I have this book at home here. It looks fascinating but I haven't had the time to actually read it since I bought it. The premise is that a fleet was dispatched from China to explore the world in 1421 CE, and they did just that, reaching the Americas 70 years ahead of Columbus and visiting Arfica, Greenland, Australia etc.
Has anyone read this? I'll get time someday but I was interested in everyone's thoughts. Is there archaeology to back up the claim?
Jim
1421 - the year China Discovered the World
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
-
oldarchystudent
- Posts: 562
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:34 am
- Location: Canada
1421 - the year China Discovered the World
My karma ran over my dogma.
I take it you have the Gavin Menzies book ?
I have read a few supporting articles usually to do with the Zheng He map
which if genuine is compelling evidence .
http://www.heritageeast.com/history/142 ... merica.htm
Though I have read many articles debunking Menzies Theory
http://www.kenspy.com/Menzies/
Also found
Claims by Mr. Menzies followed by facts
1. Claim: Four eunuch admirals Hong Bao, Zhou Man, Zhou Wen and Yang Qing - led fleets to the Americas, Australia, Greenland and the Antarctic during voyages between 1421 and 1423.
Fact: There are no Chinese or other texts which suggest in any way that these four eunuchs, or any other Ming commanders, traveled anywhere at all beyond Asia, the Middle East and the East coast of Africa. All other voyages derive solely from Mr. Menzies' imagination. Further, the currents, winds and dates Menzies cites in support would not have carried the ships anywhere near where he claims. In short, there is no archaeological, textual or archival material to support the Menzies thesis as set down in '1421'. In this book Menzies intentionally distorts known materials and deliberately alters known facts in order to support his thesis.
2. Claim: Sailors and concubines from these fleets settled in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand and islands across the Pacific. In evidence, he cites studies of "recent" inflow of "Chinese genes" and "East Asian DNA" into the Americas.
Fact: There is no evidence of Ming settlement sites in, or even Ming knowledge, of these places until the arrival of the Jesuits in China in the 16th century. The genetic evidence on which Menzies relies is provided by a company whose genetic tests have been labelled a 'scam' by Stephen O'Brien, the US National Cancer Institute's laboratory chief.
3. Claim: There exists a range of wrecks of the ships from these voyages spread around the world, and these are proof of the voyages claimed by Menzies.
Fact: Not one wreck which can be linked with the eunuch voyages in the first 30 years of the 15th century (or indeed any Chinese wreck) has been identified outside of the Asian region.
4. Claim: The Ming voyagers built celestial observation platforms at 24 places across the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Menzies names and provides coordinates for these platforms. ('1421', pp. 416/17, 457).
Fact: There is no textual or archaeological evidence to even begin to suggest that the Ming voyagers built observation platforms anywhere in the world. Again, their existence derives only from the fertile imagination of Mr. Menzies.
5. Claim: The Ming armadas left a range of other built structures around the world, particularly in Australasia and the Americas, including the Newport Round Tower, the Gympie pyramid and other structures and mines. They also left a ship's slipway made of stones on the Bimini islands in the Caribbean.
Fact: Not one of the structures Mr. Menzies cites has been shown to have any links with China. The Bimini 'slipway', which is in any case parallel to the shore, has been shown to be a completely natural formation.
6. Claim: The Chinese "were aware that the earth was a globe and had divided it into 365 and a quarter degrees (the number of days in the year) of latitude and longitude". ('1421', p. 449)
Fact: There is no evidence that during the early Ming, the Chinese had any knowledge of the earth as a globe and certainly none that they were aware of latitude and longitude.
7. Claim: The Ming voyagers surveyed South America, Antarctica, North America and the Atlantic as well as Australasia. "The whole world was accurately charted by 1428." ('1421', p. 411).
Fact: There is no text or other evidence which suggests that the Ming voyagers went anywhere near these places and no Chinese maps which indicate any surveying of these places. Further, there are no contemporary Ming artifacts found in any of these regions.
8. Claim: A range of European maps show anomalies which can only be explained by accepting the Chinese voyages proposed by Mr. Menzies as having taken place.
Fact: The cartographic anomalies which Mr. Menzies points to, real or imagined, can be explained through many avenues, the most likely being that Arab navigators, who had been traveling these waters for 600 years before the Chinese, had produced maps of areas they traveled to.
9. Claim: Mr. Menzies noted that the Venetian Niccolo da Conti was the crucial and only link between Chinese and European cartographers. Menzies claims that he participated in the voyages over several years and carried Chinese maps back to Europe. He notes that Da Conti "had spent years aboard a junk of the treasure fleet" and that "Chinese maps passed from Da Conti to Fra Mauro, and from him to Dom Pedro of Portugal and Prince Henry the Navigator." ('1421', pp. 369, 84-87, 92-93).
Fact: Da Conti, who left us detailed accounts of his travels, recounts neither meeting any Ming envoy in Calicut, nor traveling on any Chinese ship for even a day, nor seeing or receiving any Chinese maps showing a new world. The utter and complete contempt for truth with which Menzies depicts these events is disheartening.
10. Claim: Mr. Menzies claims that a number of mylodons (a type of giant sloth) had been taken from South America to New Zealand and China by the Ming ships.
Fact: All available evidence suggests that the Mylodon has been extinct for several thousand years, which militates somewhat against the likely veracity of Mr. Menzies' claims in this respect. But such sloppy research is found throughout the volume. He notes, for example, rubber trees in Malacca 450 years before they had been introduced from South America by the British, etc., etc. ad nauseam.
Since no real factual evidence has been found and the map is supposed to be a copy , I would have to agree with the debunkers unless more solid proof surfaces.
I have read a few supporting articles usually to do with the Zheng He map
which if genuine is compelling evidence .
http://www.heritageeast.com/history/142 ... merica.htm
Though I have read many articles debunking Menzies Theory
http://www.kenspy.com/Menzies/
Also found
Claims by Mr. Menzies followed by facts
1. Claim: Four eunuch admirals Hong Bao, Zhou Man, Zhou Wen and Yang Qing - led fleets to the Americas, Australia, Greenland and the Antarctic during voyages between 1421 and 1423.
Fact: There are no Chinese or other texts which suggest in any way that these four eunuchs, or any other Ming commanders, traveled anywhere at all beyond Asia, the Middle East and the East coast of Africa. All other voyages derive solely from Mr. Menzies' imagination. Further, the currents, winds and dates Menzies cites in support would not have carried the ships anywhere near where he claims. In short, there is no archaeological, textual or archival material to support the Menzies thesis as set down in '1421'. In this book Menzies intentionally distorts known materials and deliberately alters known facts in order to support his thesis.
2. Claim: Sailors and concubines from these fleets settled in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand and islands across the Pacific. In evidence, he cites studies of "recent" inflow of "Chinese genes" and "East Asian DNA" into the Americas.
Fact: There is no evidence of Ming settlement sites in, or even Ming knowledge, of these places until the arrival of the Jesuits in China in the 16th century. The genetic evidence on which Menzies relies is provided by a company whose genetic tests have been labelled a 'scam' by Stephen O'Brien, the US National Cancer Institute's laboratory chief.
3. Claim: There exists a range of wrecks of the ships from these voyages spread around the world, and these are proof of the voyages claimed by Menzies.
Fact: Not one wreck which can be linked with the eunuch voyages in the first 30 years of the 15th century (or indeed any Chinese wreck) has been identified outside of the Asian region.
4. Claim: The Ming voyagers built celestial observation platforms at 24 places across the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Menzies names and provides coordinates for these platforms. ('1421', pp. 416/17, 457).
Fact: There is no textual or archaeological evidence to even begin to suggest that the Ming voyagers built observation platforms anywhere in the world. Again, their existence derives only from the fertile imagination of Mr. Menzies.
5. Claim: The Ming armadas left a range of other built structures around the world, particularly in Australasia and the Americas, including the Newport Round Tower, the Gympie pyramid and other structures and mines. They also left a ship's slipway made of stones on the Bimini islands in the Caribbean.
Fact: Not one of the structures Mr. Menzies cites has been shown to have any links with China. The Bimini 'slipway', which is in any case parallel to the shore, has been shown to be a completely natural formation.
6. Claim: The Chinese "were aware that the earth was a globe and had divided it into 365 and a quarter degrees (the number of days in the year) of latitude and longitude". ('1421', p. 449)
Fact: There is no evidence that during the early Ming, the Chinese had any knowledge of the earth as a globe and certainly none that they were aware of latitude and longitude.
7. Claim: The Ming voyagers surveyed South America, Antarctica, North America and the Atlantic as well as Australasia. "The whole world was accurately charted by 1428." ('1421', p. 411).
Fact: There is no text or other evidence which suggests that the Ming voyagers went anywhere near these places and no Chinese maps which indicate any surveying of these places. Further, there are no contemporary Ming artifacts found in any of these regions.
8. Claim: A range of European maps show anomalies which can only be explained by accepting the Chinese voyages proposed by Mr. Menzies as having taken place.
Fact: The cartographic anomalies which Mr. Menzies points to, real or imagined, can be explained through many avenues, the most likely being that Arab navigators, who had been traveling these waters for 600 years before the Chinese, had produced maps of areas they traveled to.
9. Claim: Mr. Menzies noted that the Venetian Niccolo da Conti was the crucial and only link between Chinese and European cartographers. Menzies claims that he participated in the voyages over several years and carried Chinese maps back to Europe. He notes that Da Conti "had spent years aboard a junk of the treasure fleet" and that "Chinese maps passed from Da Conti to Fra Mauro, and from him to Dom Pedro of Portugal and Prince Henry the Navigator." ('1421', pp. 369, 84-87, 92-93).
Fact: Da Conti, who left us detailed accounts of his travels, recounts neither meeting any Ming envoy in Calicut, nor traveling on any Chinese ship for even a day, nor seeing or receiving any Chinese maps showing a new world. The utter and complete contempt for truth with which Menzies depicts these events is disheartening.
10. Claim: Mr. Menzies claims that a number of mylodons (a type of giant sloth) had been taken from South America to New Zealand and China by the Ming ships.
Fact: All available evidence suggests that the Mylodon has been extinct for several thousand years, which militates somewhat against the likely veracity of Mr. Menzies' claims in this respect. But such sloppy research is found throughout the volume. He notes, for example, rubber trees in Malacca 450 years before they had been introduced from South America by the British, etc., etc. ad nauseam.
Since no real factual evidence has been found and the map is supposed to be a copy , I would have to agree with the debunkers unless more solid proof surfaces.
-
oldarchystudent
- Posts: 562
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:34 am
- Location: Canada
-
oldarchystudent
- Posts: 562
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:34 am
- Location: Canada
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16036
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
I took it out of the library....a lot cheaper. I gave up on it after about 150 pages.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Sam Salmon
- Posts: 349
- Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: Vancouver-by-the-Sea
-
oldarchystudent
- Posts: 562
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:34 am
- Location: Canada
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16036
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16036
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
It always seemed unreasonable that such a fleet would have ignored the Portuguese and English coasts.
Would have made more sense for them to have sailed to Gibraltar than Rhode Island...or wherever the hell he claimed they went.
Would have made more sense for them to have sailed to Gibraltar than Rhode Island...or wherever the hell he claimed they went.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Guest
here is the actual website address:
http://www.1421.tv/
discovery channel had a 2 hour documentery on this topic. the first hour they presented the theory then the last hour rips menzies as they had him in an interview while presenting what other experts said.
menzies looked very foolish at times which was disappointing as there are records of the fleet but their travels were not that extensive.
http://www.1421.tv/maps.asp
given the response menzies recieves from around the world,
http://www.1421.tv/evidence.asp
this has to remain an open topic till the detractors provide proof of its falsehood.
just in case you want tosee the evidence menzies has:
http://www.1421.tv/pages/evidence/index.asp
http://www.1421.tv/
discovery channel had a 2 hour documentery on this topic. the first hour they presented the theory then the last hour rips menzies as they had him in an interview while presenting what other experts said.
menzies looked very foolish at times which was disappointing as there are records of the fleet but their travels were not that extensive.
i would dispute this as there are some records, and stele plus a statue of Zheng He (the actuall leader of the fleet) it is said that all written records were burnt by the emporer's son who did not agreewith his father's priorities. it is a convenient story which is hard to prove.There are no Chinese or other texts which suggest in any way that these four eunuchs
i can concur here as the claim is based on oral not written records.Sailors and concubines from these fleets settled in the Americas
actually this is still debatable at present and the deterinations are based upon theory not actual excavation. i have not come across any records that have excavated those claims. if there are a link would be nice please.Not one wreck which can be linked with the eunuch voyages in the first 30 years of the 15th century (or indeed any Chinese wreck) has been identified outside of the Asian region
i would concur here.There is no textual or archaeological evidence to even begin to suggest that the Ming voyagers built observation platforms anywhere in the world
i have my doubts here but it could possibly be the same type of situation as the underwater monument in japan.The Bimini 'slipway', which is in any case parallel to the shore, has been shown to be a completely natural formation
i would disagree here as that is not conclusive enough to conclude. it is a possibility that they did have the knowledge because we donot have all the records nor can we be sure if they weren't destroyed by some anti-scientific chinese creationist. {the word creationist is the joke not the other partof the sentence}There is no evidence that during the early Ming
i can disagree here solely based upon the subjectivity of the conclusion. we do not know for sure and i doubt itf we will ever know.There is no text or other evidence which suggests that the Ming voyagers went anywhere near these places and no Chinese maps which indicate any surveying of these places
yes, menzies is very weak here but again he may be on to something and i am leaving this one on the open to possibility file.The cartographic anomalies which Mr. Menzies points to, real or imagined, can be explained through many avenues
i would like to read this for myself, do you have any links tothis please? also here is the map page at the 1421 site so you can study it yourself:Da Conti, who left us detailed accounts of his travels, recounts neither meeting any Ming envoy in Calicut, nor traveling on any Chinese ship for even a day,
http://www.1421.tv/maps.asp
though not totally disagreeing with this point, it is a possibility given the accuracy of the claims of those who declare something extinct.All available evidence suggests that the Mylodon has been extinct for several thousand years, which militates somewhat against the likely veracity of Mr. Menzies' claims in this respect
i think i will disagree with the first part of that statement and agree with the second part concerning needing more evidence. i hold to the possibility because it is just that; a possibility. again we can see 'the club' mentality at work in debunking this theory because it goes against accepted thought. now menzies maybe off his rocker but i disagree with attitudes that do not encourage investigation whenit is warranted.Since no real factual evidence has been found and the map is supposed to be a copy , I would have to agree with the debunkers unless more solid proof surfaces.
given the response menzies recieves from around the world,
http://www.1421.tv/evidence.asp
this has to remain an open topic till the detractors provide proof of its falsehood.
just in case you want tosee the evidence menzies has:
http://www.1421.tv/pages/evidence/index.asp