This is an earlier version of an article published in Archaeological Approaches to Breaking Boundaries: Interaction,

Integration and Division, edited by Rebecca O’Sullivan, Christina Marini, and Julia Binnberg, 129–36. Oxford: BAR
Publishing, 2017.

Naval Warfare of the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644):

A Comparison Between Chinese Military Texts and
Archaeological Sources
Elke Papelitzky
University of Salzburg

Abstract: During the Ming dynasty, a great number of military treatises were written. They
sometimes include strange and fantastical information like pictures of sword-fighting
monkeys, which cast doubt on their representation of reality. A comparison with
archaeological sources might shed light on the credibility of these texts. A suitable topic for
this comparison is the armament of ships, as the question: ‘What kind of weapons did ships
carry?’ can be asked to both the archaeological as well as the textual sources. In this paper, I
compare the weapons described in the texts with those found in excavations of shipwrecks.
In addition, I address the question about the meaningfulness of such a comparison. I argue
that while certain elements are the same in the textual and the archaeological record, it is
better to not compare these two types of sources but rather use them alongside each other to
complement the picture. The question of the credibility of texts is better addressed by textual
analysis and a study of the biographies of the authors.

Key words: Naval warfare; Ming dynasty; China; Comparison of texts and archaeology;
Military writing

During the late Ming dynasty, China faced frequent
attacks both from the sea by so called Japanese pirates,1 as
well as from the Northern border by Mongols and
Manchus, who eventually conquered China and
established the Qing dynasty (1644–1911). This increased
threat as well as a publishing boom resulted in a great
number of military treatises being written, of which many
still survive today. The authors of these texts were both
generals of the Chinese military as well as literati
interested in military affairs and their writings are an
important source for the military and intellectual history
of the late Ming period. The texts include valuable
information on troop arrangements, tactics for fighting,
organising of provisions, information on the foreign
enemy and any other possible information a general in the
late Ming would have needed to be well prepared for
battle. However, sometimes weird and fantastical
information finds its way into the texts like pictures of
sword fighting monkeys (see figure 1) 2 or rockets that
would not be able to fly in a straight line, 3 which cast
doubt on the credibility of the texts and call for further
clarification. One possible method to evaluate the textual
sources is to compare them with the archaeological
record. It is of course not possible to compare the tactics
or the organisation of the troops with archaeological
sources, but the many descriptions of weapons are
something where parallels between the textual and the
archaeological records can be drawn. Especially the topic
of the armament of ships is very suitable for a
comparison, as the texts give very clear information on
the employment of weapons for naval warfare and the
discovery of shipwrecks with weapons also leave no
doubt about the use of these weapons on ships.
The combining of textual and archaeological sources has
led to long discussions between historians and
archaeologists, especially concerning early periods of
history with sparse textual sources. 4 However, regarding

1
These pirates are called wokou 倭寇 in Chinese (Japanese reading:
wakō). The term literarily translates to “Japanese bandits.” However,
especially during the later Ming period, a great percentage of these
pirates were not Japanese but rather Chinese.
2
Mao Yuanyi 茅 元 儀, Wubeizhi 武 備 志 (1621), j. 86, 17a–18b,
Accessible online through Chinese Text Project
http://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&res=2523. While there is a logical
explanation for the inclusion of the monkeys – a short introduction
before the pictures explains that they are representing a “monkey style”
of sword fighting – a direct comparison with Mao Yuanyi’s source, the
Jixiao xinshu 紀效新書 reveals that while the introductory text on the
fighting style is the same, the Jixiao xinshu does not include any pictures
of monkeys but instead uses schematic representations of humans. This
does not necessarily mean that Mao Yuanyi believed in fighting
monkeys, but it reinforces the strangeness of the text and shows that he,
or at least the person drawing the pictures, was not completely
committed to accuracy (Qi Jiguang 戚繼光, Jixiao xinshu. Shisi juan ben
紀效新書. 十四卷本, ed. Fan Zhongyi 範中義 [Beijing: Zhonghua
shuju, 2001], 83).
3
Mao Yuanyi, Wubeizhi, j. 133, 3a–4b. I will discuss this rocket in more
detail below.
4
In China this discussion was started in the early 20 th century by Wang
Guowei 王國維 and his method of dual evidence (erchong zhengju fa 二
重證據法), which he applied mostly to excavated texts as opposed to
texts transmitted through the ages. Other important examples include K.
C. Chang’s Shang Civilization or the discussion in the introduction of
The Cambridge History of Ancient China. A recent volume dedicated
especially to the theoretical aspects of combining the two types of source
in the Asian context was edited by Yoffee and Crowell Kwang-Chih
Chang, Shang Civilization (New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 1980); Michael Loewe and Edward L Shaughnessy, eds., The
Cambridge History of Ancient China. From the Origins of Civilization to

1
Left hand page header
the Ming dynasty, a period where ample textual records
exist, there are very few historians that supplement the
textual records with a close study of archaeological data.
A notable exception, also concerning the history of
Chinese warfare, is of course Joseph Needham’s famous
series Science and Civilisation in China, in which he
carefully combined written texts, archaeological sources,
and natural sciences.5 Other examples are Sun Laichen’s
studies on gunpowder weapons in Southeast Asia. 6 The up
to now most comprehensive study on naval warfare was
done by Zhang Tieniu and Gao Xiaoxing. They
supplement the historical record with some information on
excavated weapons, but these objects mainly serve to
illustrate the information Zhang and Gao draw from the
Ming dynasty texts. They do not include any detailed
discussion on the provenance of the weapons or on
shipwrecks and their book, thus, cannot be considered a
detailed study of the archaeological record.7
Relating to this present volume about bridging the divide
between interdisciplinary boundaries, I want to contribute
to filling the gap between the archaeological and historical
data and compare the two kinds of sources concerning the
armament of ships. In addition, I will discuss
methodological problems one faces when comparing these
two types of sources and address the question of the
meaningfulness of such a comparison.
The textual sources
The texts and authors
As there are a great number of military treatises, only a
selection can be discussed here. I will focus on the
following three well-known military treatises from the late
Ming that include information on naval warfare:
221 B.C. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Norman
Yoffee and Bradley L. Crowell, eds., Excavating Asian History.
Interdisciplinary Studies in Archaeology and History (Tuscon:
University of Arizona Press, 2006)].
5
For this paper, especially Volume 5, part 7 on gunpowder weapons is
important (Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in China. Volume
5. Chemistry and Chemical Technology Part 7. Military Technology; the
Gunpowder Epic [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986]).
6
Sun Laichen, “Military Technology Transfers from Ming China and the
Emergence of Northern Mainland Southeast Asia (C. 1390–1527),”
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 34, no. 3 (2003): 495–517; Sun
Laichen, “Chinese-Style Firearms in Dai Viet (Vietnam). The
Archaeological Evidence,” Revista de Cultura 27 (2008): 38–55; Sun
Laichen, “Chinese-Style Gunpowder Weapons in Southeast Asia.
Focusing on Archaeological Evidence,” in New Perspectives on the
History and Historiography of Southeast Asia. Continuing Explorations,
ed. Michael Arthur Aung-Thwin and Kenneth R. Hall (London and New
York: Routledge, 2011), 75–111.
7
Zhang Tieniu 張鐵牛 and Gao Xiaoxing 高曉星, Zhongguo gudai
haijunshi 中國古代海軍史 (Beijing: Bayi chubanshe, 1993). Another
overview in English over the history of Chinese naval warfare was
prepared by Peter Lorge (“Water Forces and Naval Operations,” in A
Military History of China, ed. David A. Graff and Robin Higham,
Updated Edition. [Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 2012], 81–
96).
2
 Jixiao xinshu 紀效新書 (A New Treatise on Military
Discipline and Efficiency) by Qi Jiguang 戚繼光, c.
1560.8
 Chouhai tubian 籌海圖編 (Illustrated Naval Strategy)
by Zheng Ruozeng 鄭若曾, 1562.9
 Wubeizhi 武備志 (Treatise on Armament Preparations)
by Mao Yuanyi 茅元儀, 1621.10
The well-known general Qi Jiguang (1528–1588) fought
both against the pirates as well as against the Mongols.
The Jixiao xinshu incorporates his experience training the
troops against the pirates and includes first-hand
knowledge of naval warfare.
Zheng Ruozeng (fl. 1505–1580) was a very diligent
scholar, whose goal was to contribute in some way to the
Chinese society. He wrote the Chouhai tubian in response
to the ongoing attacks of the pirates and collected all the
source materials on the topic he could find. The Chouhai
tubian is one of the most detailed known collections on
the pirates.
Mao Yuanyi (1594 – c. 1641) followed a military career
and is especially known for having fought against the
Manchus. The Wubeizhi is a collection of various military
texts and incorporates knowledge from earlier sources like
the Song dynasty (960–1279) Wujing zongyao 武經總要.
It is the longest of the three works discussed here.11
8
There are several editions of the Jixiao xinshu. The earliest edition was
completed in 1560, still missing the chapter on naval warfare. An edition
in 18 juan (chapters) was printed by the author around 1562. This edition
was reprinted multiple times during the Ming and Qing dynasties and
was included in the Siku quanshu 四庫全書 collection. There is also a
revised version in 14 juan, published in 1584. There are annotated and
punctuated versions of both the 14 and 18 juan versions (Qi Jiguang 戚
繼光, Jixiao xinshu. Shiba juan ben 紀效新書. 十八卷本, ed. Cao
Wenming 曹文明 and Lü Yinghui 吕穎慧 [Beijing: Zhonghua shuju,
2001]; Qi Jiguang, Jixiao xinshu. Shisi juan ben). For more information
on the different editions see Qi Jiguang, Jixiao xinshu. Shiba juan ben,
qianyan 前 言 1–13; Wolfgang Franke and Foon Ming Liew-Herres,
Annotated Sources of Ming History. Including Southern Ming and Works
on Neighbouring Lands 1368–1661 (Kuala Lumpur: University of
Malaya Press, 2011), 639f. I have primarily used the 18 juan Siku
quanshu edition.
9
The Chouhai tubian also was reprinted several times during the Ming
and Qing dynasties and included in the Siku quanshu. There also is a
modern punctuated edition prepared by Li Zhizhong based on a later
Qing edition. For more information on the editions see Franke and Liew-
Herres, Annotated Sources, 713f; Zheng Ruozeng 鄭 若 曾, Chouhai
tubian 籌海圖編, ed. Li Zhizhong 李致忠 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju,
2007), dianjiao shuoming 點 校 說明 4–8. I have primarily used the
original edition from 1562 reprinted in the Zhongguo bingshu jicheng 中
國兵書集成 collection (Zheng Ruozeng 鄭若曾, Chouhai tubian 籌海
圖編, 1562, Reprinted in Zhongguo bingshu jicheng 中國兵書集成,
Beijing and Shenyang: Jiefang jun chubanshe and Liaoshen shushe,
1990).
10
In contrast to the other two texts, there is only one Ming dynasty
edition of 1621, although later copies from the Qing and from Japan are
known. There is no annotated edition of the complete work. For more
information see Franke and Liew-Herres, Annotated Sources, 636f. The
Jixiao xinshu and Wubeizhi are also shortly discussed in Ralph D.
Sawyer, “Military Writings,” in A Military History of China, ed. David
A. Graff and Robin Higham, Updated Edition. (Kentucky: University
Press of Kentucky, 2012), 110–12.
11
For biographies of the authors see L. Carrington Goodrich and
Chaoying Fang, eds., Dictionary of Ming Biography. 1368–1644 (New
York and London: Columbia University Press, 1976), 204–8, 220–24,
1053f.

Weapons described in the texts
Concerning weapons used on ships, these texts provide us
with lists of equipment for ships, with detailed
descriptions and illustrations of such weapons, as well as
with pictures of ships showing soldiers holding weapons.
The exact contents vary widely between the texts.
The Jixiao xinshu has a whole chapter dedicated to naval
warfare. Especially important are detailed lists of the
equipment of ships. Qi Jiguang lists various cannon: Ships
are supposed to carry one very large cannon (da fagong 大
發貢), six Portuguese-style cannon (culverines – folangji
佛郎機) and three Chinese-style cannon (wankoutong 碗
口 筒). In addition to these cannon, the list adds
arquebuses as well as various other fire and gunpowder
weapons as well as non-gunpowder weapons like bows
and javelins.12 Later in the chapter, Qi Jiguang explains in
detail how some of the gunpowder weapons function.13
In its last chapter, the Chouhai tubian has several pictures
of different ships, as well as information on weapons.
Among the weapons mentioned for naval warfare are the
Portuguese-style folangji, a large bronze cannon (see
figure 2; probably the same as the da fagong from Qi
Jiguang’s list), some mines and different kinds of arrows.
The descriptions are very detailed and include schematics
of disassembled weapons. 14 Especially the note on the
large bronze cannon is interesting, as it warns of the
dangers of using this cannon: It is so powerful that one
risks damage to one’s own ship if the soldiers are not
careful. 15 There are illustrations of 17 different kinds of
ships, of which the majority shows soldiers standing on
the deck holding weapons. The weapons shown are
spears, swords, bows, and handguns. None of the
illustrations shows any cannon (see figure 3).16
Information on naval warfare in the Wubeizhi is scattered
throughout the work. The chapters 116 to 118 are
dedicated to naval warfare. They include pictures of ships
similar to those in the Chouhai tubian17 and descriptions
of weapons made especially for naval warfare. In chapters
119 to 134 Mao Yuanyi describes various gunpowder and
other incendiary weapons and for some of them he
includes a note about their usability for naval warfare. The
descriptions in the chapter on naval warfare include
hooked spears for attaching to an enemy ship to stop it
from escaping as well as two kinds of javelins. 18 The fire
weapons shown in the other chapters are different kinds of
cannon (a cannon called bamian shenwei fenghuo pao 八
12
Qi Jiguang 戚繼光, Jixiao xinshu 紀效新書 (c. 1562), j. 18, 11b–16b,
In Qinding siku quanshu 欽 定 四庫 全 書. Accessible online through
Chinese Text Project http://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&res=5535.
13
Ibid., 48a–52a.
14
Zheng Ruozeng, Chouhai tubian, j. 13.
15
The page with half of this explanation is missing in the 1562 version,
but it can easily be reconstructed in using other editions. Zheng
Ruozeng, Chouhai tubian, j. 13, 1262–1264; Chouhai tubian (Siku
quanshu edition), j. 13, 35a–36a.
16
Zheng Ruozeng, Chouhai tubian, j. 13, 1199–1254.
17
Mao Yuanyi, Wubeizhi, j. 116, 8b–21a.
18
Ibid., j. 117, 25a–27a.
3
Header right page
面 神 威 風 火 砲, the Portuguese-style folangji, and a
Chinese-style cannon), a curious rocket in the shape of a
dragon (huolong chushui 火 龍 出 水), several types of
mines and other fire devices, as well as a kite in the form
of a bird equipped with fire-arrows to set enemy ships or
sails on fire. The bamian shenwei pao (invincible cannon
firing in eight directions) is said to be able to fire in all
eight cardinal directions – something that Needham
supposes is an exaggeration, as it would require very
advanced technology to build a suitable frame. 19 Even
more fantastical is the rocket in the shape of a dragon.
Four fire-arrows are said to be attached to its main body
which launch the rocket into the air once ignited. Sawyer
expresses doubts over the actual usability and existence of
this weapon, as one had to ignite all fire-arrows at the
same time, otherwise the missile would not fly a straight
route.20 He is equally doubtful about the existence of the
bird-kite since, as he puts it: “it is an odd contraption
more expressive of simplistic thinking – flight means
wings, therefore imitate birds – than weapons
development, especially since rockets and large rocket-
powered incendiary arrows already existed.”21
Archaeological sources
Methodological problems
We know of several shipwrecks found in the oceans in
East and Southeast Asia that date to the Ming dynasty
with findings of weapons. While in contrast to the texts,
there is no doubt that these weapons actually existed and
were used aboard ships, there are several other
methodological problems one encounters when discussing
the armament of Chinese warships.
The largest problem concerns the origin of the wrecks. As
the texts only write about Chinese ships, only wrecks that
come from China are suitable for comparison. This is,
however, not easy to ascertain. While Chinese
shipbuilders used different techniques than these in
Southeast Asia, so that the hull of the ship can be
identified as either Southeast Asian or Chinese, the hull is
not always extant in all ships. 22 In addition, there is no
information about the crew – Chinese people might have
used a ship built in Southeast Asia, something that is not
unheard of for Ming dynasty merchants, although it seems
unlikely for warships.23
Another problem is that not all shipwrecks are from
warships. Indeed, the majority of excavated shipwrecks
19
Needham, Science and Civilisation 5.7, 326.
20
Ralph D. Sawyer, Fire and Water. The Art of Incendiary and Aquatic
Warfare in China (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 2004), 210.
21
Ibid., 126.
22
For a discussion on the different ways of building ships see Pierre-
Yves Manguin, “Trading Ships of the South China Sea. Shipbuilding
Techniques and Their Role in the History of the Development of Asian
Trade Networks,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the
Orient 36, no. 3 (1993): 253–280.
23
Ibid., 274.
Left hand page header
from the Ming dynasty were trading vessels.24 Of course,
conclusions can still be drawn in looking at the armament
of trading vessels, but the texts explicitly speak of military
ships. Before attempting a comparison, it is, thus,
necessary to identify the purpose of the ship. This can be
done by looking at the cargo – if the ship carried a lot of
ceramics, one can assume that it was a trade vessel.
The conditions in the seawater also make it nearly
impossible for some of the incendiary weapons made out
of paper or wood to be preserved. While wood and even
paper sometimes do survive the harsh conditions in the
ocean, with the overall very scarce number of findings the
probability of finding such weapons is extremely low.
The wrecks
The wrecks that are most suitable for a comparison with
the textual sources are the Liangshan 梁山 wreck, the
Penglai 蓬萊 no. 1 wreck, and the Shenhu Bay 深沪湾
wreck.
The Liangshan wreck was discovered in 1956 in the
former Songjin River 宋 金 河 in Shandong 山 東. The
excavation yielded several weapons: one bronze handgun,
five swords, two spearheads, 20 arrowheads, 13 hooks
from hooked spears and various other pieces of
equipment. The gun bears an inscription, which dates it to
1377. As there are no items dated later than the fourteenth
century, the ship probably sunk at that time. 25 In the
original report, the excavators assumed that it was a
military vessel, but recent research points to a ship used
for transporting grain from the fertile region in the south
to Beijing. Soldiers stationed on the ship to defend the
valuable cargo from bandits probably used the weapons
24
Important trading vessels from the Ming dynasty that include weapons
are the Bakau wreck (early 15th century), the Brunei wreck (end of 15th
/ beginning of 16th century), the Lena shoal wreck (sunk c. 1490), the
Xuande wreck (sunk c. 1540) and the Nan’ao I wreck (end of 16th /
beginning of 17th century). The weapons excavated from these ships
include a range of guns as well as a folangji cannon, showing that not
only military ships, but also merchant ships were equipped with
powerful weapons (Michael Flecker, “The Bakau Wreck: An Early
Example of Chinese Shipping in Southeast Asia,” The International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 30, no. 2 [2001]: 221–30; Michel
L’Hour, ed., La mémoire engloutie de Brunei, 3 vols. [Paris: Éditions
Textuel, 2001]; Franck Goddio et al., Lost at Sea. The Strange Route of
the Lena Shoal Junk, trans. Josephine Bacon [London: Periplus, 2002];
Nanhai Marine Archaeology Sdn. Bhd., “The Xuande Site (+/- 1540),”
Discovering Asia’s Ceramic Development over Half a Millennium -
through Shipwrecks of the 14th to 19th Centuries, 2001,
http://www.maritimeasia.ws/exhib01/pages/p016.html [accessed July 15,
2016]; Guangdongsheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 广东省文物考古研究
所, “Nan’ao I hao Mingdai chenchuan 2007 nian diaocha yu shijue” 南
澳Ⅰ号明代沉船 2007 年调查与试掘, Wenwu 文物 5 [2011]: 25–47;
Guangdongsheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 廣 東省文 物考古研 究所,
Guojia shuixia wenhua yichan baohu zhongxin 國家水下文化遺產保護
中 心, and Guangdongsheng bowuguan 廣 東省 博 物館, “Guangdong
Shantoushi ‘Nan’ao I hao’ Mingdai chenchuan” 廣東汕頭市南澳Ⅰ號明
代沉船, Kaogu 考古 no. 7 [2011]: 39–46). The guns of some of these
ships are also discussed in Sun Laichen, “Chinese-Style Gunpowder
Weapons in Southeast Asia. Focusing on Archaeological Evidence.”
25
Liu Guifang 劉桂芳, “Shandong Liangshanxian faxian de Mingchu
bingchuan” 山東梁山縣發現的明初兵船, Wenwu cankao ciliao 文物參
考資料 no. 2 (1958): 51–52.
4
found in the wreck.26 Even though it was not a warship,
the fact that the people who used the weapons were
soldiers and not merchants makes this wreck a valuable
source for comparison. This shipwreck predates the
military treatises by around 200 years, but shows us
several things: Gunpowder weapons were used alongside
non-gunpowder weapons and there was a wide range of
different non-gunpowder weapons. The findings of the
hooks support the evidence of the Wubeizhi about the
existence of hooked spears for naval battles.
In Penglai County in Shandong, archaeologists excavated
four wrecks dating to the Yuan and Ming periods in 1984
and 2005. Here, especially the wreck Penglai no. 1, a
warship dating to the mid to late Ming, is relevant. This is,
thus, a warship roughly contemporary with the texts. The
archaeologists found several weapons: a fragment of a
bronze cannon, two iron cannon, iron and stone
cannonballs in different sizes, bottles filled with
quicklime, and a sword. 27 Quicklime was an important
ingredient for incendiary weapons and there is evidence in
Chinese texts that vessels filled with quicklime served as
bombs.28 All three cannon have rings along the barrel and
are of Chinese design.29 While these ringed cannons are
described for example in the Wubeizhi, 30 they are not
marked as weapons for naval warfare.
The Shenhu Bay wreck was discovered in 1999 near the
coast of Fujian 福 建. The excavators did not recover
many objects from the wreck, but among them were two
inscribed cannon and part of an arquebuse. The cannon
bear the dates 1553 and 1645 respectively. Judging from
these inscriptions, the ship must have sunk in the late
seventeenth century and, thus, dates to around 100 years
later than the Jixiao xinshu and Chouhai tubian and only a
bit later than the Wubeizhi. 31 As there are no traces of
trade items but two cannon, the excavators assume that it
was a warship. 32 The 1553 cannon is a Chinese-style
muzzle loader and the 1645 cannon clearly shows
European influences. From this wreck, we can see that
cannon were used for a long time, even though newer
technology was available. The Shenhu Bay wreck also
26
He Gouwei, “Measurement and Research of the Ancient Ming
Dynasty Ship Unearthened in Liangshan,” in International Sailing Ships
History Conference. Proceedings. Shanghai China (Dec 4th–8th, 1991)
(Shanghai: Shanghai Society of Naval Architecture & Marine
Engineering, 1991), 241ff; Zhu Hua 朱華, “Mingdai caochuan” 明代漕
船, Zouxiang shijie 走向世界 34 (2012): 46–49.
27
Yantaishi wenwu guanli weiyuanhui 煙台市文物管理委員會 and
Penglaixian wenhuaju 蓬萊 縣文化局, “Shandong Penglai shuicheng
qingyu yu guchuan fajue” 山東蓬萊水城清淤與古船發掘, in Penglai
guchuan 蓬萊古船, ed. Shandongsheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 山東省
文物考古研究所, Yantaishi bowuguan 煙台市博物館, and Penglaishi
wenwuju 蓬萊市文物局 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2006), 170, 178f.
28
For a discussion on bombs made with lime, see Needham, Science and
Civilisation 5.7, 165f, 187. Needham also shows that lime bombs were
already used in the twelfth century for naval combat.
29
For a discussion of these rings as well as similar cannon see Ibid.,
331–37.
30
Mao Yuanyi, Wubeizhi, j. 122, 14a.
31
Lin Qingzhe 林清哲, “Fujian Jinjiang Shenhuwan Mingmo Qingchu
guchenchuan yizhi” 福建晉江深滬灣明末清初古沉船遺址, Dongnan
wenhua 東南文化 no. 3 (2013): 57f.
32
Ibid., 58f.
 Header right page

confirms the simultaneous use of Chinese-style and

European-style cannon claimed in the military texts.

Conclusion

In the case of the armament of Chinese ships, one can ask

the same question to both written and archaeological
sources: ‘Which kind of weapons did ships carry?’
Naturally, one would expect to find a similar answer from
both sources. Indeed, a certain set of answers is the same
from both sources: Chinese ships carried gunpowder
weapons as well as non-gunpowder weapons; Chinese
style-weapons were used alongside European-style
weapons; and certain types of weapons appear in both
types of sources. However, at this point, the similarities
stop. We find in the archaeological record weapons like
the handgun or the ringed cannon that the texts do not
explicitly describe as weapons for naval warfare. We gain
knowledge about their material and the size and we learn
that one single cannon could be employed for around 100
years. The texts describe weapons that did not survive
until today, how they were used, and to what specific
problems the soldiers had to pay attention to.

While this is interesting and valuable information, it only

helps us answering the question of the credibility of the
texts to some extent. It is especially problematic that the
rather fantastical weapons like the dragon-shaped rocket importance. In this way, each type of source can fill the
or the kite would be made out of paper and other easily gaps the other leaves, demonstrating the importance of
degradable materials, hindering a comparison with interdisciplinary work and of bridging the divide between
archaeological material. In fact, it seems easier to
establish the credibility of the texts by looking at the
sources themselves as well as the biographies of the Figure 1. Sword-fighting monkeys from the Wubeizhi (j. 86,
authors. In the Jixiao xinshu and the Chouhai tubian, we 18a).
look in vain for any unbelievable weapon. Only Mao
Yuanyi records strange accounts in the Wubeizhi, where
there are several of such weapons like the cannon that can
fire in all directions or the rocket in the shape of a dragon.
This might be due to the nature of the Wubeizhi: It is a
collection of different sources, some even centuries old in
the late Ming. Mao Yuanyi’s aim was to collect as much
as possible and make a comprehensive, encyclopaedic
work without necessarily checking the accuracy of the
sources. Especially the illustrations are not necessarily an
accurate depiction of reality. Qi Jiguang on the other hand
recorded his personal experience fighting against the
pirates. The inclusion of false information is unthinkable.
The Chouhai tubian is a case in-between: it is a collection
of sources like the Wubeizhi, but Zheng Ruozeng followed
a different approach than Mao Yuanyi. He did not try to
collect everything concerning military tactics, but only
things that were usable in dealing with the pirates. This
again led to a far more truthful account.

The fact that we can establish the credibility of the texts

by looking at the texts themselves does not mean that a
simultaneous study of the different types of sources is
worthless, but that rather instead of comparing the sources historical and archaeological sources.
and using one type to validate the other, it seems more
fruitful to use them alongside each other at equal

Figure 2. The Tongfagong, a large bronze cannon as shown

5 in the Chouhai tubian (Siku quanshu edition, j. 13, 35a).
Left hand page header
Figure 3. Illustration of a ship from the Chouhai tubian
(Siku quanshu edition, j. 13, 2b).
Bibliography
Chang, Kwang-Chih. Shang Civilization. New Haven and
London: Yale University Press, 1980.
Flecker, Michael. “The Bakau Wreck: An Early Example of
Chinese Shipping in Southeast Asia.” The International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 30, no. 2 (2001): 221–30.
Franke, Wolfgang, and Foon Ming Liew-Herres. Annotated
Sources of Ming History. Including Southern Ming and
Works on Neighbouring Lands 1368–1661. 2 vols. Kuala
Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 2011.
Goddio, Franck, Monique Crick, Peter Lam, Stacey Pierson, and
Rosemary Scott. Lost at Sea. The Strange Route of the Lena
Shoal Junk. Translated by Josephine Bacon. London:
Periplus, 2002.
Goodrich, L. Carrington, and Chaoying Fang, eds. Dictionary of
Ming Biography. 1368–1644. New York and London:
Columbia University Press, 1976.
Guangdongsheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 廣東省文物考古研
究所. “Nan’ao I hao Mingdai chenchuan 2007 nian diaocha
yu shijue” 南澳Ⅰ號明代沉船 2007 年調查與試掘. Wenwu
文物 5 (2011): 25–47.
Guangdongsheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 廣東省文物考古研
究所, Guojia shuixia wenhua yichan baohu zhongxin 國家
水下文化遺產保護中心, and Guangdongsheng bowuguan
廣 東 省 博 物 館. “Guangdong Shantoushi ‘Nan’ao I hao’
Mingdai chenchuan” 廣 東 汕 頭 市 南 澳 Ⅰ 號 明 代 沉 船.
Kaogu 考古 no. 7 (2011): 39–46.
6
He Gouwei. “Measurement and Research of the Ancient Ming
Dynasty Ship Unearthened in Liangshan.” In International
Sailing Ships History Conference. Proceedings. Shanghai
China (Dec 4th–8th, 1991), 237–44. Shanghai: Shanghai
Society of Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering, 1991.
L’Hour, Michel, ed. La mémoire engloutie de Brunei. 3 vols.
Paris: Éditions Textuel, 2001.
Lin Qingzhe 林 清 哲. “Fujian Jinjiang Shenhuwan Mingmo
Qingchu guchenchuan yizhi” 福建晉江深滬灣明末清初古
沉船遺址. Dongnan wenhua 東南文化 no. 3 (2013): 55–59.
Liu Guifang 劉 桂 芳. “Shandong Liangshanxian faxian de
Mingchu bingchuan” 山東梁山縣發現的明初兵船. Wenwu
cankao ciliao 文物參考資料 no. 2 (1958): 51–52.
Loewe, Michael, and Edward L Shaughnessy, eds. The
Cambridge History of Ancient China. From the Origins of
Civilization to 221 B.C. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1999.
Lorge, Peter. “Water Forces and Naval Operations.” In A
Military History of China, edited by David A. Graff and
Robin Higham, 81–96. Updated Edition. Kentucky:
University Press of Kentucky, 2012.
Manguin, Pierre-Yves. “Trading Ships of the South China Sea.
Shipbuilding Techniques and Their Role in the History of the
Development of Asian Trade Networks.” Journal of the
Economic and Social History of the Orient 36, no. 3 (1993):
253–280.
Mao Yuanyi 茅元儀. Wubeizhi 武備志. 1621. Accessible online
through Chinese Text Project
http://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&res=2523.
Nanhai Marine Archaeology Sdn. Bhd. “The Xuande Site (+/-
1540).” Discovering Asia’s Ceramic Development over Half
a Millennium - through Shipwrecks of the 14th to 19th
Centuries, 2001.
http://www.maritimeasia.ws/exhib01/pages/p016.html.
Needham, Joseph. Science and Civilisation in China. Volume 5.
Chemistry and Chemical Technology Part 7. Military
Technology; the Gunpowder Epic. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1986.
Qi Jiguang 戚 繼 光. Jixiao xinshu 紀 效 新 書. C. 1562. In
Qinding siku quanshu 欽 定 四 庫 全 書. Accessible online
through Chinese Text Project
http://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&res=5535.
———. Jixiao xinshu. Shiba juan ben 紀效新書. 十八卷本.
Edited by Cao Wenming 曹文明 and Lü Yinghui 吕穎慧.
Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2001.
———. Jixiao xinshu. Shisi juan ben 紀效新書. 十四卷本.
Edited by Fan Zhongyi 範中義. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju,
2001.
Sawyer, Ralph D. Fire and Water. The Art of Incendiary and
Aquatic Warfare in China. Boulder, Colorado: Westview
Press, 2004.
———. “Military Writings.” In A Military History of China,
edited by David A. Graff and Robin Higham, 97–114.
Updated Edition. Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky,
2012.
Sun Laichen. “Chinese-Style Firearms in Dai Viet (Vietnam).
The Archaeological Evidence.” Revista de Cultura 27
(2008): 38–55.
———. “Chinese-Style Gunpowder Weapons in Southeast Asia.
Focusing on Archaeological Evidence.” In New Perspectives
on the History and Historiography of Southeast Asia.
Continuing Explorations, edited by Michael Arthur Aung-
 Header right page

Thwin and Kenneth R. Hall, 75–111. London and New York:

Routledge, 2011.

———. “Military Technology Transfers from Ming China and

the Emergence of Northern Mainland Southeast Asia (C.
1390–1527).” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 34, no. 3
(2003): 495–517.

Yantaishi wenwu guanli weiyuanhui 煙台市文物管理委員會,

and Penglaixian wenhuaju 蓬 萊 縣 文 化 局. “Shandong
Penglai shuicheng qingyu yu guchuan fajue” 山東蓬萊水城
清淤與古船發掘. In Penglai guchuan 蓬萊古船, edited by
Shandongsheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 山東省文物考古
研究所, Yantaishi bowuguan 煙台市博物館, and Penglaishi
wenwuju 蓬 萊 市 文 物 局, 165–95. Beijing: Wenwu
chubanshe, 2006.

Yoffee, Norman, and Bradley L. Crowell, eds. Excavating Asian

History. Interdisciplinary Studies in Archaeology and
History. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, 2006.

Zhang Tieniu 張鐵牛, and Gao Xiaoxing 高曉星. Zhongguo

gudai haijunshi 中國古代海軍史. Beijing: Bayi chubanshe,
1993.

Zheng Ruozeng 鄭 若 曾. Chouhai tubian 籌 海 圖 編. 1562.

Reprinted in Zhongguo bingshu jicheng 中 國 兵 書 集 成,
Beijing and Shenyang: Jiefang jun chubanshe and Liaoshen
shushe, 1990.

———. Chouhai tubian 籌 海 圖 編. 1562. In Qinding siku

quanshu 欽定四庫全書. Accessible online through Chinese
Text Project http://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&res=4966.

———. Chouhai tubian 籌海圖編. Edited by Li Zhizhong 李致

忠. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2007.

Zhu Hua 朱華. “Mingdai caochuan” 明代漕船. Zouxiang shijie

走向世界 34 (2012): 46–49.