Ask WSP
The Map of the World

Q: I have seen reports of a Chinese two-hemisphere map from the year 1418, which shows that Chinese navigators were the first to reach the Americas, and to circumnavigate the globe. Is it genuine?

A: The short answer is: No. The map has been discussed in recent days by experts, on several E-mail lists including the one maintained by the Project, and its suspicious features have been duly noted (late calligraphy, too great resemblance to Japanese namban screens of a later period, a too advanced two-hemisphere presentation, too precise geographical details, no support in the Chinese textual record; indeed, implicit contradiction in the rest of that textual record). Why then does The Economist (14-20 Jan 2006, p80-81), with only perfunctory expressions of doubt, proclaim in its subtitle that the map "strongly suggests Chinese seamen were first around the world?"

We don't know, but we have raised what we believe to be the issue, which is one of communication between scholarship and the media. The following was sent to The Economist on 20 Jan 06:

Sir - The Economist for 14-20 Jan 06, p80-81, has an excited story, qualified only slightly by expressed doubt, under the heading: "China Beat Columbus To It, Perhaps." Subtitle: "An ancient map that strongly suggests Chinese seamen were first around the world."

The map has been discussed among scholars capable of estimating its genuineness (for example, on the H-Asia E-mail list, and to a slight extent on the WSW E-mail list), and has been found to be fraudulent. It is not ancient. What it strongly suggests is not ancient exploration, but antiquity forgery, condoned if not perpetrated at the government level. The newsworthy fact is thus not that "the world was first explored by Chinese rather than European seamen" (last paragraph of article), but that the Chinese have made a strenuous if specious attempt to convince the world of this fact.

Is it too much to ask that the staff of The Economist be sufficiently trained in Sinology that they can themselves estimate this fraud at its proper value? Yes, it is. The British government is too poor to provide such training, and the British elite are too busy to take advantage of it even were it available. Where does this leave the educated British (and world) readership? It leaves them wishing that The Economist would maintain diplomatic contact with such media as the abovementioned E-lists, where they could not only observe such discussions, but initiate them. One overlapping membership would do it. At no cost, other than the cost of paying attention: routine overhead in serious journalism.

Failing that or an equivalent, The Economist would seem to be left guessing, or qualifying, or quoting selected scholars (selected how?), rather than being steadily aware of a wider range of informed opinion; in short, muddling not quite through.

E Bruce Brooks
Research Professor of Chinese
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

It's our best offer. The rest of the mediating is up to the media.

14 Mar 2004 / Contact The Project / Exit to Implications Page