The 1421 Theory

[Rambuchan]

A man called Gavin Menzies released a book called "1421: The Year China Discovered the World." He now has a website containing the updates to the research done for the book. It is here: http://www.1421.tv/


To briefly summarise:

Menzies claims that the combined (and then separated) fleets of Zheng He's treasure ships embarked on an extraordinary journey around the world and was in fact first to circumnavigate it. Making his fleets the first to do so, nearly a century before Magellan did and making his men the first to 'discover' America. Incidentally America was already known to the Chinese in about 900AD and was referred to a Fusang.

The evidence provided seems solid. I am reading the book atm. He uses medieval charts, identifies carved stones left at sites from China to Africa, identifies species of animals peculiar to both S. America and China (types of chickens for eg), actual accounts of these journeys in Zheng He's diaries as well as those of other explorers who accompanied him. The accounts of Nicholas Di Conti and two significant world maps of the time - Fra Mauro's Map and The Piri Reis: Read about it and see it here. Both these maps detailed areas of the world (Patagonia & West Africa) which had not been explored by Europeans. So who explored and charted these areas if not Europeans? The same areas are exactly where journeys are described in diaries and chronicles in China's archives.


The implications of this theory are massive. It means, amongst many other things:

- That Columbus, Diaz, De Gama, Magellan etc were NOT sailing into the unknown but were in fact following the routes which had been taken by Zheng He's fleets.

- They were the first to successfully travel the southern seas and chart them. Hitherto, major sea exploration had to be north of the equator as mariners only knew how to navigate by the pole star.

- First to navigate round horn of Africa, opening up a sea route to Asia as Europeans would see it.

- They were the first to open up knowledge that Asia was accessible via the Cape of Good Hope (tip of S. America).

- That the maps the Chinese were using actually passed into European (Vienna and Portugal) hands and this triggered the massive ocean going impetus that then shaped the world as we know it today.


Also interesting is the fact that these fleets objectives were to:

- Bring nations into China's tribute system
- Collect knowledge of flora and fauna
- Map the world, especially in the southern hemisphere

- Not conquest



It seems many people discount this theory. Do you? Why?

 

[Rambuchan]

BTW - I am currently convinced by the work I've read. It connects with many other things I have read and his analysis of the two maps mentioned above is bang on the money. I actually bought this book for a section I would come to on the Imago Mundi thread and he says many things about these maps which I had already read before. Indeed his experience as a submarine captain seems to have given him the insight needed to make such interpretations and connections in these maps. He has the mind of an explorer / mariner.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

I've never studied the theory in any depth. I do know, however, that it is rejected by most historians, and I'm fairly certain there's a website somewhere out there that refutes large parts of it.

But, I don't want this thread to be about that. In fact, for the purposes of this thread, I will assume that the 1421 theory is true. I will then argue that it is irrelevant, as it had no real implications on World History.

Primarily, my points will be the following:
-- The Chinese did not conquer, colonize, or otherwise change the areas which they explored. In other words, they made no lasting impact. The European powers certainly did.
-- The Chinese did not translate their early naval prowess into long-term naval power or even naval presence. They ceased to exist as a sea power after these voyages.
-- The Chinese did not prompt European exploration, which developed independently for different reasons. (i.e., the Ottoman Empire)
-- The technologies invented by the Chinese are irrelevant, because they are not the ancestors of our technology today. Our naval technology today is developed from European advancements made centuries later. To borrow a term from biology, Chinese naval technology is an evolutionary dead end.

Moreover, the argument that Chinese maps fell into European hands, while more interesting, I think is just about equally as irrelevant. Even if Columbus did have Chinese maps of the world, he clearly displayed a piss-poor understanding of them. Moreover, Magellean and Drake clearly stumbled into their namesake passages; they had no prior knowledge of them. If Europeans knew the makeup of South America, the Europeans in the know were not the ones navigating the ships, and as such were irrelevant.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I don't really believe it would change my views or the worlds for that matter really. I think the British would have gotten really cranky and attacked. I think they would've wanted credit for it.

But this is probably all wrong because the Chinese would have been able to circumnavigate the world long before the British would have been able to.

Though if they made a logical case and backed it up with suffiecient evidence I would be obliged by my nature to accept it.

Ram: Did you see the post I put on Page 7 on your scenario thread?

 

[SeleucusNicator]

An example to illustrate the concept of "first" vs. "first relevant".

Say that, for example, I invent a perpetual motion machine. In fact, I even make a few machines and use them around my house for chores. But I do not go out and change the world with them; nor do I pass the technology to anyone.

Then, 20 years from now, Adler17 makes a perpetual motion machine of his own and uses it to create weapons, with which he uses to conquer all Central Europe. I.e., he actually makes a strategic impact.

In this example, I am irrelevant. Sure, I was there first, and I'm sure that on the World History forum there will be a "cult of SN" who hang out in threads about Adler and say that Adler is overrated because I was there first, who will say that there is a "German bias", etc., but ultimately my discovery means nothing because it had no impact on the world. It didn't even lead to Adler's independent invention in any sense.

 

[Panzerking]

I find this topic very interesting. I was not familiar with this theory (prior to today) but the possibility of advanced civillisations crossing the oceans has intrigued me for a long time. I see no reason why this could not be plausible and if this indeed transpires to be true then it is an amazing discovery(whether the Chinese made a long lasting impact or not).

 

[Jorge]

Also interesting is the fact that these fleets objectives were to:

- Bring nations into China's tribute system
- Collect knowledge of flora and fauna
- Map the world, especially in the southern hemisphere

- Not conquest



It seems many people discount this theory. Do you? Why?

If one of the objectives was to map the world, where are the maps they draw?

 

[Rambuchan]

I've never studied the theory in any depth. I do know, however, that it is rejected by most historians, and I'm fairly certain there's a website somewhere out there that refutes large parts of it.

But, I don't want this thread to be about that. In fact, for the purposes of this thread, I will assume that the 1421 theory is true. I will then argue that it is irrelevant, as it had no real implications on World History.

I too shall assume it is true.

However I quite disagree that it was an insignificant mission.

Primarily, my points will be the following:
-- The Chinese did not conquer, colonize, or otherwise change the areas which they explored. In other words, they made no lasting impact. The European powers certainly did.

OK they had less impact on those places. However this was never the intention. The intention was to spread the news of China's glory and to bring other kingdoms into China's elaborate tribute system. Other reasons for the mission are stated above. But they happened to make a lasting impact by virute of what they bequethed to the Europeans...

There was also an obstacle to the fleets achieving any hegemonic claims as you would have liked them to have achieved...

-- The Chinese did not translate their early naval prowess into long-term naval power or even naval presence. They ceased to exist as a sea power after these voyages.

This is because a lighting bolt struck the newly erected Forbidden Palace and it was taken as a bad omen against an already ailing Emperor Zhu Di. As he fell from power so did the impetus to maintain the missions and indeed the records (nearly all) were burnt. Europe otoh maintained their commitment to naval enterprise, whereas the Chinese turned inward with a change in Emperor. The intention was to maintain the treasure ship fleets and indeed to circumnavigate the globe.

-- The Chinese did not prompt European exploration, which developed independently for different reasons. (i.e., the Ottoman Empire)

Well this is the real crux of the matter. Because they very much did prompt European exploration.

The Horn of Africa: Note that the Fra Mauro map shows the tip of Africa. That's the first record of Africa being navigable which people like Henry the Navigator was aware of. Again. This map came out before Europeans had ever made this journey. So they were encouraged to do so by such news and the already stated need to access Asia beyond the Ottomans, and the ability to do so was confirmed. So they went forth!

Cape Verde: The Chinese discovered these islands when they were swept up the coast of west Africa and out into the Atlantic. They left a carved stone there, inscribed with Tamil (an Indian language spoken in Calicut the trading hub of the Indian Ocean and launching point of Zheng He's fleets). This provided knowledge of launching points which the Portuguese would use later.

The Magellan Straits: Again, the knowledge that Asia was accessible by rounding South America was priceless. So priceless that vast amounts of money were thrown at finding it. Columbus may have been a dunce but the others were not. They didn't go out into 'the unknown' with so much at stake.

But look at this:

From: http://www.themaphouse.com/specialistcat/magellan/magellan.html

See that star in the sea? That is the spot beneath the guiding star (Canopus) which the Chinese admirals used. As stated, they did not know how to measaure their longitude in the southern hemisphere. This star is what allowed them to get some idea. So they preferred to travel along its line. Notice that directly west of that star is the opening to the Magellan Straits...

-- The technologies invented by the Chinese are irrelevant, because they are not the ancestors of our technology today. Our naval technology today is developed from European advancements made centuries later. To borrow a term from biology, Chinese naval technology is an evolutionary dead end.

This is total rubbish man. Gunpowder and the magnetic compass were two of the 'inventions' which totally revolutioniszed the world. Neither of these can be attributed to Europeans and neither can be deemed irrelevant!

Moreover, the argument that Chinese maps fell into European hands, while more interesting, I think is just about equally as irrelevant. Even if Columbus did have Chinese maps of the world, he clearly displayed a piss-poor understanding of them. Moreover, Magellean and Drake clearly stumbled into their namesake passages; they had no prior knowledge of them. If Europeans knew the makeup of South America, the Europeans in the know were not the ones navigating the ships, and as such were irrelevant.

See above.

 

[Rambuchan]

If one of the objectives was to map the world, where are the maps they draw?

[Thumbnail image, click for bigger, then click that image for full size.]

This is called the Kangnido Map. I will be writing all about it in the Imago Mundi thread later. Details from their maps have made their way into those important Fra Mauro and Piri Reis maps.

Read about the connection between the the Fra Mauro and Kangnido: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fra_Mauro_map

 

[Jorge]

[Thumbnail image, click for bigger, then click that image for full size.]

This is called the Kangnido Map. I will be writing all about it in the Imago Mundi thread later. Details from their maps have made their way into those important Fra Mauro and Piri Reis maps.

Read about the connection between the the Fra Mauro and Kangnido: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fra_Mauro_map

Well, it´s very arguable. In any case, where is any evidence that they were in America? It does not appear in the map.

 

[Rambuchan]

I also mentioned Nicholas Di Conti. Well this is what the immortal Wikipedia has to say about him:

He also influenced 15th century cartography, as can be seen on the Genoese Map (1447-1457), and in the work of the mapmaker Fra Mauro, whose influential Fra Mauro map (1457) offered one of the clearest depiction of the Old World. In these two maps, many new location names, and several verbatim descriptions, were taken directly from Da Conti's account. The "trustworthy source" whom Fra Mauro quoted in writing in his map about the travels of a "junk from India" (lit. "Zoncho de India"), beyond the Cape of Good Hope into the Atlantic Ocean around 1420, confirming that it was possible to sail around Africa through the south, is thought to have been Niccolo Da Conti himself.

In his descriptions of Eastern Asia, Niccolo Da Conti matter-of-factly describes huge junks of about 2,000 tons, more than four times the size of 16th century Western galleons:

They make ships larger than ours, about 2,000 tons in size, with five sails and as many masts. The lower part is made of three decks, so as to better resist storms, which occur frequently. These ships are separated into several compartments, so that if one is touched during a storm, the others remain intact."

Niccolò Da Conti's book was used by several explorers and travels writers, such as Ludovico di Varthema (1510), and Antonio Pigafetta, who traveled around the world with Magellan's expedition.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccolo_Da_Conti

 

[Rambuchan]

Well, it´s very arguable. In any case, where is any evidence that they were in America? It does not appear in the map.

There is evidence from the chroniclers' work from aboard the ships. There is also reference to the animals and vegetation (corn in particular) peculiar to S. America in court records of the time. Testifying that they made it back also.

 

[Rambuchan]

An example to illustrate the concept of "first" vs. "first relevant".

Say that, for example, I invent a perpetual motion machine. In fact, I even make a few machines and use them around my house for chores. But I do not go out and change the world with them; nor do I pass the technology to anyone.

Then, 20 years from now, Adler17 makes a perpetual motion machine of his own and uses it to create weapons, with which he uses to conquer all Central Europe. I.e., he actually makes a strategic impact.

In this example, I am irrelevant. Sure, I was there first, and I'm sure that on the World History forum there will be a "cult of SN" who hang out in threads about Adler and say that Adler is overrated because I was there first, who will say that there is a "German bias", etc., but ultimately my discovery means nothing because it had no impact on the world. It didn't even lead to Adler's independent invention in any sense.

What about if adler17 acquired your plans and used them to annihilate the world or something 'more significant and relevant'? Are you still irrelevant then?

(I'm really worried now about what qualifies as relevant in your book.)

 

[Jorge]

There is evidence from the chroniclers' work from aboard the ships. There is also reference to the animals and vegetation (corn in particular) peculiar to S. America in court records of the time. Testifying that they made it back also.

That evidence should be studied. Are they reliable? I usually don´t trust evidence like "there are references to a plant that might be corn". It´s very difficult to describe a plant in a way that it can not be confused with any other plant. For sure a map dated in china in 1421 showing land in the area of america would help to back this theory. Till then, I will be relunctant to believe in it.

 

[Rambuchan]

Firstly it needs to be understood that the maps above and below are in fact evidence of the journeys! The maps contain surveyed parts of the world which Europeans had not even heard of yet. They were charted on the Chinese missions. This is what I have been trying to say!

I'm just using Wiki because it's easy and it happens to be right on these matters:

Piri Reis (originally Hadji Muhammad) (1465 – 1554) was an Ottoman admiral born around 1465, in Gallipoli on the Dardanelles. He began to serve as a privateer in the Ottoman Navy as a youth and after many years of fighting against Spanish, Genoese and Venetian navies, he rose to the rank of Reis (admiral). Following his defeat in 1554 (when he was about 90 years old) against the Portuguese navy in the Red Sea, the sultan ordered him beheaded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piri_Reis

Here is a cleaned up version of his map.



The original as it looks now.


Notice that he was served in Venice and spent time there. This was a major trading and cartography centre at the time. This is where both Nicholas Di Conti and Fra Mauro come into the picture and where knowledge would have been passed between the three.

More importantly - notice the coast of America, north and south, are clearly visible. Now ask yourself, when did Columbus supposedly discover America? (landfall in the Bahamas at dawn on 12 October 1492)

The Fra Mauro map we know was influenced by Nicholas Di Conti's travels to Calicut in India. Di Conti we know sailed with (but not on these voyages) and depicted the same events as Zheng He's chroniclers. So we can see how the knowledge passed on.

1465: There are even notes on the Fra Mauro map which tell of ships sailing from India, rounding Africa and sailing on the America via the Cape Verde Islands:

Around the year 1420, a ship or junk [coming] from India on a non-stop crossing of the Indian Ocean past 'the Isles of Men and Women' was driven beyond Cap de Diab [Cape of Good Hope] and through the Isole and obscured islands [or darkness] towards the west and south west for 40 days.

So to simplify it:

> Nicholas Di Conti travels to Calicut, India.

> Here he meets some of Zheng He's sailors and sharestheir tales and maps.

> Di Conti returns to Venice and meets up with Fra Mauro, who incorporates this knowledge into his map - knowledge which the Europeans used to embark on their ocean going bonanza.

> Piri Reis goes to Venice and indulges in some research. He finds the works of Fra Mauro and Di Conti.

> He advances the map further - before Columbus or Magellen get there to chart those parts themselves.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

What about if adler17 acquired your plans and used them to annihilate the world or something 'more significant and relevant'? Are you still irrelevant then?

No, then I would be relevant.

However, there is more nuance. For instance, if Adler17 reads my plans, but then invents his machine in a manner that does not incorporate my work, I am still largely irrelevant. If he invents perpetual motion by himself, but then reads an essay I wrote entitled "Ways to Use Perpetual Motion to Conquer the World" and follows the plans (even though I never did), then I'm stuck in a gray area inbetween.

In any event, my argument about Chinese technology is that it does not matter if the Chinese got to such tech first, because the tech was invented independently in Europe later, and European technology was descended from this independent discovery, not from the Chinese discovery.

 

[jonatas]

We've had this thread before It keeps haunting the history forum.

Here's an earlier version with a post from someone who was invited to work on the book, specifically the footnotes.

I haven't read the book btw, but the impression I get from people's comments is that it has little credibility, kind of fitting into the genre of The Davinci Code. Of course, I haven't read it, but I would be skeptical.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=105522&page=1&pp=20&highlight=1421

 

[Rambuchan]

No, then I would be relevant.

However, there is more nuance. For instance, if Adler17 reads my plans, but then invents his machine in a manner that does not incorporate my work, I am still largely irrelevant. If he invents perpetual motion by himself, but then reads an essay I wrote entitled "Ways to Use Perpetual Motion to Conquer the World" and follows the plans (even though I never did), then I'm stuck in a gray area inbetween.

This is getting a little too abstracted from the topic in hand. Let's drop the analogies.

In any event, my argument about Chinese technology is that it does not matter if the Chinese got to such tech first, because the tech was invented independently in Europe later, and European technology was descended from this independent discovery, not from the Chinese discovery.

You're approaching this like a civ game. They traded techs - or stole techs if you like. Either way they acquired the knowledge needed to 'free them from the Dark Ages' by the process described above. Why do you still entertain a notion of an utterly detached and independent Europe? We know that it wasn't.

Thanks for the link to the other thread Jonatas. I wasn't around then. I notice that all the people who have commented negatively about the book never read it!

 

[SeleucusNicator]

You know, I've been thinking about this, and it does seem that we've gone about it the wrong way in terms of technology.

Indeed, it seems that I took this off-topic by talking about technology. Arguing that the compass was a Chinese invention, for instance,, does not make Chinese naval expeditions relevant. It does make the Chinese naval science program relevant, but not the voyages itself.

For instance, you could argue that the invention of the compass was relevant, but the subsequent use of it by Zheng He was not. Indeed, the compass was already known in Europe at a century earlier.

So the remaining issue is the maps. I outright reject that any maps spurred Europe to exploration. The process was not "here is this map that says you can sail around Africa, let's do it." The process was more akin to "oh ****, we need to find a new way to get to India, let's try sailing around Africa, maybe that will work". The early voyages to Africa were very haphazard and progressed at a very slow rate; this is not at all indicative of having prior knowledge. It is true that once the Portugese got across the Cape of Good Hope, they relied on foreign maps to get to India, but these were Arab maps drawn from centuries of regional navigation limited to the Indian ocean.

Again, I guess what I'm disputing is that the Chinese maps, even if they were present in Europe, had anything to do with the impetus for exploration. The Europeans were in a situation where they needed to, from an economic view, find a new route to India and new resources, and in such situations people will experiment and take risks. The method of exploration is consistent with massive experimentation, not with copying what somebody else had done.

 

[Rambuchan]

So the remaining issue is the maps. I outright reject that any maps spurred Europe to exploration. The process was not "here is this map that says you can sail around Africa, let's do it." The process was more akin to "oh ****, we need to find a new way to get to India, let's try sailing around Africa, maybe that will work".

Timing is a big factor. Portuguese set out to get round the Cape of Africa a matter of 5-10 years after this fleet sails through west Africa? Why did they not think of it earlier? Why did they not wait later? Why so soon after the Chinese fleets passed through?

Incidentally I've read the other thread and I note that all the put downs (from Birdjaguar and reviews he quoted) all focus on the more questionable claims Menzies made. I'm sticking to this one claim here - that they influenced Portuguese mariners in the extreme.

The early voyages to Africa were very haphazard and progressed at a very slow rate; this is not at all indicative of having prior knowledge. It is true that once the Portugese got across the Cape of Good Hope, they relied on foreign maps to get to India, but these were Arab maps drawn from centuries of regional navigation limited to the Indian ocean.

We'd need Jonatas to shed more light on these. (hint hint)

Again, I guess what I'm disputing is that the Chinese maps, even if they were present in Europe, had anything to do with the impetus for exploration. The Europeans were in a situation where they needed to, from an economic view, find a new route to India and new resources, and in such situations people will experiment and take risks. The method of exploration is consistent with massive experimentation, not with copying what somebody else had done.

Let's see some sources and less "I guess", please.