1421 hypothesis
Encyclopedia : 1 : 14 : 142 : 1421 hypothesis
| This article may not conform to the [Neutral point of view>neutral point of view] policy. A Wikipedian has [POV checknominated this article] to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the [ 
 The 1421 hypothesis of Chinese contact with the Americas originates from former British Royal Navy submarine commander Gavin Menzies. In his book, , 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 highly controversial among scholars. It proposes a revolutionary interpretation of established historical opinion but has been criticized for providing inadequate proof, largely relying on contested documents.
MethodologyMenzies 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.Maps
Several maps were used by Menzies:
Other evidenceAmong the specific evidence Menzies claims are:
CriticismMenzies' hypotheses have found no support among historians. "Examination of the book's central claims reveals they are uniformly without substance" [#endnote_Finlay2004].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 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 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. The linguistic evidence cited by Menzies is unconvincing. It is well known, for example, that one can easily find similarities between words taken from any pair of languages purely by chance, so the short lists of vague 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 is easily explained by immigration after Columbus, yet Menzies cites no evidence that these communities existed prior to Columbus. He event went as far to say that the Maoris don't exist as a race and are just the result of rebelling slaves mating with Chinese concubines brought over to Australia by Chinese miners [link]. 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. A point mentioned by Menzies as evidence of Chinese contact in Australia is so called Pyramids or stone structures in and around Sydney and Newcastle, Australia. These structures simply do not exist. It could thus be inferred it was simply poor research on his part or fancifulness. 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". ReactionsAs the development of this hypothesis is relatively new, Menzies has yet to be able to establish a defined theory. He modifies and updates his theory from time to time based on newly presented evidence. His new claims are usually bigger, bolder, and much less traditional than his previous ones. For example, he now claims some of Zheng He's ships travelled as far as Spain. He also now alleges that the Chinese records of the voyages were never, in fact, destroyed, and are waiting to be found.It should be noted that certain aspects and findings are too speculative in nature and easily disproved by mainstream historians. A counter-argument is that the new ideas that are relatively less accepted may not necessarily be untrue. Menzies has sparked off a series of independent research activities in this area, many of which focus on hazy and debated areas of history. For example, the question of whether Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli's contributions were influenced by China's relations with Papal Rome prior to the Renaissance has become a highly targeted research area. These unanswered areas fuel the interest in Menzies and his theory. AchievementWhatever 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.References
See alsoExternal linksNews stories
Debunking sites
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating. |