Don Tow's Website

Based on more than 10 years of research investigation of many classic world maps and other historical documents, Dr. Siu-Leung Lee (李兆良, of Columbus, Ohio and Hong Kong)  has concluded that the contents of a very important world map, known as Kunyu Wanguo Quantu (坤輿万国全图) dated 1602, attributed to Matteo Ricci, is not translated into Chinese from European maps.  Furthermore, this important world map was based on the surveys by Chinese before 1430, some 60 years before Columbus’ exploration

This article provides a short summary of his reasoning and the vast implications for world history. [1]

Who Was Matteo Ricci? Matteo Ricci (Chinese name 利玛窦, 1552-1610) was an Italian Jesuit priest and one of the founding figures of the Jesuit China missions. He learned classical Chinese by working and living for more than 20 years in China.  Because of his scientific expertise, he became an advisor to the imperial court of the Emperor Wanli (万历皇帝).  Together with his Chinese collaborators [technical translator Li Zhizao (李之藻) and copier Zhang Wentao (张文焘)], he prepared maps and atlases for Emperor Wanli. [2]  The most famous and most important was the 1602 world map Kunyu Wanguo Quantu (坤輿万国全图).

What Was Kunyu Wanguo Quantu (坤輿万国全图)? In Chinese, this name means “Complete Geographical Map of all the Kingdoms of the World.”  For brevity, we will refer to it as the “1602 Chinese World Map.”  It was a very large woodcut map, 5 ft high and 12 ft  wide, and labeled entirely in Chinese.

It contains 1,114 place names, and was the most detailed and accurate world map of its time.  Several prints of the Kunyu Wanguo Quantu were made in 1602. Most of the original maps are now lost. Only six original copies of the map are known to exist, and only two are in good condition.

This is a map that was long thought of as based on a map by Ortelius (1570) brought to China by Ricci.  In particular, it was long thought of as the first time that the Chinese were introduced to the knowledge of the American continents.

Dr. Siu-Leung Lee’s first conclusion is about the authorship:  There are many clues showing that the “1602 Chinese World Map” was not derived from European maps of Ricci’s time.  Lee provided several reasons [3]:

1. The Papal States Tuscany and Florence are absent, and the names of Hibernia, Lutetia are outdated Roman names for Ireland and Paris, respectively.
2. 50% of the place names including those of the Americas have no equivalent on European drawn maps.
3. If the information on the map of European places came directly from European sources, then the names of these places can be obtained directly from the original European sources, instead of being translated from Chinese into Italian/Latin later by the 20th century Jesuit priest Pasquale M. d’Elia (1890-1963).
4. “The 1602 Chinese World Map” accurately labeled the oceans by the cardinal direction centered on China while the nomenclature in European maps at that time was confusing and erroneous.
5. European maps at that time set the prime meridian inconsistently at either Canary Islands or Cape Verde Islands, whereas the “1602 Chinese World Map” set the prime meridian at near Dakar, Senegal, which as the westernmost region of Africa is a much more logical prime meridian as the beginning of the Asia-Europe-Africa land mass.
6. The “1602 Chinese World Map” contained many names on the west coast of North America, including the state of Washington, western Canada and Alaska, but there was no prior record of any European exploration of these places until mid 1800s.  As a matter of fact, these names were not available on European maps such as Ortelius’ Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (1570) and Mercator’s Nova et aucta orbis terrae descriptio ad usum navigantium em (1569), which were thought to be among the blue-prints of the “1602 Chinese World Map.”
7. The 1595 Arctic Circle map of Mercator placed California in the Arctic Circle, but the “1602 Chinese World Map” placed California at the right location. Even if Ricci had access to Mercator’s 1595 Arctic map, he could not have corrected the geography he had never seen.
8. Hudson Bay and the Mackenzie River of Canada are shown incorrectly in the European maps, but correctly in the “1602 Chinese World Map.” In addition, these places were visited by European explorers after Ricci died in 1610.

Dr. Lee’s second conclusion is about timing:  Dr. Lee’s second conclusion is that the “1602 Chinese World Map” actually resulted from Chinese surveys completed before 1430 for the following reasons:

1. There was a major addition in the 1594 Plancius map as compared to the 1570 Ortelius map, i.e., in the listing of cities in China, Shuntienfu (顺天府), which was the administrative area of Beijing as named by Emperor Yongle in 1403, was included.  The absence of Shuntienfu in the 1570 Ortelius map and appearance in the 1594 Plancius map shows that information of Emperor Yongle’s China was acquired by European cartographers after Ricci was in China.
2. Comparison of the depictions of the westernmost point of South America of the 1570 Ortelius map, the 1594 Plancius map, and the “1602 Chinese World Map” clearly shows that the depiction in the latter map is much more accurate than the depiction in the first two maps. [4]  This again indicates that the “1602 Chinese World Map” did not get its geographic information from European maps on far-flung places like South America.
3. China’s ability to map open ocean prior to European contact is supported by Martino Martini’s atlas “Novus Atlas Sinensis. Martino Martini visited China 1643-1651 and published “Novus Atlas Sinensis” in 1655 that included a very accurate map of China and Japan.  Since it was impossible for Martini to do such an accurate survey of that vast area of China (about 6,000,000 square kilometers) and Japan, not counting the open ocean between China and Japan.  That survey had to be done by the work of numerous Chinese surveys over hundreds of years.  This again indicates that European cartographers learned geographic information from China, instead of the other way around.
4. On the “1602 Chinese World Map,” a text above Spain indicates that the map is drawn “some 70 years after the first diplomatic relationship with Europe.”  “Diplomatic relationship” here refers to Giovanni de’ Marignolli leading a Papal legation to China and staying from 1342 to 1347.  Exchange of credentials signifies the first diplomatic relationship between China and Europe.  Seventy some years later would fall in the time period several years after 1412-1417, within the great Chinese oceanic explorer Zheng He’s seven major sea explorations between 1405 and 1433 (the last exploration began in 1430 and ended in 1433).  Therefore the above mentioned text offers the most definitive dating of the map, i.e., it was prepared in the late 1420s after many of Zheng He’s expeditions, probably in preparation for his last expedition that began in 1430 (which ended in 1433).
5. Furthermore, the inclusion in the China section of the “1602 Chinese World Map” of places only relevant to Emperor Yongle (1403-1424), such as places along his route of campaigns against residual Mongolian resistance.  The inclusion of the spot where Emperor Yongle died (in 1424) has no political or economic value in the Wanli era (1572-1620) provides another indication that this map was drawn shortly after Emperor Yongle’s death in 1424.
6. There are more texts on the map dating the map to the period before 1430, such as the history of Japan, African kingdoms, and Vietnam.
7. Matteo Ricci did add some names from European exploration/colonization in America and Asia, creating a delusion that the map was drawn by Europeans. However, Ricci could not have added names that were not found in European maps, nor could he know the geography not yet explored by Europeans.

That is why Dr. Lee came to his second major conclusion that the “1602 Chinese World Map” resulted from Chinese surveys that were completed before 1430. The ramification of this conclusion is that Chinese explorers had already reached and surveyed the American continents at least 60 years before Columbus’ discovery of the “new world” in 1492.

Summary: The “1602 Chinese World Map” was made in 1602 in China, the most detailed map of the world at that ime, has been wrongly attributed to Matteo Ricci and European explorers for over 400 years. The geography of the American continents has been thought as knowledge that Europeans brought to China.  However, after more than 10 years of research investigation, Dr. Siu-Leung Lee has revealed the true authorship of the map by scientific reasoning.  Ricci actually learned many of these new cartographic findings about many parts of the world, including the American continents, from cartographic information discovered and compiled by Chinese explorers over many prior years.  In particular, these new cartographic information were the result of the seven world voyages  led by the legendary Chinese explorer Zheng He between 1405 and 1433.

Unless new verifiable information about European exploration is available to explain the discrepancy revealed by the “1602 Chinese world map,” it is irrefutable that Chinese led the first global exploration and cultural exchanges, overturning 600 years of  misinterpreted history!

Before ending this article, there are two important questions that we want to address:

1. Relation of Dr. Lee’s work and Gavin Menzies’ work as described in Menzies’ 2002 book 1421:  The Year Chinese Discovered America.  Besides that the conclusion is similar, there is  essentially no similarity between the two works in terms of materials, scientific methodology, and thoroughness.  Menzies, a retired British submarine lieutenant commander, did not provide credible scientific analysis and support to his claims, but Lee did.  Menzies does not know the Chinese language, but Lee does and did a lot of investigation and research on many related historical Chinese sources.  Menzies’ work has been considered by experts to lack sophistication and definitive proofs. Lee’s work with a meticulous scientific approach has been assessed uncontested by cartographic and history experts around the world. His first presentation of this research was at the International Zheng He Conference in Melaka, 2010 (Proceedings published in 2012). He has also presented to University of South Florida, University of West Florida, Ohio State University, Otterbein University, Academica Sinica (Taipei), Chinese Academy of Surveying and Mapping (Beijing), University of Foreign Affairs (Beijing), Tsinghua University, Peking  University, Renmin University, Nanjing University, and six universities in Hong Kong. Because of the sensitivity and potential explosive ramifications of his findings, it might take time for people to digest and recognize the facts.
2. The second question is what happened to the historical findings of Zheng He’s expeditions, why the Chinese did not continue such naval expeditions, and why the Chinese did not publicize such great discoveries.  This is an extremely good and important question.  We probably will never know the real answer, but there are probably several reasons.  One is that during the latter part of Emperor Yongle’s reign (1403-1424), China was involved in a land war with the residual Mongolian forces.  More money was probably needed to fund the army.  The army commanders might have won the internal battle in this conflict of interest and power struggle, resulting in halting the maritime explorations. The rising power of rich merchants from the maritime trade posted a threat to the emperor’s families. Because of these and possibly other reasons, Emperor Hongxi, the successor to Emperor Yongle, discontinued any more naval expedition and in order to keep expeditions like Zheng He’s from being repeated, destroyed their ships. [5] Most important of all was probably the destructions and lootings of the imperial archives near the downfall of the Ming dynasty around 1644 and also later during the Qing dynasty (1644-1912).

The maps, original documents and cultural relics have interwoven into an irrefutable network of evidence overturning the myth of Christopher Columbus’ discovery of America. European explorers might have taken much much longer to reach the western hemisphere had the Chinese world geographic information not leaked to the West. Ming Chinese should be credited as the pioneers of globalization of cultural exchange and trade. This has tremendous implications and impacts in current international affairs.   We strongly urge the world’s cartographic experts and history experts to reassess history based on Dr. Lee’s paradigm shifting research investigations. [6]

Acknowledgment:  I would like to thank Dr. Siu-Leung Lee for valuable discussions on his research investigation.

[1] Dr. Lee’s research findings are available in three Chinese books:

• 《坤舆万国全图解密——明代测绘世界》台北：联经出版社，2012.
• 《宣德金牌启示录——明代开拓美洲》台北：联经出版社，2013.
• 《坤舆万国全图解密——明代中国与世界》上海：上海交通大学出版社，2017.

The third book is a simplified-font version of the first book. The second book deals with hundreds of pieces of evidence in cultural relics linking Native American culture and Chinese in Ming dynasty and more ancient time.

A series of books are in preparation for the English readers. During the past few years, Dr. Lee has published many research papers in both English and Chinese. A summary English article is  “Chinese Mapped America Before 1430” presented at the 28th International Cartographic Conference (ICC) in Washington, D.C., July 2-7, 2017.  In this paper, Chinese and European maps are compared quantitatively revealing the advance technologies of Chinese survey and cartography of the world.

Another English article “Zheng He’s Voyages revealed by Matteo Ricci’s World Map” can be found in the Proceedings of the First International Zheng He Conference held in Melaka, Malayia, 2010.  A similar article can also be found at https://www.academia.edu/7875807/Zheng_Hes_Voyages_Revealed_by_Matteo_Riccis_World_Map.

[2] Ricci was given free access to the Forbidden City but never met the reclusive Emperor Wanli, although the Emperor granted him patronage and financial support for his work.

[3] More information can be found in Ref. 1.

[4] You can see copies of these maps in Ref. 1.

[5] Zheng He’s naval fleet was huge by the standard of its time.  E.g., Columbus’ Santa Maria was only 18 meters in length, whereas some of Zheng He’s ships were as long as 140 meters.  Columbus’ fleet consisted of three ships, and Zheng He’s fleet 200-300.

[6] Here is a little more information about Dr. Lee’s biography.  He is a biochemist by training, with a B.S. in Biology from the Chinese University of Hong Kong and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from Purdue University.   He has academic and industrial experience in his career at Yale University, Texas A&M university, Corning Inc., and Battelle Memorial Institute before becoming the Associate Director of the Hong Kong Institute of Biotechnology and General Manager of HKIB-Syntex Inc.  In 1993 he founded Asiawind.com.  He has been involved in the research investigation of cultural links between China and America since 2006.  He is the President of the Zheng He Society of the Americas, Washington, D.C.   Versatile in classical Chinese literature, music and other areas.  Dr. Lee is a noted calligrapher, and was commissioned in 2005 to write the calligraphy “Taihang Baquanxia, Eight-Spring Gorge” (太行八泉峽) for the main entrance gate to the Taihangshan National Forest Park in Shanxi Province in China.

For further information, please contact Dr. Siu-Leung Lee at [email protected].