我联系了四位西方著名学者评审我的论文《翻转世界史的古地图》。其中有历史地图网站的主管，曾经发表论文或演讲，讨论中国地图学，利玛窦的地图的学者。一位称有其他事务在身，没有承诺，一位没有回应，另一位回绝，只有一位同意审阅我的论文。从这位评论者的评语，可以看到他完全回避了科学推理的诡辩，而且用权威的语气，企图压倒我的论说，看来是召集其他同行的攻击。这就是西方学术伪善的面目。

还原世界史的任务只能是中国人做，只争朝夕。天真地等待西方承认错误，只会蹉跎岁月，继续误导亿万人民。

伪史，误史已经严重影响了中国的科学思维400年，假如中国科学界，历史界对还原地理大发现史的真相还觉得是不值得关心，中国的创新、教育很不乐观，中国文化在国际舞台上，将被视为缺乏科学思维，懦弱胆怯，不事进取的代表。

具体的地图例证，请看前面的文章：

翻转世界史的古地图（英文原文） 2016-02-19

明代中国测绘世界-西方地图学证伪 2016-02-22

以下是这位西方学者的评论（黑字，2015年12月15日收到）和我的回答（红字，二零一五年十二月十九日定）。

 I read your paper yesterday and have a few comments:

1)     As I said about your previous paper, you are trying to apply 21st C behavior to 17th C behavior and they aren’t even close to the same.

我昨天读了你的文章，有几点意见：

1）正如我所说的关于你上一篇文章，你想用21世纪的思维套用于十七世纪的行为，是不恰当的。

Comparison of the maps of Ricci to contemporaneous maps (Ptolemy 1482, Waldseemueller 1507, Ortelius 1570, Mercator 1569 and 1595,Martino Martini 1655) is the theme of my paper. Any 21^st century“behavior” is the application of logic and references we know today。

我比较利玛窦的地图同时代的地图（托勒密1482年，瓦德斯穆勒 1507年，奥特里斯1570年，墨卡托1569年/1595年，和卫匡国1655年），这是我论文的主题。任何21世纪的思维逻辑和引用今天我们已知的材料是对照。

2)     Your assumptions that Maps cannot precede exploration/survey is (sic) totally false.  It might be nice if it were true.  It wasn’t true then and actually it isn’t always true today. Often mapmakers of this period, would go as far as the data took them, their sources undoubtedly also had opinions of what they thought was beyond that point, there were various myths, like the Northwest Passage, they subscribed to which they would put in,  the map maker knew it had to complete somewhere,so they just filled it in.  This pretty much discredits most of the conclusions of your paper.

2）你假设无法在勘探之前能绘制地图，完全是错的。如果对，倒是很好。可惜以前不是，今天也不完全是。通常这时期的地图绘制者，会尽量利用数据，他们当然有一些超越信息来源的想法，有各种各样神话，像西北航道，他们会加入自己的意见，地图制作者会填补空白来完成地图。这就令你的论文的大部分结论没有意义。

Of course one can draw any map without doing any exploration.  The question is whether the map reflects genuine geography as we know today. Can you envision my house plan without visiting? Can you draw a city map of an African town without being there?  “The map maker knew it had to complete somewhere, so they just filled it in”. Do you ever question why their completion is so accurate without information from somewhere? The 1602 Chinese world map (which is really not a survey by Ricci) accurately names locations by geography of the western part of North America 200 years before Lewis and Clark’s exploration. 哥泥白斯湖 (Lake Conibaz or Hudson Bay) is in better shape on the1602 Chinese world map than Ortelius 1570, yet there is no record of any European exploration between 1570 and 1602. Ricci has never been to America.Year 1610 when Ricci died is the year Henry Hudson found the bay, which is named after the “discoverer”. There are tons of common sense questions like this that should be asked yet no one did.

当然，人们可以没有任何探索的数据支持来绘制地图。问题是地图是否真正反映了今天我们已知的地理。你没有来过我家，能知道我的房子的格局如何？你没有去过，能准确绘制一个非洲小镇的地图？“地图制作者知道它在什么地方完成的，所以他们只是填补它。”你是否曾经质疑为什么他们不需要来源而能完成如此准确的信息？ 1602年的《坤輿万国全图》（其实不是利玛窦测绘的），准确地标示北美200年后路易斯和克拉克才探索的北美西部地区。1602年代《坤輿万国全图》有哥泥白斯湖（Conibaz湖或哈得逊湾），比1570年奥特里斯绘制的形状更相似，但是1570到1602间没有欧洲勘探這里的记录，利玛窦从来没有去过美国。 1610年，当利玛窦去世那年，亨利·哈德逊才发现这海湾，后来以这“发现者”命名这海湾。还有大量这样的问题没人质疑。

3)     Your statement that there was no accurate measurement of longitude prior to 1773 is also false.  There were reasonably accurate astronomical techniques. However they were complicated and not possible generally applicable when at sea.

3）你陈述，1773年以前没有精确测量的经度，也是错的。有相当精确的天文技术可以测量，不过，他们很复杂，无法普遍适用在海上测量。

Yes, measuring longitude on the open ocean is the crucial question. This is clearly shown by the shape of South America in the maps I compared. Why is the Chinese map more accurate than any of the European maps that Ricci had supposedly copied? Could any map copy improve on the accuracy of the original without actual exploration?

完全没错，在茫茫大海洋测量经度是关键的问题。比较南美洲的形状就清楚这点。如果利玛窦是摹抄欧洲的地图，为什么他的摹抄比原来的欧洲地图更准确？地图的副本会比实地勘测的原件更精确吗？

4)     You ask how Ptolemy could draw a map of the world without leaving Alexandria? Quite easily. He used paper and pen. Did he take some license and only include what he knew his audience would be most interested in? Yes.  Did he know that there must be something below 180 degrees? Of course, but you are criticizing him for doing what you said you want him to do: He had no data for south of 180 so he didn’t include it. Where did he get his information? Alexandria was a port and there was lots of information flowing in.  Furthermore there were many maps of the Roman Empire that pre-date this.  It is well-known that Columbus cooked his numbers to make them come out right.  Why do you think he had so much trouble getting funded?  Everyone else had good numbers and knew that their ships didn’t have the range to go West.  Columbus had to find someone who wasn’t an expert to fund him. PT Barnum said these were born every minute.  The idea of spherical globe was well understood by the educated population. This is also well-known to any expert in this field.

4）你问托勒密如何不离开亚历山大可以画一幅世界地图？很容易。他用纸和笔。他有没有取舍，只包括他的读者关注的地理？当然有。他知道有必须低于180度的地理吗？当然，但你批评他，认为他应该做你希望他做的事情：他没有180以南的数据，所以他并没有包括它。他从哪里得到资料？亚历山大是一个大港，有大量的信息流。此外还有罗马帝国早期的许多地图。哥伦布出名会捏造，使数据像个样。你知道他找资助为什么这么困难？其他人都有数据，知道他们的船无法有能力向西走那么远。哥伦布只好找一些没有专业知识的人资助他。巴纳姆说，这世界每分钟都有傻瓜出生。地球是球形，一般受过教育的人都理解，在这领域的专家都知道。

“Something below 180 degrees”?“south of 180”? This is the most fatally comment I have seen from anyone who has studied geography. There is never 180 degrees for latitude. The 180 degrees I refer to is longitude, not latitude. I am talking about the distance between China and Europe separated by an entire half of the earth, which did not seem to bother Columbus or any of the people who received his proposal. If Greeks did know that a spherical earth has 360 degrees for the circumference, why didn’t Ptolemy address that an entire hemisphere is missing in Geographia? Anyone knowledgeable of the land distance between Europe and China would not have taken a trip as ill-prepared as Columbus did. This common-sense question has been ignored.

“低于180度”？ “南纬180度”？这是我见过的地理学者最要命的评论。纬度是没有180度的。我指的是 180度经度，不是纬度。我说的是整个地球的一半，似乎并没有引起对哥伦布或资助人的关心。如果希腊人也知道地球有360度，为什么托勒密在他的《地理学》一书没有提醒哥伦布，他的地图缺掉半个地球？任何有常识的人都知道欧洲和中国之间的陆地距离那么远，不会像哥伦布设备如此差劲去冒险，这样做是忽略常识。

5)     Waldseemueller map. Your interpretation that they knew that Florida, the East Coast of North American are on the map is not viable.  They may have known there was some sort of land there, but even the map shows that they didn’t know the extent of it, and to say that it Florida and the East Coast is to impose a modern interpretation to what is on the map.  It could well have been reported that there was land at such a position without anyone actually going ashore. As for knowing about the Gulf.You are assuming what you know as the Gulf is what is they thought of as the Gulf.  They had a pretty good idea that there was land to the west and so it had to be somewhere there.

5）瓦德斯穆勒地图。你认为他们应该知道佛罗里达州，北美的东海岸，是不成立的。他们可能已经知道有一些陆地存在，即使地图显示，他们也不知道它的范畴，认为他们该知道佛罗里达州和东海岸，是把现代的知识强加在他们的地图上。可能有报告说，在这位置有陆地，没有任何人真正上岸。至于那湾，你是假设你知道那里有湾是他们认为有海湾。他们不错知道西部有陆地，因此它必然在那里。【按：这里评论者语焉不详，不晓得如何翻译。】

It is exactly the reason I question the source of knowledge of Florida and east coast before the area was explored. How could one have any idea to draw such a map without being there?  Imaginary and “mental discovery” is beyond the realm of scientific discussion.  Themajor question is why the great ocean west of America is shown before it was known 6 years later. Why did Waldseemueller hide it again in his Carta Marina 1516?Why is this new continent not part of Asia as it was always thought?

这正是我质疑佛罗里达知识和东海岸的认知先于勘探的原因。一个人没有到过一个地方，如何凭空画出这样的地图？想象和“心灵发现”不是科学讨论的范畴。主要问题是，为什么美国的西边的海洋为什么在被发现之前六年出现在地图上。为什么瓦德斯穆勒的 1516年地图，再次隐藏这海洋？为什么美洲新大陆不是如以往一样绘成与亚洲连成一片？

6)     Ortelius. Again, it is *your* conjecture, your modern interpretation, that Hudson Bay is on the Ortelius Map.  Ortelius does not claim it is Hudson Bay.  Ortelius and others did believe there should be a Northwest Passage.  And there is. Similarly, Ortelius justfilled in a West Coast of the New World even though he didn’t have data for it. The reference to Lewis and Clark is just ludicrous.

6）奥特里斯。再次，这是*您的*猜想，你的现代诠释，即奥特里斯地图有哈德逊湾存在。奥特里斯没有认为这是哈得逊湾。奥特里斯和其他人确实相信应该有一个西北航道。同样，奥特里斯认为新大陆有西海岸，即使他没有数据。把这联系上路易斯和克拉克是可笑的。

The bay (Gulf) is clearly there on Ortelius 1570 map as anyone with eyes can see, although it is not labeled so by Ortelius. Of course he had no idea of Henry Hudson. How did a bay (gulf) appear in the correct location of what we call Hudson Bay today? Could Ortelius’s imagination be accurate enough to foresee the geography only known 140 years later? That is my question. Ortelius must have copied it from another map by someone who did the survey. This bay labeled as Lago Conibaz (or Conibas) also appears in other maps. As Bancroft says, there is no reason to believe that any European explorer had surveyed that part of the world (Bancroft 1886).[1]

奥特里斯1570地图上北部的海湾是有目共睹的，虽然奥特里斯没有标名字。当然，他不会知道亨利·哈德逊。但是，这里怎么会出现一个海湾，与现在我们称之为哈得逊湾的位置一样？奥特里斯的想象力能准确预见140多年后才知道的地理吗？这是我的问题。奥特里斯必须抄自其他真正勘探者的地图。这个曾被标记为哥泥白斯湖的海湾（Conibaz或Conibas）也出现在其他地图上。正如班克罗夫特说，没有理由相信任何欧洲探险家曾勘察了这里地理（班克罗夫特1886年）。

7)     Matteo Ricci.  You say that until there was a high resolution scan of the map available, only the outline and a few large place names are readable. This is wrong. Any reasonable library had a copy of D’Elia’s Il mappamundi with a complete half size reproduction of the map. Heck,even I have a copy. Furthermore, I don’t find the inaccuracies in Europe allthat disturbing. First of all, Figure 6 is much larger than it is on the map.What copy did this figure come from?  It isn’t the Vatican Map or the Bell Map. Ricci was working through the wood-carvers, and I am sure that it was much more important to him to get China closer to right than Europe. We know the wood-blocks were not done by the Jesuits. I am sure there were some inaccuracies introduced in that process. Also, the area of Europe is quite small and so there were a limited number of legends that could be included.Certainly not all he knew.  Since there are no country boundaries on the map, why should the Papal States be there. Actually, recognizing the Papal States would have indicated that the Pope’s sovereignty was limited and would have undermined the Pope in the eyes of the Emperor. Ricci would be admitting that Pope really ruled a very small area.  Good thing, you weren’t doing his PR.

7）利玛窦。你说，直到有地图的高分辨率扫描，只有轮廓和一些较大的地名可读，这是错的。任何比较好的图书馆都有德礼贤的Il Mappamundi的地图副本，原大一半。哎呀，连我也有一个副本。此外，我不认为在欧洲部分不准确有什么不妥。首先，图6是远远大于地图所示。这部分从何而来？它不是梵蒂冈版本或贝尔图书馆的版本（按：指《坤輿万国全图》的版本）。利玛窦是通过刻工完成地图的。我相信，他认为更重要的是把中国弄得准确，比欧洲的准确度更重要。我们知道刻板不是耶稣会士做的。我相信，在这个过程中会引进一些误差。另外，欧洲的面积相当小，所以能被列入的地名数量有限，当然不是他所知的全部。由于有在地图上没有国界，为什么要标注教皇领地。其实，标示教皇领地，表明教皇的主权是有限的，会削弱教皇的地位。还好，你没有做他的公关。

If you do have a copy of  the 1602 map, read it, carefully. If you can’t understand Chinese, find someone to translate for you. Those who have the luxury of accessing the map are often overwhelmed by the massive information in Chinese that they cannot interpret. You are clearly avoiding Tuscany and Florence, which are prominently shown on any European maps after1400 up to now. The Vatican’s Gallery of Maps (painted 1580-1585) has a very accurate map of Italy.  Ricci just visited Vatican before he left for China. He should have seen at least a sketch of Italy. Even a Vatican visitor like me, or any primary student today, or any European intellect in the sixteen century, would not have mistaken the boot for a stump, let alone Ricci the Jesuit.  Ricci’s purpose is to evangelize China, why should he not present the most advanced and up to date geography of the Holy Land?

如果你有1602《坤輿万国全图》副本，请仔细阅读。如果你不懂中文，请找人为你翻译。那些有幸能看到这地图的往往是不堪负荷大量的中文信息。你明显回避了托斯卡纳和佛罗伦萨，这是1400年到现在，任何欧洲地图都不能忽略的。梵蒂冈的地图画廊（1580年至1585年间完成），有一个非常精确的意大利地图。利玛窦离开中国之前刚刚访问了梵蒂冈。他应该至少看过这里的意大利草图。即使像我这样的梵蒂冈游客，或任何小学生，或任何欧洲十六世纪的学者，都不会误把意大利的长筒靴绘成一个树桩，更不用说耶稣会士利玛窦。利玛窦来华的目的是为了传教，他为什么不应该介绍圣地最先进的地理？

8)     In general, you make some unfounded assumptions about what Ricci knew and didn’t know.  Your assumption of what he could know of European discoveries was limited to what he knew when he left Europe is silly.  New information, books, globes arrived with every ship.

8）总的来讲，你为利玛窦该知和不知的，做了一些毫无根据的假设。你假设他离开欧洲时的地理有局限是可笑的。新的资料，书籍，地球仪不断用船舶运来。

There is no assumption when Ricci drew an ill-shaped Italy that he should not. There is no assumption that Ricci could not have known the western part of North America, north of Baja California. It shows what the map maker knew at that time.  Are you saying “new information, books, globes arrived with every ship”, providing Ricci with information of America 200 years after Ricci’s death?

我没有假设。利玛窦不应该画了个形状别扭的意大利，不需要假设。利玛窦不可能知道北美西部和加利福尼亚州，也不需要什么假设，他是肯定不知道的，这些地理显示了地图制作者当时所知。你说的“新资料，书籍，地球仪陆续用船载来”会包括利玛窦逝世200年以后才有的信息吗？

9)     Aleni.  Since when is Aleni’s map attributed to Ricci.  Did Aleni draw on Ricci’s map and other data? Of course. But that doesn’t mean the map was done by Ricci. What does this sentence mean:  “Apparently, the correction of the world map has something to do with Ricci’s opportunity in Beijing.”?

9）艾儒略。从什么时候，艾儒略的地图归功于利玛窦？艾儒略会用利玛窦的地图和其它数据绘制地图？当然。但是，这不意味着艾儒略的地图是利玛窦完成的。“显然，（坤輿万国全图）的修正与利玛窦在北京是有关的。”这句话是什么意思？

The Vatican attributes Aleni’s map to Ricci by displaying it front and center in an official video (still available) on Youtube made for the Vatican exhibit in memory of Matteo Ricci (400 years after his death). Strangely the famous 1602 map by Ricci is installed at an inconspicuous corner at the bottom of a staircase, showing two and a half panels of the total six at an angle. No one would be able to tell this was the most famous world map by Ricci. If Aleni drew the map on Ricci’s data, why was Ricci’s map more correct and detailed than Aleni’s? The difference is Aleni came at the most turbulent years of Ming-Qing transition.  Died in Hangzhou in 1649, Aleni never had the chance to access the Imperial archive in Beijing.

认为艾儒略的地图与利玛窦有关是梵蒂冈，可见于纪念利玛窦逝世400年的官方视频，现在还留在Youtube上，用当中的位置展览了艾儒略的地图。奇怪的是，著名的《坤輿万国全图》却被安放在一个不显眼的楼梯角落，六面的地图，只出现两面半，没有人能认出这是利玛窦最有名的世界地图。如果艾儒略的地图是根据利玛窦地图的数据，为什么利玛窦的地图更正确，更详细？所不同的是艾儒略来中国是在最动荡的明清过渡时期。 1649年，他在杭州逝世，艾儒略从来没有机会参考北京故宫档案。

10)  North Ocean and South Ocean.  Good grief. I can tell you have not spent anytime  at sea sailing or around people who have. Balboa would not have to have gone far to realize that what he was seeing was no lake.  The nature of currents, tides, even the flora and fauna,etc.  People who spend years at sea learn quite a bit about it.  He did call it a sea. Of course he had no idea how big it was, or if there was yet another continent between there and China. There is certainly room for one.

10）北海和南海。天哪，我可以知道，你没有航海的经验，或与海员打过交道。巴尔博亚不必走很远就意识到他看到的不是湖。水流，潮汐，甚至动植物等，在海上花费点岁月的人都了解。他把它的称为海，但不知道它有多大，或者是否与中国之间还有的另一个大陆，当然还是有足够空间的。

What Balboa saw is limited. What Balboa saw should not be bigger than Salt Lake. It is not how big he saw that matters.  It is how accurate the Pacific maps are drawn right after his discovery (or rediscovery) and before extensive exploration of the Pacific by Captain Cook (between1766 and 1779) that amazes me. How did Ortelius come up with a map of the Pacific in 1589? One cannot assume Magellan had surveyed the entire ocean while most of the people were dying suffering from scurvy and starvation. By the way, why did Magellan head directly northwest without hugging the shoreline of Chile, as what an explorer would normally do in a strange land (Battista Agnese 1544)? What gives Magellan the confidence to cross the vast ocean? That also is question for Battista Agnese.What gives Battista Agnese the confidence to draw an empty ocean right after Magellan’s trip?

巴尔博亚所见是有限的。巴尔博亚见到的，不应大于盐湖。他看到多大，並不重要。让我吃惊的是，他发现（再发现）后，出现的太平洋地图是如此准确，和1766至1779年间库克船长广泛的勘探结果没有两样。1589年奥特里斯的太平洋地图是怎么幻想出来的？不能想像麦哲伦大多数船员死于坏血病和饥饿，却调查了整个大海洋。顺便说一句，为什么麦哲伦直接向西北走，而不贴着智利的海岸线走？这是正常的探险家在一个陌生的地方的必然路线吗（巴蒂斯塔·阿格尼斯1544年地图）？是什么让麦哲伦满怀信心穿越浩瀚的海洋？这也是巴蒂斯塔·阿格尼斯问题。是什么给了巴蒂斯塔·阿格尼斯信心，在麦哲伦的行程之后，绘制出他的路线？

11)  Good grief again.  “Pacific”?  Again, you aren’t much of a marketer. ;-) If you are trying to encourage people to come, you don’t call “the sea from hell”.  Are you sure these maps are attributed to Ricci? I have never seen that done. Have people suggested that Ricci or his map influenced those maps?Yes. That I have seen.

11）又来了，“太平洋”？同样，你不是很好的营销人员。 ;-) 如果你想鼓励人们航海，你不会命名这为“地狱海”。你确定这些地图都归功于利玛窦？我从来没有见过。有人提出过利玛窦对这些地图有影响吗？那我倒是看过的。

This is again a total misunderstanding of my paper. The other Chinese map Shan Hai YuDi Quan Tu is printed in a pictorial encyclopedia (published in 1607 with voluminous information of many disciplines). The name Ning Hai (Pacific Sea) labels a localized area west of Chile, which is a comparatively calm area of the ocean exactly as what NOAA’s wave height chart depicts today. Wave height as a function of physical geography has changed little over the past millions of years. Without being there, no one could have imagined such a name. The other European maps, having misnamed the entire ocean for “South Sea” (including north of equator) for a long time finally replaces (in 18^th century) SouthSea with Pacific Ocean, much less appropriate than the Chinese name Cang Ming Zong (the ancestor of all oceans), meaning the biggest ocean of all. The equivalent of this Chinese name never appears in any European map.  

这又是对我论文的彻底误解。《山海舆地全图》印在绘图百科全书《三才图会》上（还有大量其他信息，发表于1607年）。称为宁海（太平洋海）的地方只是智利局部海域，这是大海洋比较平静的区域，正如今天美国国家海洋大气管理局NOAA的浪高图所示。浪高是自然地理，过去数百万年来变化不大。如果没有亲自到过那里，没有人能够想像出这样一个名字。其他的欧洲地图，名不副实称整个海洋为“南海”（包括赤道以北），18世纪，太平洋终于取代南海这错误的名字，但是比中国名沧溟宗差远了，沧溟宗意味是所有海洋的祖先。与这个中国名字相若的名字从来没有出现在任何欧洲地图。

12)  If you are right and this map was drawn in 1430.  Where was it for the intervening 200 years? You argument that the maritime ban effects the interchange of information and “diplomatic relations” makes too many assumptions. There was still overland trade and people moving back and forth.

12）如果你是对的，这个图是在1430年成图，中间200年，它在哪？你的论点认为海禁影响信息交流和“外交关系”，采用了太多假设。陆路贸易和人员来回还是有的。

The original map, before Matteo Ricci filled in a few names, was apparently kept in the imperial archive. It was hidden by court officials who were against the maritime expeditions. The emperor Cheng Hua (reign1465-1487) wanted to resume maritime exploration but was told that all of Zheng He’s documents were destroyed. To legitimize the presence the map, the courtiers in Wanli era (1573-1620) pretended that it was brought by Matteo Ricci. This only possible explanation is of course never recorded in history. However,this was done in a hurry, leaving too many flaws that expose the true authorship and timing. The secret is finally exposed in my presentation at the International Zheng He Conference, Melaka, 2010.

利玛窦没有加上一些他带来的的地名以前，《坤輿万国全图》原作显然是存放在宫城的档案库，由于官员反对大航海被藏匿。成化皇帝（1465-1487）想恢复海上勘探，但大臣说，所有郑和的文件已被毁。万历年间（1573-1620），大臣为了使地图存在合法化，趁利玛窦来华，报称是利玛窦带来的。这唯一可能的解释当然不会被载入史册。然而，事出匆忙，留下马脚太多，暴露真实作者和时间，我在2010年马六甲的国家郑和会议上揭开了这秘密。

One could go on and on.  This paper is deeply flawed as are its conclusions. But I don’t expect you to care since it is clear that this has more to do with what you want to believe than what the facts support.

我们可以一直继续下去。这论文的结论有很大的缺陷。但我不期望你会介意，因为显然，你只相信你想相信的，而不是事实。

I could not have put it better as you said to describe your attitude, evading scientific evidence of the discrepancies of world maps by Ortelius, Mercator, Waldseemueller, and Martino Martini, which is the core idea of this paper. The 1602 Chinese world map is called Impossible Black Tulip for a good reason (in fact, many good reasons). It shows an outdated Europe 200 years before Ricci, and an America that is only known to Europeans 200 years later.  Overlooking the geographically accurate Chinese names of western North America is a clear elusion from the truth, a good excuse for most cartographers who don’t read Chinese and know little about Chinese history. Failure to accept the many facts I laid out reveals academic hypocrisy and lack of objectivity. What I have included in this paper is merely a small fraction of all the evidence, which continues to surface.Besides the 1602 world map, the fact that Ming Chinese were in America is supported by plenty of evidence in relics and sites, which won’t be discussed here.  

The review I received does not reflect a knowledgeable cartography researcher. I am disappointed that my high expectation for scientific and unbiased critique is answered with preconceived opinion and elusive comments that adds nothing to academic pursuit of truth.

I still have to thank you for spending the little time to go over my paper.  Three other potential reviewers I contacted just excuse themselves to avoid facing the facts in fear of political incorrectness. I would include in my paper your comments verbatim and my response without disclosing your identity.

我不能更好用你的话来形容你的态度。你回避奥特里斯，墨卡托，瓦德斯穆勒和卫匡国地图的科学证据和矛盾，这是本文的核心理念。 1602年的《坤輿万国全图》被称为“不可能的黑郁金香”是有很好的理由（其实有很多很好的理由）。它显示了一个利玛窦200年前的欧洲，和欧洲人200年后才知道的美洲西部。你忽略北美西部的中文准确标志的地名。一般地图学家很好的借口是不懂中文和中国历史。您回避我摆开的许多事实，只表明学术伪善和缺乏客观性。我在本文的列举的仅仅是所有证据的一小部分。除了《坤輿万国全图》，还有大量中国文物古迹证据在美国，这里不在讨论范围。

我收到的这份审阅意见，不反映一个知识渊博的地图学家。令我失望的是，我对科学和公正的批评寄予厚望，得到的回答却是成见和遁词，对追求真理丝毫没有帮助。

我还是要感谢你花费那么一点时间去阅读我的论文。其他三个我接触的可能审稿人，因为害怕沾上政治不正确性而不面对事实，不参与审阅。我会把您的评论一字不误，和我的辩词一起与论文发表，并不公开你的身份。

[1]The works of Hubert Howe Bancroft: History of the northwest coast. 1886

------------

以上把审阅者的评语和我的辩词一起，让大家看到，期望一份不合西方中心论的论文在西方得到公平的评价，是很难的。为了将来更好抗拒攻击，我保留公开该审评人身份的可能。