Historiography by Liam, 2016 - 2017
The author of the first passage I studied is Gavin Menzies, author of the book 1421: The Year China Discovered America. Menzies showed his clear support for the theory that the Chinese landed in the New World prior to the more well known discovery by Christopher Columbus in 1492, the same scenario covered in his book. The author references the great voyages of famed Chinese explorer Zheng He. He’s ships travelled great treks around the Pacific, trading and exploring with different cultures, and exposing a previously isolated China to the globe. These ships were cutting edge, far more advanced than those of their European counterparts, even many years later they were undoubtedly superior to that Columbus’ ships. Specifically, author one refers to Zhou Man’s fleet which fits a potential timetable for a transpacific journey. According to this theory, Zhou Man’s fleet went on a 4 month journey somewhere far in the Pacific, if the ship let the currents take steer its course, a journey to North America, and along its coast would be entirely possible. Menzies also points to evidence of wrecked vessels on the Western coast of North America that match Chinese ships of He’s expansive fleets, potentially Man’s. Although not all have been dated exactly, many details point to them being of China’s age of exploration. One potential Junk referenced by author one has been found in the Sacramento River. The ship fits the description of one of He’s Junks and metal on the wreck shows evidence that it is not Amerindian. Inside the wreckage seeds and other small items have been identified as being of Chinese origin and are appropriate for the estimated time period. Aside from these ships, other evidence shows possible settlements by early explorers that had formed their own tribes. A particular case in 1874 brought attention to this theory, when a government employee taking a census found what he originally thought was an indigenous Native American tribe. Upon further investigation he realized that they were culturally and linguistically unique from their Amerindian counterparts. This tribe had a well developed understanding of botany and agriculture, their language also appeared to be very similar to Mandarin. Along with other similarities, this tribe, said to be located just miles away from a potential junk wreck, displayed many cultural similarities to typical Chinese traditions.
The second author I analyzed, Robert Finlay, strongly disagrees with Menzies’ claims. Finlay asserts that the evidence used by Menzies in his book is wildly construed and greatly implausible. Author two also accuses Menzies of greatly misrepresenting the basic tenets that are typically followed by a historian, by stating that Menzies stretched the truth for personal profit. According to Finlay, author one blatantly ignores Zheng He’s extensive records of travel, and assumes that this supposed venture was an exception. This trip would have also been extremely dangerous for He’s vessels that had already been at sea for years and may not have been prepared for such a journey. Menzies’ Chinese map that appears to show North and South America is also argued to be a later European map, as certain features such as California being displayed as a large island are said to be unique to European cartography. Many of the crops, animals, and technologies that Menzies claims were brought to the New World, or brought back would have not likely been brought and certainly not in the quantities that Menzies claims. As Finlay makes clear, this is only one of many examples of this author making his own assumptions and exaggerations without evidence. After analyzing the views of both these authors, it is difficult to establish a clear or obvious answer to this daunting question. Menzies’ abundance of potential evidence was quite convincing in many respects, but as Finlay made clear the lack of records by the Chinese personally left me dumbfounded and certainly creates a sizeable hole in Menzies’ theory. It also became clear to me that many of Menzies’ theories seemed to be relatively farfetched. Despite this, I could certainly see at least a smaller group of ships making this trip. If these individuals stayed in the New World or only sent part of their group back this could explain the lack of records. The potential Chinese colony found in 1874 was something not mentioned by Finlay that I found very convincing. Knowing that groups of Polynesians may have made such a venture in vessels the size of canoes, I see no reason why it could not be accomplished by the grand ships of China. This is certainly a very debatable issue, and with little solid evidence on either side it’s near impossible to prove.
6 Comments
Emma Booker
9/21/2016 06:52:44 pm
I strongly agree with you about how, from what you have described, there are gaps in the texts of both authors. The possibility of the Chinese making the journey to the Americas is certainly plausible. The Polynesians made the rigorous journey to the Hawaiian islands in presumably just canoes and rafts, crossing half of the Pacific Ocean to get to them. Who is to say that the Chinese, with more advanced technology and better quality ships, could not journey across the entire ocean? However, with the major holes in evidence as pointed out by the second writer, I do not believe that it is possible to definitely prove that the journey was in fact made. Perhaps, as you said, there could have been a smaller fleet than that of Zheng He’s, however, to the extent that the first author attempts to prove, the discovery is not backed up with enough proven evidence and facts
Reply
Liam Kelly
9/26/2016 09:04:46 am
Thank you for your comment Emma, it is certainly a very daunting, yet fascinating topic to discuss. I feel as though you used good judgement by pointing to the plausibility of what would certainly be a major historical discovery, but you stuck to the fact that the evidence, or lack there of still sides primarily with the non-discovery argument. Hope fully one day in our lifetimes new evidence will be uncovered that more strongly agrees with one side or the other.
Reply
Samantha
9/21/2016 10:03:18 pm
The theory that Christopher Columbus may not have been the first person to land on America is not a new theory. However, I had never heard that some researchers believe that the Chinese actually discovered America. It wouldn't shock me at all actually, if the Chinese did land on America first, before Christopher Columbus, because that would mean they were ahead of us back then just like they are today. The first author Menzies makes some interesting points about the voyages the Chinese explorers were making at the time. However, it is kind of a “stretch” that the group of Mandarin speaking people of the census of 1874 might be descendants of the Chinese explorers of 400 years earlier.
Reply
Liam Kelly
9/26/2016 09:10:24 am
Thank you for your perspective Samantha. The technological advantages that the Chinese had over these later Western societies does make a strong case as you pointed out. I personally would be somewhat shocked if it became clear that the Chinese never reached any North American shores with all this momentum in their Pacific travels. Your assessment of the colony is also a very strong and well thought argument.
Reply
Sawyer Coulbourne
9/21/2016 10:40:35 pm
Who actually discovered America or landed here first has been asked by many. For years, it was taught and assumed that Christopher Columbus discovered America. However, researchers and scholars have begun to question that way of thinking. Both authors mentioned make good points; however; after reading both points of view I still think Columbus landed in North America before the Chinese. Mienzes does not provide any proof that his theories are accurate. The Chinese could have landed here first, but he does not give data that supports it. For instance, the tribe of people who spoke Mandarin in the 1800s, could have migrated to America at any time before or after Columbus. It was interesting to read these theories, but it did not give convincing evidence that the Chinese beat Columbus to America.
Reply
Liam Kelly
9/26/2016 09:15:32 am
You made a fair call by sticking to the evidence Sawyer. It is painfully obvious that there are many flaws in the arguments presented in this case. I suppose however, that it is difficult to challenge a historical event that has been accepted for such a long period of time. Nonetheless, the lack of solid evidence surely sides with the argument that the Chinese did not discover America prior to Columbus.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWelcome to Liam's Blog. Liam is participating in an independent study of history this year part of which requires him to interpret historical arguments. Archives
April 2017
Categories |