The 1421 Theory

[Neonanocyborgasm]

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

I'm reminded of similar theories, such as that Jews discovered/invented X, Y, and Z, and yet were always being outdone by other nations. It's nationalistic wishful thinking. If the Chinese really had maps of the Americas in 900 AD, why are we suddenly uncovering this now? And if they did land in North America, where is the evidence of what was left there? Any artifacts? Remnants of settlements? And finally, the most telling reason to doubt this is that the American natives were susceptible to old world diseases. If the Chinese had made any contact, especially enough to draw maps, you'd think their epidemics had long since come to pass before the Europeans came. Those diseases travel like wildfire, even across a whole continent.

 

[Hannabir]

We aren't suddenly discovering this now. We have known this for many centuries. According to imperial records, it was not the first great mapping expedition from China either: they sent ships out before 2000 BC.

Note that they had the advantage of their location: they could get everywhere by following the coast and some easy island-hopping. Therefore they may have had a good diet, too, and so in contrast to the Europeans they stayed healthy and did not spread the diseases that decimated the local population later.

Old Chinese coins and anchor stones have been found in/around the Americas, but most important are probably the hieroglyphs. Those in North America are almost identical to the old Chinese ones: the Chinese, so it seems, taught them Writing.

 

[I am the Future]

Thamy you Ram for this thread,
I agree that it is quite plausible that china came to America first, this isnt the first time i have heard this but it is certainly a good source for those interested

 

[jonatas]

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!

Well, I don't know if you caught it, but apparently Plotinus was asked to edit the footnotes for Menzies' book. And he wasn't exactly impressed with Menzies' "scholarship", which is not a good sign.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

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.

I seem to remember reading that these Chinese technologies were transmitted westwards, eventually ending up in Europe and being made full use of.

Certainly the first use of gunpowder in Europe was by the Mongols, while they're launching some gunpowder-filled 'bombs' fr catapults during Subetai and Batu's campaign. The same was used extensively by the Jin and Song forces fighting against the Mongols around the same time or earlier.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I'm reminded of similar theories, such as that Jews discovered/invented X, Y, and Z, and yet were always being outdone by other nations. It's nationalistic wishful thinking. If the Chinese really had maps of the Americas in 900 AD, why are we suddenly uncovering this now? And if they did land in North America, where is the evidence of what was left there? Any artifacts? Remnants of settlements? And finally, the most telling reason to doubt this is that the American natives were susceptible to old world diseases. If the Chinese had made any contact, especially enough to draw maps, you'd think their epidemics had long since come to pass before the Europeans came. Those diseases travel like wildfire, even across a whole continent.

Boasting rights.

The fact is there're mountains of material left over in all the records thru all the dynasties of China that few in the West looks at, since it's written in Chinese. And formalized Chinese studies of these materials are only just beginning I think...

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Oh, for the record, I don't really buy this theory either.

We Chinese don't need minor stuff like these to secure our place in the scheme of humanity's great doings. For an equavalent of the ancient Roman empire in the West, we have certainly done well enough.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I seem to remember reading that these Chinese technologies were transmitted westwards, eventually ending up in Europe and being made full use of.

Certainly the first use of gunpowder in Europe was by the Mongols, while they're launching some gunpowder-filled 'bombs' fr catapults during Subetai and Batu's campaign. The same was used extensively by the Jin and Song forces fighting against the Mongols around the same time or earlier.

Ultimately, I doubt it matters. Civilisations progress by borrowing and learning from each other. The goodies China has received fr the West are even better :-

1) They forever removed the nomadic threat fr the steppes; finally enabling a significant military advantage for agrarian sedentary powers.
2) Western-style nationalism and communication technologies has finally fused the Chinese peoples into a significant unity, unsurpassed in history.

China's greatest rise in her history is just beginning I think.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Rambuchan, that map of yours in the first place with their attempts to correspond it to Africa seem pathetically off IMO. What they say is Africa looks supiciously like India... exactly in a east-west sense it is. Tibet and the Himilayas probably threw the map makers off - most of Tibet is mountains, but there is a narrow east-west "valley" running directly north of Nepal. It is more reasonable to assume that Tibet threw the cartographers off - especially as they mapped Africa as being even smaller than Korea if I read the map right and it is to be assumed that India-looking shape is actually an oddly malformed Africa.

BTW, it had been known in Europe since like 100BC that the earth was round. And that knowledge survived in intellectual circles and the Constanopolitan libraries (which saw many of its' volumes sent to Italy in 1453) through to Christopher Columbus' day. Christopher Columbus was not arguing the earth was round either, despite popular myth he was arguing the earth was a third the size of what the ancient Egyptians had estimated it to be.

A Random Tidbit of Recorded History: Pharoah Necho in around 500BC commissioned the Phoenicians to sail from Damietta (?) in the Nile delta around Africa to Memphis along the Red Sea Canal (which no longer exists. It connected the Nile River to the Red Sea). They did so. Thus, it was known in Europe also that Africa could be sailed around, and even afterwards the Greeks cartographed Africa with ocean to south. Additionally, on Carthaginian coins is a common pattern which no one knows why it is there. Some historians are over-eager to say that because it roughly depicts Africa, Europe, western Asia and eastern North and South America, it must do so. My point is that in revisionism the Chinese weren't the first to sail around the Cape of Good Hope (the Phoenicians having beaten them) or to reach America (the Carthaginians having beaten them).

 

[Jorge]

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.

Excuse me, but Piri Reis was born in 1462 and died in 1554. Where is the evidence that he drew his map before 1492? Basically he lived 92 years, and you assume that he drew the map before being 30 years old (too young in my opinion). Wouldn´t it be more reasonable to think that he drew the map later on using information from spanish and potuguese explorers?

 

[Rambuchan]

@ Jorge: I'm talking about the dates of Fra Mauro's map (1465) - he directly referred to such ships leaving from Indian ports in a panel of his map. I've even quoted it directly in my prior post.

The Piri Reis map (1515 - yes later than 1492 but wait) is interesting because it shows Patagonia and parts of America which had not been visited by Europeans and were all well detailed and surveyed. Click this and do some reading instead of asking me about it.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/PiriRies.HTM



@ Mongoloid Cow: Firstly those are many other people's attempts to match Africa in the Kangnido Map. Cartographers who have shaped our image of the world no less. They were not some dudes hanging out on a forum. They were excellent astronomers, mathematicians, geographers etc. Fra Mauro was up their with the best of his time, They understood the language and imagery utilised in various maps - they didn't all look like ours today!

So please don't park the dumper truck of blame at my door. I was simply coughing up detail which 'other people' are too lazy to go find for themselves - preferring to just shout down what is provided by others.

Anyway, it seems you have not been reading the Imago Mundi Thread, otherwise you would not have gone to the effort to tell me what I have already laid out in there. That is:

"[Ptolemy bequethed] ~ The awareness that Africa was navigable, for he recorded that the Phoenicians had in fact accomplished such a journey around 600BC." < Not 100BC.

NOTE: Later maps show Africa connected to south east Asia, demonstrating how the world really did forget a great deal of this knowledge.

Also, Mong Cow, your reading of the Kangnido map is all wrong and too simplistic. It would take a while to explain it. But you are definitely looking at it through the eyes of a person in the 21st century.

 

[Jorge]

@ Jorge: I'm talking about the dates of Fra Mauro's map (1465) - he directly referred to such ships leaving from Indian ports in a panel of his map. I've even quoted it directly in my prior post.

The Piri Reis map (1515 - yes later than 1492 but wait) is interesting because it shows Patagonia and parts of America which had not been visited by Europeans and were all well detailed and surveyed. Click this and do some reading instead of asking me about it.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/PiriRies.HTM

You are really confusing me in your replies.

Fra Mauro´s map (1465) does not show anything like America, so it does not prove anything.

Regarding Piri Reis map, I have read the link now. In the link you provide, it´s stated that the south part of the map is Rio de Janeiro (point K). Acording to wikipedia, a portuguese exploration lead by Gaspar de Lemos discovered this in 1502.

 

[Rambuchan]

You are really confusing me in your replies.

Fra Mauro´s map (1465) does not show anything like America, so it does not prove anything.

Regarding Piri Reis map, I will have a look to the link you provide.

Sorry for the confusion. Fra Mauro's map (you need to turn it upside down as it is oriented with south at top) is important for BOTH Africa and America. From my earlier post in this thread:

1465: There are even notes on the Fra Mauro map which tell of ships sailing from India, rounding Africa and sailing on the Americas 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.

And what is west and south west of those islands?

 

[Rambuchan]

More on Fra Mauro's map, courtesy of Henry-Davis.com:

http://www.henry-davis.com/MAPS/LMwebpages/249mono.html

 

[Jorge]

Sorry for the confusion. Fra Mauro's map (you need to turn it upside down as it is oriented with south at top) is important for BOTH Africa and America. From my earlier post in this thread:

1465: There are even notes on the Fra Mauro map which tell of ships sailing from India, rounding Africa and sailing on the Americas via the Cape Verde Islands:
And what is west and south west of those islands?

But you have to agree that sailing west and south west from Cape Verde Islands does not neccesarily imply to discover America. It does not even state they arrived anywhere, he just say that they sailed west and southwest.

And as I stated above (I edited my previous post):

Regarding Piri Reis map, I have read the link now. In the link you provide, it´s stated that the south part of the map is Rio de Janeiro (point K). Acording to wikipedia, a portuguese exploration lead by Gaspar de Lemos discovered this in 1502. So Piri Reis could perfectly be based on portuguese maps. There is no Patagonia in Piri Reis map.

 

[Rambuchan]

I agree Fra's map note does not specifically state that they sailed west to America. But then you have to look at stone columns the Chinese exploreres erected. They can be found in China, south India, East Africa, West Africa, The Caribbean, down in the Falklands, even in Australia!

There is also some evidence of ship wrecks off California (still under dispute it seems) all over eastern Australia, the Asiatic chicken found when Europeans arrived, porcelain from the Aztec glory days being referred to in court chronicles back home, molydon beasts from Patagonia being referred to in reports from the chroniclers and a great deal else.

As for Piri Reis not including Patagonia - it does, the sections given here do not show it.

 

[Jorge]

I agree Fra's map note does not specifically state that they sailed west to America. But then you have to look at stone columns the Chinese exploreres erected. They can be found in China, south India, East Africa, West Africa, The Caribbean, down in the Falklands, even in Australia!

There is also some evidence of ship wrecks off California (still under dispute it seems) all over eastern Australia, the Asiatic chicken found when Europeans arrived, porcelain from the Aztec glory days being referred to in court chronicles back home, molydon beasts from Patagonia being referred to in reports from the chroniclers and a great deal else.

As for Piri Reis not including Patagonia - it does, the sections given here do not show it.

As for the map, from wikipedia:

"The Piri Reis map was discovered in 1929. It consists of a map drawn on gazelle skin, primarily detailing the western coast of Africa and the eastern coast of South America. The map is considered to have been drawn in 1513 by Piri Reis, a famous admiral of the Turkish fleet.

Particularly noteworthy about the map is its depiction of a landmass attached to the southward region of South America that some claim resembles the coastline of Antarctica. This claim is most famously made by Charles Hapgood in his book Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, in which he builds on this claim to support an alternate history of global exploration.

Scholars, however, dispute this, citing the fact that for centuries cartographers had been depicting a southern landmass on global maps based on the theoretical assumption that one must exist. The landmass in question on the Piri Reis map would thus be simply a continuation of this tradition, with its debatable resemblance to the actual coastline being coincidental. Greg McIntosh especially discussed the Piri Reis map in depth. He showed that the Piri Reis map was developed from several of Columbus's maps. Hispaniola is confused with Japan since Columbus believed they were the same. Hispaniola is shown long axis north-south similar to maps then of Japan. Piri Reis shows double sets of Virgin Islands since he took them from two maps. Finally, many of the names of ports and geographic points are taken directly from Columbus's maps."

As you can see, the map is not evidence of anything, as there could be many explanations. Posibility? Yes. Evidence? No.

As for the other evidence you mention, I would have to check them more in detail before even starting to believe in them.

 

[Rambuchan]

I share some of your concerns about the Piri Reis map and its timing. Menzies bangs on about it plenty, so I've thrown it in. I believe the ideas based around Fra's map to be more on the mark, hence I focus onthis. But when you throw it all together...

@ Jonatas: Yes I saw that it was Plotinus who was offered to work on the book and he said that Menzies had not kept a very good record of his sources and notes. Plot decided against the job in the end. However he said that this in itself shouldn't be used to discredit Menzies, rather it just reflected badly upon him.

Anyway,

This is the only critique of the book which I have found to be any good. It is quite passionately against the fact Menzies took down a $750k advance for the book, one of the highest ever in historical fields. It is also a 'passionate' discrediting.

http://www.kenspy.com/Menzies/review1.html

 

[Jorge]

I like this bit:

"He repeatedly tells us that 'as soon as' he compared old maps with new ones he 'saw at once' resemblances which he seems to think eluded earlier scrutineers.
His conclusions become boringly predictable: a slip or squiggle on an old map means someone 'must have' seen and charted some real topographical feature. And who could the discoverer be but a member of the Chinese expeditions of the 1420s? "

He basically gives as evidence of chinese exploration maps that were drawn by europeans.

And by the way, chikens do ki-kiri-kee here in Spain (no cock-a-doodle-doo)

 

[Rambuchan]

The paragraph you quote is good. Menzies does jump to conlusions about the maps. In particular he seems to read Piri Reis' map as direct evidence of Chinese travels. It is possible but this I feel doesn't stand up on its own. The stone columns are perhaps the best evidence and the use of Canopus as a guiding star in southern waters, which in turn dictated the seas they would travel, is quite convincing.

As for the chickens, . I think he was on about a bit more than merely the sound of their cockcrow.