Surveying, Mapping and GIS

Exploring all aspects of mapping and geography, from field data collection, to mapping and analysis, to integration, applications development and enterprise architecture...

  • Geospatial Technology, End to End...

    Exploring all aspects of mapping and geography, from field data collection, to mapping and analysis, to integration, applications development, enterprise architecture and policy

Chinese map refuted

Posted by Dave Smith On 1/17/2006 10:46:00 AM 1 comments

Just yesterday I was reading several articles referenced in Claus Moser's "kartentisch" blog, and to follow up on that post, today I see that fellow surveyor Roger Hart's "Geocarta" blog is carrying some info shedding new skepticism on that remarkable Chinese map of the world.

Per Geocarta, I went to Interfax China, which is carrying an article stating that Mao Peiqi, history professor at Renmin University is pointing out several inconsistencies about the map, suggesting that a contemporary Chinese mapmaker of 1763 would never have prepared a map showing some of the erroneous features of Chinese geography that are carried on this map. He goes as far as to suggest that the map is a modern forgery, probably made in the last 20 years.

Mao Peiqi further stated at the Beijing press conference, "We hope others see China as a great nation, but we won't use forgeries to demonstrate it. We want evidence."

It will be interesting to see how the ongoing radiocarbon dating unfolds.


Technorati tags:
, , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Response for the " Chinese map refuted "

  1. Yes, the whole thing sounds rather dubious. There's been a rather heated debate on the MapHist mailing list as well, with most listers vehemently refuting Liu's and Menzies' claims. A couple of Chinese scholars have also been quoted, mostly those from the skeptical side of the fence.

    I'm also looking forward to the radiocarbon dating but I doubt whether this will bring any substantial proof to the debate. Best we'll know then is that the map may really be from 1763, but what about the presumed original?

Search