The 1421 Theory

I've just finished reading Gavin Menzies' controversial book 1421 - The Year China Discovered the World.

Its a curious book combining some risky scholarly work, dodgy anecdotes, and half-baked theses.

The basic premise of the book is as follows:

In 1421, a massive fleet left from China. Its purpose was to drop off a number of dignitaries and leaders from the known world after the inauguration of the 3rd Ming Emperor Zhu Di. However, his orders to his fleet admiral Zheng He was to explore further and bring all the world to the knowledge of China.

According to this "1421 Theory" this fleet mapped all the Americas, Australia and New Zealand, parts of Antartica and the Arctic, and numerous Islands. They also colonised some of these lands for a time - either through deliberate mining facilities, or via accidental shipping accidents from which the Chinese could not return.

As the fleet returned from its voyages, the political climate of China had changed, the long period of isolation was beginning, and the records of the returning fleets with their knowledge of all the lands of the world were expunged.

But some of the knowledge trickled its way into Europe.

In the 15th Century AD, Europe suddenly had access to maps containing information that they could not have known themselves: maps showing the Americas and Asia, islands in the Atlantic, the Spice Islands, and so on. Later maps also showed Australia and New Zealand.

Part of this "1421" theory was that European exploration was not about "discovery", but all about following the maps and conquering the already mapped lands. De Gama knew that he could get to India after sailing past the already mapped tip of Africa - The Cape of Good Hope. Magellan already knew of the passage that would bear his name from maps held by the King of Portugal. Cook knew where he could find Australia, and had maps of The Great Barrier Reef.

So... where does that leave the opinion of the Mighty Ogbo?

Lets examine some of this ...

Europeans had advanced maps

Well, it seems that they did. As early as the 1420's (and remember Columbus was 1492, Cook 1776) various European powers (esp. Portugal) had maps which showed continents and lands that the Europeans should not have known about. Obviously these maps were of great advantage in the future voyages of discovery.

Here I find the 1421 Theory to be pretty intact.

So where did they get the maps from?

Buggered if I know - but the basic hypothesis that the technologically advanced China was the only power capable of fleets with such mapping accuracy is not unreasonable. In truth our Western knowledge of Asia is only exceeded by our ignorance of the area.

As to the Venetian connection Di Conti ... hard to tell. But its probably worth some scholars looking more closely into the matter.

Did the Chinese really gad about so much?

I've always felt that if any other non-Aboriginal peoples reached Australia before Cook, then they were probably Chinese. Its not like this is an unknown idea.

In fact, its always seemed to me that the Western idea that no-one was sailing about the Atlantic or Pacific til the Europeans started to poke about is complete crap.

The University of Vancouver hosts a marvellous museum of Native Canadian culture, and part of the display is dedicated to the "Pacific Rim" culture. One culture which covered hundreds of populations around the Pacific. As I stood in the Canadian Native culture part of the museum, I could as easily have been in the Maori Culture Experience in Rotorua, New Zealand.

As to the Chinese, I see no reason why they would not have had regular contact, and mapped, the Pacific Basin while Europeans where still picking the nits off each other.

The idea that there was significant and regular pan-Pacific and pan-Atlantic contact and trade is hardly a new one - and evidence is growing in strength. If there has been a significant positive side-effect of the 1421 book, it has been the renewed interest in "anomolous" finds of previous archeology and historical reports, and the coughing up of new (and old) artefacts which link the New World with Asian contact.

I see no reason why China, as well as other civilisations, would not have attempted some form of contact with the west coast of the Americas.

Did the Chinese colonise the Americas?

Again, buggered if I know.

I think this is an area where Mr Menzies loves to jump to quick convenient conclusions. He takes pains to point out that he is no mystical Von Daniken conjuring up ancient Aliens; but his tone when slotting together a few ethereal "facts" and suddenly claiming that there had been a Chinese colony in some obscure island group, smacks of Danikenesque fantasy.

This is also a bit like his positing that all of the mapping and colonisation had been done within a 4 year period by Zheng He. Perhaps Zheng He did - but perhaps it was also the climax of centuries of Chinese exploration in the Pacific and perhaps further.

Nonetheless, the list of anomolies that Menzies points out is quite compelling. Chinese plants and animals already in the Americas before the Europeans arrived. And vice versa - American plants already growing in Asia and across the Pacific.

And the number of physical artefacts of Chinese origin found around the Pacific rim in the US, Central & South America, NZ and Australia, seems to grow day by day.

So they probably got about a fair bit ... but colonise?

From what Menzies presents - I would say one of his most compelling pieces of evidence comes from his more recent attempt to get some of the writings of the early European pioneers in the Americas translated into English. So many mention meeting people or finding colonies of Chinese folk.

A lot is mentioned about DNA evidence - Chinese DNA markers in certain populations of native American, Maori & Indigenous Australians. Can't see much in the book or website about the techniques used, whether such markers might be ancient or more modern etc. Need more info on this.

CONCLUSION

In some ways we are presented with a flimsy attempt to fit together a pile of facts, hypotheses and speculations into a coherent history of the discovery of the world.

Nonetheless - I find that some of the presented history, and the sheer number of anomolous artefacts & other clues being turned up is too compelling to ignore.

Whether is was Zheng He's fleet, other Chinese explorers over time, or someone else - someone gave the European explorers a leg-up when it came to sailing to mysterious places for which they already had maps.

And it hardly seems likely that the Chinese would have ignored the exploration of their own Pacific back-yard, at least before their closure from the rest of the world around the time of the posited fleets.

The Western view of history is all too often blinded by its own need to play "catch-up" against prior more advanced civilisations. The way I was taught history in school was very much of the "no-one went anywhere and mapped anything til us Europeans came along in our leaky boats" variety. The book "1421" at least reminds us that there is probably much more to the history of the world than we will ever know - at least until we throw off some of the old "colonial-down-the-nose" blinkers.