This is a map of the world which seems to have been drawn somewhere in Europe, in 1522 (see the upper right of the border). But there’s no way a European would have such crappy knowledge of Europe and the Mediterranean, unless he was trying to do it from memory. Even then, how could he be so wrong about Italy and Britain? Or Greenland? On the other hand, he knew about the general shapes of Africa and India, and the existence of China (“Cathaia”) and “America." I’d think anyone who had any knowledge of America would have a much better grasp of Europe and the Mediterranean. So when was this map drawn and who drew it?
Why not trust the site, which refers to the work it was published in? Yes, there are maps from that era that are more accurate, but accurate maps was still a very new art, and it’s not like map-makers went out and measured all distances and angles themselves, they trusted whichever sources they used, and those sources weren’t satellite maps.
Or: your contemporary bias is showing.
Panache45, your observation is a good one. The map is, AFAIK, authentically from that date, but it wasn’t meant to be a detailed and accurate world map of the time. The serious, “complete” world maps around 1522 were, for example, Ruysch maps (look them up), and you’re right, they were much more accurate for Europe especially.
The map you have there was meant to be suggestive and decorative – perhaps part of some book which had a different purpose than maps (true atlases didn’t exist until a few decades later, with Ortelius). It looks like it may also have been limited by it’s printing technology – perhaps just a simple woodcut, which was old fashioned even then.
From the Philadelphia Print Shop, a very reputable dealer in maps:
Laurent Fries after Martin Waldseemuller. “Orbis Typus Universalis Iuxta Hydrographorum Traditionem Exactissime Depicta. 1522. L.F.” Vienne, [1522]-1541. With a line of offset type along the top, “Tabula orbis cum descriptione ventorum.” Woodblock. 11 1/4 x 17 1/4 (neat lines) plus decorative borders and margins. Two sets of contiguous small wormholes at bottom enter well away from image. Very good condition. Ref.: Shirley, 48. Nordenskiold, Facsimile Atlas, XXXIX.
A fine example of the first generally obtainable world map to include the name “America.” Many of the maps in Fries’ atlas were reduced versions of maps by Martin Waldseemuller in 1513, but this map is based on different sources, as indicated by the initials “L.F.” at the end of the title. In this map, Fries continues to show the New World as America, even though in the same atlas he issued a copy of Waldseemuller’s map of the region in which he protested that that name should not be applied. Fries was trying to show the most up-to-date information he could, but he made a number of mistakes which he could have avoided. For instance, he shows England and Scotland as separate islands and confuses the Indian subcontinent as two peninsulas instead of home. Fries shows the South American continent with some correctness and also a couple islands in the West Indies, though he did not have the benefit of the information brought back upon the return of Magellan’s expedition after this map was first issued. It is interesting to see the contrast of this map to the “Admiral’s Map” which appeared in the same atlas. Decoratively, the map is very attractive with copious rhumb lines and a decorative rope border that is intertwined with labels giving the names of the various winds. The same woodblock was used in Strassburg in 1522 and 1525, in Lyons in 1535, and this printing in 1541. Prior to the last printing a crack developed in the wood block that is evident in the central part of south Asia.
Yes way.
I ditto everything naita wrote.
Laurent Fries was a Frenchman. There’s no way he wouldn’t have known that Britain is a single island. I’m going with the “and now for a fun one” view that seems to be prevailing.
I think the “different sources” is key. The source used for Europe was garbage while the one used for Africa was much better.
OTOH, there had to many maps of Europe that could have been used, why was such a poor one chosen? I’m thinking here that it was from a very old source whose creator had a lot of prestige. And prestige mattered a lot in that era. Look at how long Aristotle’s bad Physics was held on to.
Maybe he was just a really bad artist! 
No, that can’t be right. I think the simplest answer is that the Earth used to look like that, but some extraterrestrials rearranged the continents after the map was drawn.
Yeah, that’s really the only explanation that makes sense.
Judging by the overall roughness of the entire map, I don’t think that Europe is notably inaccurate.
Actually, I’ve very impressed by much of it, like the borders and calligraphy.
I think I could do better after knocking back a few beers blindfolded, and I’m no cartographer. So we’ll go with “artistic license” as the explanation.
Considering the time period it’s a pretty good map.
Yes, it amazes me how well they understood the coastline of Brazil, even as far back as 1505 or so, when only Cabral and Gomez (?) and Verrazano (or was it Vespucci?) had explored its coast…and we still weren’t sure if Mexico/Central America was a few islands in a wide sea, or something else.
Obviously, it’s from a parallel universe where Europe really does look like that.
Well, at least he remembered to include the gigantic duck that lives in the South Atlantic.
I agree - whoever draw it as a talented artist.
Lousy cartographer, though.
It’s on the wrong side of the world. Although it was in Sao Paulo in 2008…
The lines are interesting. If I’m reading them correctly, to go from London to Madrid, you go 700 miles SW into the Atlantic and then make a sharp left at the intersection.