not be that important if
the new theory is right. I read
Gavin’s book. His argument seems
very subjective, but I think that
he made some good points. More evidence will come out and people
will see the most important truth that
Columbus was not the first.
In the same way, this map might be fake, but must come from somewhere! What I saw is that the earth is moving north (see my
earlier post at #71). I will repeat
some points I found here.
1. the map is 37 degree south
than our world map today.
2. In Gavin’s book page 22, he
talked about an event that
the emperor in Nanjing—now is
32 degree north sent an army to
attact Zhu Di in Beijing now is
40 degree north. If the
map is correct, then Nanjing
was 5 degree south and Beijing
was 3 degree north. That is,
the the summer in Nanjing was actually the winter in Beijing.
Therefore, the half million troop
sent by the emperor were frozen
and eventually defeated!
3. The Southern cross which could
be seen thousands years ago in
Europe can not be seen there anymore.
4. Greenland was habitable
600 to 1000 years ago but not anymore.
5. There are fewer ice near
Australia now than 600 years ago
(this is dual to the situation in
the Greenland).
6. The Yale Martellus map
showsthat the tip of the south
Africa was much more south than it
is now (see Gavin’s book page 381.
7. Genesis 1.9 says that the
earth was one piece. Genesis 10.25
says that the earth was divided.
It also mentioned the possible
person who was in America first.
Joktan the brother of Peleg (divided). Yukatan in Mexico might
just be Joktan (notice the translation). His two
sons Ophir and Havilah might
related to California (and Baja California in Mexico). See 2.11
for the place Havilah and the
Ophir which produces abandance
of gold and red precious stones
as well as the red pearls.
I took three years from Solomon’s land by sea.
Of course, this is only a theory or a conjecture. But I believe
that it is provable or disprovable.
However, you need to be a historian or navigator.
If you are a historian on the south asian history before 1400,
you might find many evidences that
part of southern asia was in the
southern half earth. That is,
the July will be the winter
at that time!
If you are an navigator about
1400, you should see the differences of the latitutes.
Otherwise this new theory should
fail.
This is the reason that I share
with you. Maybe someone here
could help me in one of these two aspects.
Comment by zdg — August 17, 2007 @
By the way the positon of the
Greenland in this map is very similar to that in the Vinland map
Comment by zdg — August 18, 2007 @
The first thing that jumped out at me when I saw this map is California. Same mistake many European cartographers made in the 16th, 17th, and early 18th centuries (for a late example, see Senex’s 1721 ‘A new map of America from the latest observations’). Why on earth would Chinese cartographers (allegedly) working from independent empirically derived data make the exact same mistake in exactly the same way?
Re. the shape of Australia, the blobbish shape in the Chinese map looks a lot like the blobbish shape shown in Ortelius’s ‘Typus Orbis Terrarum,’ a map from the late 16th century that I believe is based on Mercator’s map of the world.
Comment by Jack — August 18, 2007 @
please delete my posts…..this is cloging up my blog site…..thanks
Comment by toni — August 18, 2007 @
more study about the map, more interest in the map, and more credit in the map.
Comment by Abram Alexander — August 22, 2007 @
Absolutely. I would suggest that both Geoff and Gavin study two of
my questions more seriously, as they are experts—one on the history and one
on the navigation. Throw away their bias and emotion.
By the way, the Peru earthquake hit
Chincha Peru and the Mexico
Hurrican hit Yucatan Mexico.
It just like that someone is
highlighting these two places.
Chincha, a Chinese related place
in Peru. Yucatan, possibly the
Joktan in Genesis 10.25 and the
first American.
Comment by zdg — August 23, 2007 @
zdg,
neither Geoff nor Gavin should be regarded as the expert in the cartography field, even if Gavin is much better than Geoff in this aspect.
Comment by Abram Alexander — August 24, 2007 @
Gavin is good at navigation, so
he can check out the differeces of
records between 1400 and 2000.
Geoff is good at southern Asia around 1400, so he can check out the change of seasons around 1400.
Other people can do it also.
Evidences are evidences, you
do not need to be an expert.
Comment by zdg — August 28, 2007 @
Zheng He’s voyages may have been very impressive – especially the size of his flotillas, but Chinese and Arabic traders were very familiar with the coastline of Asia, particularly S.E. Asia. This portion of the world is appallingly drawn.
Furthermore, as Menzies more or less admits, Chinese navigational cartography was written as a kind of route-map similar to those used by the Romans, rather than a Mercator-like map based on latitude and longitude as suggested here.
To me, the map screams “FAKE”.
Comment by Robert — September 30, 2007 @
[...] mapa procede de Strange maps. La Wikipedia recoge los viajes de Zheng He. El libro de Menzies cuenta con una página [...]
Pingback by AsiaOriental.net » 1421: ¿El año que China descubrió el mundo? — October 5, 2007 @
Some thirty years ago, I came across a book titled “Pale Ink” by Henriette Mertz. Copyright 1953, revised edition 1972, it reports on two records of Chinese expeditions to the West coast of North America, one in the fifth century CE and the other in the 23rd century BCE.
People familiar with Joseph Needham’s monumental “Civilization and Science in China” will know that Chinese maritime technology was centuries ahead of Europe’s, and that the western world’s voyages of “discovery”, starting in the 15th century, would have been impossible had they not copied Chinese shipbuilding techniques.
I have not yet read Menzies’ book, so I cannot comment on what he has said. I did read Pale Ink back in 1976 and again more recently, and it holds a lot of water as far as I can see. I’m willing to accept that the Chinese may well have reached America, but what I’ve seen, albeit all secondhand, about Menzies’ claims make his seem as reliable an authority as Erich von Daniken.
One of the most telling points was made by miborovsky - traditional Chinese maps were oriented with south at the top.
Comment by Eric Arthur Blair — October 9, 2007 @
[...] mapa made in china, 1418. América está ahí, clarita. Presentado en Strange Maps. marcadores relacionadoscreo: sobre la lecturaMarx por Martílectura en [...]
Pingback by Tapera » américa — October 13, 2007 @
GREAT BLOG! HAVE BEEN MESMERIZED FOR THE LAST 2 HOURS!
Can’t help you with the Golden State thingie, but Commander Menzies posits an intriguing theory as to why Great Britain - and, indeed, the European continent itself - remained unvisited by the treasure fleet. Though the Chinese were far superior (to Europeans), oceangoing navigators in the early 1400s, the Portugese may have invented the one thing Zheng He needed to swing by the Old Country: a triangular sail, aka the trimarine. The Imperial junks only had rectangular sails. This prevented them from moving agasinst the wind, according to Menzies.
The trades in the North Atlantic move clockwise, which might have carried them up the Eastern coast of N.A., thence across the Atlantic until land was spied. Alas, it turns out that the tradewinds in the North Atlantic turn to the South before any hope of seeing land - some 1,000 miles short, if I recall (my copy of 1421 has long been lent/given out).
While the Chinese knew about Europe from connections like the Silk Road, et al, like Old Chris 70 years on, they didn’t have the big picture; they didn’t know the Eu was just over the horizon and, if Menzies is right, sans the Portuguese trimarine technology, would have had a hard time hewing to port even if they did.
Fascinating stuff, all this!
Comment by Nigel j Watson — October 21, 2007 @
Very inetersting blog and map.
Comment by Julia — October 25, 2007 @
USA Suxs
Comment by usasux — November 5, 2007 @
I have read a couple of academic pieces on this map, and the most glaring error of all is that simplified Chinese characters are used (only introduced by the “People’s” Republic in 1956). It is clearly a forgery, and any attempt to claim otherwise feeds into the claims made by Gavin Menzies in his work of fiction, 1421.
Comment by Scott — November 14, 2007 @
i ask myself how the map could be so precise on behalf of america and so fuzzy on neighbors like japan and korea.
Comment by m to the a — December 7, 2007 @
In the Smitsonian museum at Washington DC, down in 1960, I saw a Chinese vase, found in Central America. A replica was found in China.The explanation of the museum, next to the vase told that it was inpossible to find an answer fot this. I never forgot it and now…gives the map the explanation?
Comment by J. W. Minderhout — December 12, 2007 @
The Chinese characters on the map are traditional Chinese, not simplified.
So the previous poster’s (Scott) argument that this map is a forgery can be ruled out. But even though this map is written in traditional Chinese, it still doesn’t provide the evidence that the map is a direct copy of a map from the year 1418.
Comment by RMNY — December 18, 2007 @
this is horrrible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i cant even see the chinese words
Comment by michelle — January 5, 2008 @
wat is rong with u guys i am trying to find a map of china with cities and capitals
this was just a waste of time i have a project do tomorrow
gggggggggosh
Aajani
Comment by Aajani Woodward — January 18, 2008 @
I find it sad that those who have some expertise in early maps and history seem to be unable to offer a usable critique without resorting to name calling. Once I see evidence of name calling, I quit reading.
Menzies and other amateurs interested in this period make interesting observations and calculations. Some are undoubtedly wrong, but all of them deserve to be investigated by disinterested experts based solely on verifiable evidence.
There are even web sites that call themselves “anti-Menzies”, which are basically useless ventilation. Those who can contribute to the discussion should stick to real evidence, which is quite powerful enough by itself to prove or disprove their point.
Comment by John Pennington — January 19, 2008 @
Nice to read!
Comment by alex — February 29, 2008 @
Ya’ll just need to STFU! America is discovered. And biblically speaking IS the “Promise Land” aka “The Land of Canaan” hehe…Be happy ya’ll are living here and enjoying it’s fruits. The Indians (the line of Essau) were here long before Columbus, Euros or the Chinese.
Comment by Tek — March 2, 2008 @
Probably a fake, as Chinese maps have the South at the top.
Comment by miborovsky — April 8, 2008 @
In response to post #1.
The reasoning of your claims appears sound, but within that reasoning i wonder why the Caribbean islands do not appear upon the map given that they were of extrema European importance.
Comment by Kyle — April 14, 2008 @
Astronaut Major Bob Behnken, 37, who grew up in St. Ann, Missouri, graduating from Pattonville High and Washington University, performed the first of his three scheduled spacewalks. Add his feat to St. Louis’s rich aeronautics and space history, dating to the days of Charles Lindbergh and the McDonnell Mercury and Gemini space capsules built in St. Louis. Behnken worked on a robot Monday night. The robot, nicknamed “Dextre”, is designed to handle exterior repairs at the International Space Station. “What…
Comment by State Of California — April 16, 2008 @