1421

[1889]

Cool link Birdjaguar. National Geographic and Dr. Spencer are collecting data so they can check his theory though. He thinks he knows when and why those genetic markers became important but he still needs an enormous amount of data before he can verify his conclusions. I'll be interested in reading his results in 2010.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Cool link Birdjaguar. National Geographic and Dr. Spencer are collecting data so they can check his theory though. He thinks he knows when and why those genetic markers became important but he still needs an enormous amount of data before he can verify his conclusions. I'll be interested in reading his results in 2010.

Our family contributed, twice.

 

[Mesix]

Theories about China circumnavigating the world are preciesly part of the reason why I named China the most overrated civilization in terms of influence.

The chinese achieved much, but probably not even 1/3rd of what some people claim they achieved.

I have to agree with you.

Years ago I did a report on the Celtic civilization. I was surprised to find out that almost all the primary sources were written by Romans as they conquered Gaul. The Celts did not keep written records of their history or accomplishments and made a lot of advances that the world does not credit to them.

"Why do I bring this up?" you might ask. One historian thought that the Celts, and not the Chinese, may have invented gunpowder. Julius Caesar wrote that Celts performed ceremonies in which the sound of thunder could be heard and that smoke filled the air but there did not seem to be enough fire to produce such smoke. The had other "evidence" to back up his theory as well, and suggested that the process to produce gunpowder may have been taught by word of mouth for 100s of years before someone eventually taught it to the Chinese.

Both theories (hypothesis?) of gunpowder and the Chinese mariners discovering the new world are interesting to debate. Since we can't go back in time, there will never be a difinative answer.

From a historical perspective, which is more important to know. Who first did something, or who made an important change by doing it? Maybe the Chinese or the Vikings did discover the new world before Columbus. So what? Columbus was the one who reported back to the European powers of the riches in store accross the ocean. The colonies they formed are what bacame the modern nations that exist today. Likewise, maybe the Celts did know how to produce a primitive gunpowder that they used in ceremonies. Who cares? The Chinese use of gunpowder to make fireworks and primitive projectiles had a much more profound impact on history.

 

[Reiko]

It was a very compelling book. I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

From a historical perspective, which is more important to know. Who first did something, or who made an important change by doing it? Maybe the Chinese or the Vikings did discover the new world before Columbus. So what? Columbus was the one who reported back to the European powers of the riches in store accross the ocean. The colonies they formed are what bacame the modern nations that exist today. Likewise, maybe the Celts did know how to produce a primitive gunpowder that they used in ceremonies. Who cares? The Chinese use of gunpowder to make fireworks and primitive projectiles had a much more profound impact on history.

I think though you can say that the Vikings discovered the New world. They had a settlement at l'anse aux meadows in Newfoundland if you count that as the New World. More to the point I think that what you said is really whats important even if China discovered America it only matters if they made an impact that changed the whole world and altered the New world like the europeans did. They didn't so it really doesn't matter.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Yes. If China discovered America... and didn't do anything about all that free nations-to-be-culturally-assimilated, well... they made a huge mistake. Because the Europeans took over, that is why we are speaking a Germanic and/or Romance languages. That is what matters.

 

[Antilogic]

On the DNA "evidence" he proposes...I have a background in Biochemistry, so I wouldn't mind taking a look at it. Unfortunately, I've never seen it presented. Can anyone post a link to the evidence he claims supports his position so I can take a look at it?

 

[cybrxkhan]

heres the 1421 website: http://www.1421.tv/

 

[Antilogic]

Here is my issue with his evidence page: I am looking for an article in a journal that specifically compares genetic markers. Instead, all I get is stuff like this:

The author's conclusion that Chinese seafarers and concubines settled in Malaysia, India, Africa, the Americas, Australasia, and across the Pacific, almost a century before the Europeans started their historic voyages of exploration has come up against a great deal of opposition. However, with the publication of the paperback in October 2003, and the posting of 'Synopsis of Evidence 17' on the 1421 website, people will surely begin to take off their historical blinkers and adopt a more open attitude to interpretations of world history. The historical purists have constantly stood their ground in the belief that Magellan’s expedition was the first to circumnavigate the globe, and that the supporting cast of Columbus, da Gama and Cook were the pioneers of their day. Nonetheless there is overwhelming evidence on this website to support the author’s claim that the Chinese reached the great continents years before the Europeans first set foot there.

Nice paragraph, but this isn't any evidence, it's just filler text. The reason why I'm not taking off those "historical blinkers" is because you haven't given me nay reason to take them off.

By the time the paperback is published on 2nd October, we hope to have DNA results of 43 people whom we believe are descendents of Zheng He’s sailors. To date we have 30, with 13 to go. These 13 are:

North America

Haida of Queen Charlotte Islands
Concows of Chico, California
Gallinomero of Healdsburg, California
Ming Ho of W. Virginia
Melungeons of N. Carolina
Wydants of Rhode Island

Australia

Gunditjmara of Warrnambool
Nyungah speakers of South-West
Aborigines of Darwin
Aborigines of Fraser Island

New Zealand

Waitaha of South Island

South Africa

Pate Islanders
Namaquas – “Chinese Hottentots”

Okay...where are the other 30 names? Care to share, and show which genetic markers that are in common with native Americans?

Finally, I come across this: http://www.1421.tv/assets_cm/files/pdf/1421_biblio.pdf, a bibliography for the book. Can someone indicate where I should look in those 44 pages where he references sources for genetic markers? I searched for the words "genetic", "marker", "dna", "genome" and a few more and came up negative each time. I don't know which chapter he makes a reference to the genetics, so if anyone who has read it more recently can point me in the right direction, I would be thrilled...

Why should we believe anything the book says?

In total, some 34 different lines of evidence have been found to support the theory that the Chinese circumnavigated and charted the globe, a century before the Europeans staked claim to having done so. The evidence is overwhelming, and encompasses both physical entities, (such as shipwrecks of Chinese junks in America, Australasia and Indonesia,) and examples such as the carved stones of Africa, the remains of Chinese peoples in South America, and artefacts scattered all over the world, inscribed with Chinese characters, in Chinese styles, and some successfully dated back to before the arrival of the Europeans.

Well, that question and answer page wasn't any more helpful than the last. 34 lines of evidence...and some are successfully dated back to before the arrival of Europeans? What about the others? A percentage, please? Maybe some pictures? I remember having a similar gripe with his book when I read it...he didn't seem to have as many pictures of these things he was describing, and he seemed to only listen to sources that gave him the answer he wanted.

I finally found a list of sources for his material on genetics by searching the evidence on his home page...took me long enough to find something. It's in "Part IV. Papers referred to in a Genetics Study", if anyone else is interested.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Here is my issue with his evidence page: I am looking for an article in a journal that specifically compares genetic markers. Instead, all I get is stuff like this:



Nice paragraph, but this isn't any evidence, it's just filler text. The reason why I'm not taking off those "historical blinkers" is because you haven't given me nay reason to take them off.



Okay...where are the other 30 names? Care to share, and show which genetic markers that are in common with native Americans?

Finally, I come across this: http://www.1421.tv/assets_cm/files/pdf/1421_biblio.pdf, a bibliography for the book. Can someone indicate where I should look in those 44 pages where he references sources for genetic markers? I searched for the words "genetic", "marker", "dna", "genome" and a few more and came up negative each time. I don't know which chapter he makes a reference to the genetics, so if anyone who has read it more recently can point me in the right direction, I would be thrilled...



Well, that question and answer page wasn't any more helpful than the last. 34 lines of evidence...and some are successfully dated back to before the arrival of Europeans? What about the others? A percentage, please? Maybe some pictures? I remember having a similar gripe with his book when I read it...he didn't seem to have as many pictures of these things he was describing, and he seemed to only listen to sources that gave him the answer he wanted.

I finally found a list of sources for his material on genetics by searching the evidence on his home page...took me long enough to find something. It's in "Part IV. Papers referred to in a Genetics Study", if anyone else is interested.

Thanks. I will look for it.

EDIT: I looked and saw nothing that resembled a Part 4 other than Chapter 4 and it didn't have any papers on genetics. Can you post a page in the Bibliography or copy and paste the citation? Thanks.

 

[Antilogic]

Thanks. I will look for it.

EDIT: I looked and saw nothing that resembled a Part 4 other than Chapter 4 and it didn't have any papers on genetics. Can you post a page in the Bibliography or copy and paste the citation? Thanks.

I actually don't have a copy of the book with me, I just searched for "genetic" on the main page thing that says search the evidence (it's in the middle of the page) or something else like that. I have a lot of work that has to be done by Friday, so I might not get the chance to look at any of these papers by the weekend.

I didn't find any references in the book's bibliography by searching for "genetics", "genetic", "dna", or any other number of keywords.

 

[Serutan]

Or did they?

The period between 1420 - 1492 was one of great change in Mesoamerica. The Aztecs and Incas rise from obscurity to become the dominant power, while the powerful Mayan state of Mayapan collapses, and the culture of the Anasazi and the Missisippi valley both disappears around this time. It's too much of a coincidence imho.

The Anasazi were long gone by then. There isn't definitive proof, but it's hard
to believe their disappearance at the same time a massive drought occurred
(late 1200s-early 1300s) is coincidence. Espcially since there *is* evidence that
the area was overpopulated just before the drought started.

 

[Evie]

I'm about midway through the book, and I can't help but notice the paucity of evidence when it comes to the Americas. It's essentially all the Piri Reis map (which I note does NOT show the Tierra del Fuego much if at all). Plus the annoyingly ubiquitous Mylodon.

That the Treasure Fleets would have reached further than we know they did is easily believable, IF there is indeed a 2-years gap in their sailing record (1421-23). That they would have made it to the Cape and to Australia, I could easily believe. The oral history he presents to support it, and the fact that these just aren't particularly extraordinary claim (I mean, it,s at the limits of the Indian Ocean, and we know China had an interest in the Indian ocean)

Beyond that? I think he goes far out on a limb with very little to support it. Particularly when he starts on about colonies. Honestly, I actually have an easier time believing the Treasure Fleet sucesfully sailed around the world long before Magellan than believing they actually started colonies. And I have a hard time believing that.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Well....The mylodon is hard to believe, but I fell asleep when I was reading that bit

 

[lutzj]

Yeah. Right. So you suppose all that evidence was jsut made up?

Yes. Ten characters.

 

[Tee Kay]

Maybe not outright made up, but what evidences there are are thin and inconclusive.

It doesn't make much difference anyway. We can put the Chinese in as a "maybe", but it is Columbus' voyages that have a much more significant impact.

 

[Generaltsao]

Sorry I did not have the time to read all the posts so I am not sure if any of what I am about to say was mentioned. A couple of years I decided to read this book for a college Asian history course. It was a good read and at first I thought some of the things Menzies mentioned could be true but part of the assignment was to critique the book with a scholarly book review. Lets just say every review I read ripped the book to shreds.

Many things Menzies mentions in the book are completely made up(On the top of my head I can remember his explaination of how they used otters to corral fish into nets). Many of the scholors believed he got his "evidence" in the reverse order. Such as non native Sea Otters being spotted by New Zealand(I think), BAM, the ships must have had otters on board(plus he invented a use for them). Or the possibility that the fleet left marking stones on islands on the way, BAM, they must have had stone carvers on board. Even though there is no evidence to support it, well, besides strange stones on the opposite side of the world from China.

So if any of you that have read the book want to get a good laugh do please try to locate one of these reviews.

 

[gangleri2001]

If chinese were the first civ to circumnavigate the world, then their ships would move faster LOL

 

[pawpaw]

If chinese were the first civ to circumnavigate the world, then their ships would move faster LOL

Their ships weren't that good--they were JUNK

 

[Tee Kay]

Alright, let's compare the size of the "Treasure Ships" and 15th century Portuguese caravels.

So Chinese junks were larger, more sophisticated and more seaworthy than any European ships. Given the Chinese navigational knowhow, a voyage to the Americas is a possibility, but not a certainty.

Anyway, I think we're forgetting Zheng He's real significance. His voyages pretty much secured Chinese dominance of the Indian Ocean trade route east of India, even after the arrival of the Spanish and Portuguese. His voyages were also a factor in the large scale Chinese immigration to South East Asia from the 14th century onwards.