The 1421 hypothesis of Chinese contact with the Americas originates from former British Royal Navy submarine commander Gavin Menzies. In his book, 1421: The Year China Discovered The World (first published in 2002) Menzies suggests that during the Ming Dynasty era from 1421 to 1423, ships commanded by the Chinese captains Zhou Wen (周聞), Zhou Man (周滿), Yang Qing (楊慶) and Hong Bao (洪保), in the fleet of Emperor Zhu Di's (朱棣) Admiral Zheng He (鄭和), travelled to many parts of the world.
According to Menzies, their discoveries include Australia, New Zealand, the Americas (well before Christopher Columbus crossed the Atlantic), Antarctica, the northern coast of Greenland, and the Northeast Passage. The knowledge of these discoveries has been lost, Menzies argues, because the Mandarins (administrators) of the Emperor's court took a strict line on new adventures after lightning (which was considered a sign of divine anger) had burnt down the newly constructed Forbidden City. A year later, his successor (son), the Hongxi Emperor, then forbade making new voyages, and his advisors hid or destroyed all accounts of Zheng He's voyages.
The 1421 hypothesis has proven unpopular among scholars. It proposes a revolutionary interpretation of established historical opinion but has been criticized for providing inadequate proof, largely relying on contested documents.
Contents [hide]
1 Method
1.1 Maps
1.2 Other evidence
2 Criticism
2.1 Australia
3 Achievement
4 References
5 See also
6 External links
6.1 News stories
6.2 Debunking sites
[edit]
Method
Menzies bases his theory on Chinese shipwrecks, old maps, surviving Chinese literature from the time, and accounts written by navigators such as Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan. Menzies also believes that unexplained structures such as the Newport Tower and the Bimini Road were constructed by Zheng He's men.
[edit]
Maps
Menzies claims the Kangnido map (1402) (above) seems to describe the entirety of the Old World, from Europe and Africa in the west, to Korea and Japan in the east, with an oversized China in the middle.
Menzies says one of the inscriptions on the Fra Mauro map (1459) relates the travels of an Asian junk deep into the Atlantic Ocean around 1420.Several maps were used by Menzies:
The Kangnido map (混一疆理歷代國都之圖 or 疆理圖) (1402), which Menzies says indicates an extensive geographical knowledge of the Old World (and particularly of the contour of the African continent) by Eastern Asian countries, even before the time of Zheng He's expeditions.
The Pizzigano map (1424)
The Fra Mauro map (1459), which describes an expedition by an "Indian" ship into the Atlantic around 1420; Menzies claims "Indian" in this case really referred to Chinese ships:
"About the year of Our Lord 1420 a ship, what is called an Indian junk (lit. "Zoncho de India", "India" meaning Asia in 15th century Europe), on a crossing of the Sea of India towards the Isle of Men and Women (close to Socotra), was diverted beyond the Cape of Diab (Cape of Good Hope), through the Green Isles, out into the Sea of Darkness (Atlantic Ocean) on a way west and southwest. Nothing but air and water was seen for 40 days and by their reckoning they ran 2,000 miles and fortune deserted them. When the stress of the weather had subsided they made the return to the said Cape of Diab in 70 days and drawing near to the shore to supply their wants the sailors saw the egg of a bird called roc." (Fra Mauro map, Inscription 10, A13).
The Cantino map (1502)
The Waldeseemüller map (1507)
The Piri Reis map (1513)
The Johannes Schöner globe (One was made in 1515 and another in 1520)
The Jean Rotz map (1542)
The Wu Pei Chi (Wu Bei Zhi; 武備志) map (redrawn after Zheng He's maps in 1628)
The Vinland map, redrawn in 15th Century from a 13th century original.
Also, the De Virga world map (1411-1415) has been presented on Gavin Menzies's 1421 website as new evidence of the propagation of eastern cartographic know-how before the European Age of Discovery.
[edit]
Other evidence
Additional supporting evidence given by Menzies includes:
DNA studies purportedly showing "recent" DNA flow from China to indigenous people of North & South America, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
A drawing of an animal in a book reportedly published in China in 1430 showing what Menzies claims is an armadillo, an animal found only in the New World.
Bananas and rice plantations were reportedly seen along the banks of the Amazon by Francisco de Orellana, 1541.
Reported indications of horses, flightless ducks and Asiatic pigs possibly in the New World prior to Columbus's arrival.
Carved stones with what Menzies claims is Asian writing found in places such as the Cape Verde islands, South America and New Zealand.
Artifacts such as Chinese porcelain and Chinese jade found in the Americas which Menzies claims date back before the arrival of Europeans.
Cases of some diseases, such as smallpox, reportedly appearing before the arrival of Europeans.
Seeming linguistic similarities with the Chinese language of place names in Peru and Chile.
Also quoted are the accounts of Bartolomé de las Casas, according to which two dead bodies that looked like Indians were found on Flores (Azores). De las Casas said he found that fact in Columbus' notes, and it was one of the reasons that led Columbus to assume India was on the other side of the ocean.
[edit]
Criticism
Menzies' hypotheses have found little or no support among mainstream historians. Robert Finlay: "Examination of the book's central claims reveals they are uniformly without substance." [1] John E. Wills: "These myriad flaws do not make Menzies' book completely useless to teachers of world history. Rather, it might be used to teach students about the use and misuse of historical evidence." [2]
The 1421 hypothesis is based on documents of debatable provenance (the Piri Reis map, the Vinland map) and on original interpretation of accepted documents (Fra Mauro map, de las Casas) and archaeological findings. Critics argue[citation needed] that the cartographic evidence admits of much more straightforward explanations than those given by Menzies, while his archaeological evidence is often extremely dubious and in some cases demonstrably incorrect.
One key question is why the alleged great voyages of 1421 managed to touch every corner of the world except Europe, where a record of their occurrence would likely have been made and maintained. Given the fact that Chinese-European contact existed for well over three centuries by the 15th century, it is difficult to understand why nothing of these voyages can be found in the historical record. Menzies has provided scant evidence of any such visit, simply alluding to vague European contact — but contact between the two cultures dates to the Renaissance and does not depend upon any large-scale sea travel.[citation needed]
Critics also maintain that the linguistic evidence cited by Menzies is questionable. It is well known that one can easily find similarities between words taken from any pair of languages purely by chance, so the short lists of resemblances cited by Menzies demonstrate nothing. Furthermore, none of the alleged Chinese words listed by Menzies as similar to words of the same meaning in the Squamish language of British Columbia is a real Chinese word. Similarly, the presence of Chinese-speaking people in various locations in the Americas could be explained by immigration after Columbus, yet Menzies cites no evidence that these communities existed prior to Columbus.
Another criticism is that Menzies chose not to consult the most obvious source of information on the Zheng He voyages, namely the Chinese records from the period themselves.[citation needed]
Some critics have questioned Menzies' nautical knowledge, shiphandling skills and whether he has actually sailed the routes he has claimed, particularly while commanding HMS "Rorqual".
Menzies also mislead people about his background as a China expert. On the dust jacket of 1421, Menzies states that he was born in China. In fact he was born in London.[3]
Australia
Given by Menzies as evidence of Chinese contact in Australia is the reported existence of stone structures in and around Sydney and Newcastle, Australia. These structures in fact do not exist, or if they do Menzies has failed to tell people where he found them. Menzies writes on 203 of the 'Chinese' ruins in Bittangabee Bay. They are however more likely a structure built for the Imlay family in the 1840's than ancient Chinese. On page 220 there is the claim that "A beautiful carved stone head of the goddess Ma Tsu...is now in the Kedumba Nature Museum in Katoomba." In fact no such museum actually exists. There once was a curio stand in Katoomba called "Kedumba Nature Display" but it closed down in the 1980's. Later on in the book, Menzies recruits "a local researcher", Rex Gilroy, for his valuable discovery of a Chinese pyramid in Queensland the Gympie Pyramid. Menzies claims that the Gympie pyramid is "the most direct and persuasive evidence of the Chinese visits to Australia" (1421, p221). However, this is the same Rex Gilroy who at one time ran the "Kedumba Museum" and found the Chinese carved goddess Ma Tsu from the Chinese Fleets, a connection which Menzies fails to mention. Menzies also fails to mention that Gilroy himself used the Gympie Pyramid as evidence of the Egyptian discovery of Australia. (By the way Rex Gilroy is also well known in Australia as the "father of Yowie research", Australia's Bigfoot, "discovering" foot prints etc.[4]) The Gympie Pyramid has been researched idependently and found to be part of a retaining wall built by an Italian farmer to stop erosion on a natural mesa on his property.
Achievement
Whatever its historical merits, Menzies' book and the surrounding publicity has succeeded in raising awareness of Zheng He and the Ming Imperial Treasure Fleets, reaching a much broader audience than any previous work on the subject, in part through recent television documentaries on the History Channel.
