That map is a poor, showing a large non existent lake it what appears to be Africa, and showing the East coast of Africa as island, and shapes so divorced from actual shaps it is hard to tell what they are depicting. Looking at it, I wouldn't have seen it was a world map unless I was told that.
Compared.to the Ptolemy map made a thousand years earlier, it is inferior in almost every way. The earliest reconstructions of Ptolemy world map.datd from the 14th century before this map, from the details given in Ptolemies writings.
it does not use the western projection method.
you need to be open minded on how maps are drawn.
also you are violating your own logics.
as already mentioned by you, america is expected to be less known to china than to west due to the distance.
similarly, africa is expected to be better known to west than to china, due to distance, and even more, due to historical and cultural relationship.
despite of that, the Cape of Good Hope was unknown to west, when it is known to china.
Albeit, it appears that the Chinese did make world maps, (but inferior to European world maps made a 1000 years eatlier ) before the Jesuits arrived in China, so I.sas mistaken about that. But Europeans have been making world maps a thousand years before the Chinese, they had a lot more experience and it shows. The Chinese world maps before the Europe were crap
It was well known that the Spanish sailed along the coast of South America, while we have no dvidencd at all the Chinese every sailed to the New World. The claim that Ricci got his information from Chinese sources has no basis but Chinese egotism. Ricci's map is 30 years newer, which is major a.ount of time in the rapidly expanding knowledge in the Age.of Exploration.
i believe it very clearly, and people can see it very clearly, the 1595 map does not have a correct information on south america.
there is no 30 years span here.
The shapes on Ricci's map are less accurate drawn than on the better earlier maps like Mercator's and 0telius. The details of Europe and Africa are inferior, and the coast of China is inferior as well.
"accurate or inaccurate" on shapes
"right or wrong" on shapes
the south america on the 1595/1570 maps has a wide southern land, which is *wrong*.
that is beyond accuracy issues
you can tell the difference.
you can do better
Mercator map also connects india with sri lank with a land link, though westerners should already sailed there, and knew it should be an island.
The image shown bears no relationship to the actual shape of Australia. There is a difference between a continent and an island, and the place in question could be the island of New Guinea for all we know. Where is New Guinea on the map?
again.
it is on "existence or nonexistence"
you can tell the difference
also, it might be seen by some westerners. indeed, that could be true.
but no contemporary western map has it.
it appeared in china firstly.
the west can communicate, right? why should not consider the communication between china and west?
no one would make a question that 'why cannot Germany *independently* make a world map *before others*', 'why cannot France *independently* make a world map *before others*'.
why china should *independently* make a world map?
did the spanish all *independently* make a world map
I don't see any land that wasn't seen on the earlier Mercator map. This is just counterpart to the widespread intellectual property modern China practices today on a routine basis. Instead of making illegal copies and stealing patents, you try to steal credit for others dizcoveries with no basis on than Chinese ego. Note, since the map was made by an European, and Europeans ships were known to be sailing around the world, while there is zero evidence any Chinese ships were, not even 3 centuries later, the assumption must be Ricci obtained that knowledge from European sources until proven otherwise.
(The earliest evidence I have seen for any Chinese ship in American waters date to the 19th century, about centuries after the Europeans. If you have solid evidence earlier I would like to see it. The stone anchors that have been found have been shown to be from Chinese fishing ships known to have sailed those waters in the 19th century. And the earliest Chinese ship I know of to sail beyond Africa and to Europe and East coast of NA was the Keying in the mid 19th century. Which is surprising, since you would think some enterprising Chinese merchant would try sailing to their markets and reap the profits that the European middlemen merchants were making instead. But none tried apparently.)
1. not necessarily all explored by chinese ships, communications between china and other places of the world do not block the fact that the 1595 maps show wrong (not inaccurate) shape of south america (again, comparison of shapes is only valid when maps using the same projection method, if you don't know this, you just do not know the basics of maps)
2. you are demanding impossibles. the sinked ships can be hardly re-discovered. in 2014, the US found a sinked ship (sinked in 1888) just around
Golden Gate Bridge , one of the most known places of the world. more than one century, people cost it to find a known steel ship (the sink date is known, the sink place is known) just in front of them.