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. 1 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 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 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 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