The Authenticity of the Liu Gang 1418 Chinese World Map

Liu Gang's 1418 World Map has been unveiled barely two days and the dogs are already chomping at it.

According to a report by Beijing correspondent Tschang Chi-Chu, Mr. (or, per Los Angeles' Chinese Daily News, Ms.) Mao Peiqi, a Peking University map expert, already declared the map a fake. The basis for the indictment lies in the presence of a couple of terminologies that might not have been in used during the early fifteenth century. There also was a clear misuse of a word; a sort of "misspelling" (an error which could easily have been committed during the map copy operation). For that, Professor Mao proclaimed the map to be a forgery created as recently as in the last two decades.

Because of the continents' peculiar shapes other "experts" concluded that the map had been copied from eighteenth century European maps. Unfortunately, by the eighteenth century Europeans cartographers, who had copied the funny land shapes from Ming Chinese map as I had laid out with clear evidence in my book, already had ceased drawing maps that way.

Zhejiang University history professor Long Yingan, in contrast, had a different take. He claimed that the map was real, but its dating might have problems. He pointed out that the Chinese term for the Christian "God," Shang Di, and the name for Nestorianism, Jing Jiao, were adopted by the Chinese only by the end of the sixteenth century. Thus the map original could not have been 1418. The earliest date of the map could not have been before the early 1600s.

Of course, there is the matter of the map being framed within circles, typical of European maps. Whereas it is true that many early European maps assumed a circular shape, such as the famous T-O maps, just like the early Chinese maps, such as the ChonhaChido maps, they were round by artistic design, not because they were attempts at what we call today "projections." The earliest European projection map was the Albertin De Virga world map (see below), which is now certain a copy of medieval Chinese maps (refer to The 1421 Heresy). This is because when the de Virga map was drawn in the early fifteenth century (1410 or 1414) Europeans had yet to circumnavigate the world. In fact, that the de Virga map was a projection map actually “proves” that the Chinese started making projection maps first. This makes sense because having surveyed the world the Chinese now knew the world was a globe as opposed to conjecturing the fact through hypotheses. Thus the “European projection style” of the Liu Gang map in fact more suggests that the map was genuine than not.

Why are these people so eager to douse water on this presumably fabulous discovery (even if it may yet prove to be forged)? Why are they so ready to rain on someone's parade?

These erstwhile critics behave as if there were no other sources of proof that mattered to settle the issue; that the historicity of the entire Zheng He Affair hinged on this one single map. That, of course, is ludicrous. My book, The 1421 Heresy, for instance, is one such source. My book virtually sidesteps all narrative details of the Zheng He voyages and concentrates solely instead on the presentation of evidence that proved the historicity of the subject events. Yet not a single detractor of the Menzies theory refers to my book, not even when challenged.

As soon as my book came out late last year, a certain Menzies antagonist—palpably the most tenacious one of the lot—and his sailor friend approached me for information on my new book. I sent them a galley of my book, sort of as a Christmas gift. I had not heard from them since. Last week I contacted my new acquaintance by email, greeting him for the New Year, and inquired about his thoughts on my research. I received no reply. In fact, my book has so far received no comment from any of the Zheng He doubters. This behavior, by its very action, when you come right down to it, acknowledges that Zheng He's circumnavigation of the world and its survey thereof are indeed historic facts (or, at a minimum, they find my thesis too difficult to challenge). Quoting myself from my book, "what are they afraid of?" Yet these people home in on the 1418 map like flies buzzing over cow dung.

Can the map be a fake? Of course it can be. Mr. Menzies purportedly began developing his theory sometime in the late 1980s. His efforts resulted in his watershed book in 2003, the same year Mr. Liu Gang supposedly bought his map. Was that a mere coincidence? It could be. Then the coincidence also could have been engineered. What if Mr. Liu Gang, upon becoming aware of Mr. Menzies' book engendered an idea to get rich. "What if there is an old map that bears out Mr. Menzies' theory. Wouldn't that be worth a mint?" Thus, it is possible that Mr. Liu went to work, by himself or with an expert crew that he had put together, fabricated the subject chart, then hid it away and waited for the opportune time to capitalize on their efforts. Could that have happened? Of course it could. It also could have been forged by the used bookstore owner who saw an opportunity to make some extra cash. That the rare map was sold at a Kinko's price clearly suggests that the forger was holding on to the original and mass-producing replicas for a long haul.

Actually, the whole cabal also could have been arranged by Menzies. After all, why go to all that trouble only to sell the masterpiece for a measly $500?

Then, what about me? Do I not rate some credit? Could I not have been a viable candidate as the map forger? How come I was not accused? I feel slighted! After all, I am intimately familiar with the strange fifteenth century European maps. I hosted them in my book! I had all the requisite knowledge to have forged the map.

In any case, a vivid imagination is not a substitute for facts, which so far are scant and are only being compiled. All allegations must be proven. We have yet to hear any concrete proof of any kind. The scientific dating results on the map have yet to be delivered. In my book I discussed the case of the Vinland map, perhaps the greatest case of antique map inquiry ever. The investigation into that matter literally took years, and a major book to argue for one side of the opinions. Obviously, all that did little to deter the fast-on-the-draw crowd to point their fingers. There is a whole lot more to be checked out before any scientific conclusion can be drawn. Do we know for sure that Mr. Liu Gang bought the map in 2003? What proof do we have for that "fact?" Then there is the used bookstore owner who sold Mr. Liu Gang his map. Do we not have an interest in him? What real role did he assume in this caper? What is his feeling on the affair now? Is he sulking over the low price he fetched for such a historical find, or is he licking his chops gloating over another successful take? Further more, how did he come into the map? Where did the map come from? Perhaps we should check the source to see if there are other similar maps. The list of issues to be settled is endless.

Let us press on further. Even if the map turns out to be forged, does that automatically impute proof against the Menzies theory? The map is advertised to be a copy—an eighteenth century copy of a fifteenth century prototype. The goal of the map-copying project is unknown. An inscription on the map copy indicates that it was created for the Qing Chinese emperor, but for what purpose we are not told. Could the map copy be a copy made for a collector in the eighteenth century? Could the map be a copy of a fifteenth century copy of a map? When you copy something, there is always the chance of copying something wrong. Errors on maps do not prove anything per se. Cartographers customarily produce many different versions of the same map. Charlotte Harris Rees' father collected a Chinese world map that was a variation of one preserved at the Library of Congress, among other places—the ChonhaChido maps. What do they prove per se? The "1418" map certainly looks like extant medieval European maps. The shape of Africa is a dead-ringer of the one in the early fifteenth century (1414?) Albertin de Virga map. The shape of south America is too close to the one in the 1527 Richard Thorne world map for comfort. Who copied from whom? Europeans had not yet surveyed those areas at the times of the mapping. It is clear that they obtained their geographical information from an external source or sources. That has been amply explained in my book. Now, for the “1418 Liu Gang map,” did the mapmaker copy from ancient Chinese sources or from ancient European sources? In The 1421 Heresy it is also clearly and concisely explained how the California Island came about. It is almost 100% sure that it was the result of European bungling. Therefore, the California Island in the Liu gang map most likely has come from medieval European maps, not Chinese maps. Yet, what does that prove as far as the authenticity of the Liu Gang map is concerned? There are simply too many factors involved.

The bottom line is, we may never know if the "1418 Chinese World Map" is genuine, but then what is the significance of that? History is not determined by a single piece of artifact. The discovery of the 1418 map is certainly a pleasant surprise for those who champion the historicity of Zheng He's global circumnavigation, but it is just that, a nice surprise. If it turns out to be real, it will no doubt enrich the knowledge about our past. Should it turn out not quite to our liking, it takes nothing away from the preponderance of evidence we already have accumulated, such as those introduced in my book.

What we know for sure at this time is this. The main protagonists in this unfolding drama are no longer interested in or focusing on the Zheng He Affair per se. They are not even really concerned with the newly acquired map. They simply dislike each other and would jump at each and every opportunity to fight, accuse, discredit, and humiliate their opponents. Their mission now is to bring down the other party. The matter is not academic but personal.

January 7, 2006, Anatole Andro