Status
Available
Call number
Collection
Publication
New York, NY : William Morrow, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, [2013]
Description
Greatly expanding on his blockbuster 1421, distinguished historian Gavin Menzies uncovers the complete untold history of how mankind came to the Americas--offering new revelations and a radical rethinking of the accepted historical record in Who Discovered America? The iconoclastic historian's magnum opus, Who Discovered America? calls into question our understanding of how the American continents were settled, shedding new light on the well-known "discoveries" of European explorers, including Christopher Columbus. In Who Discovered America? he combines meticulous research and an adventurer's spirit to reveal astounding new evidence of an ancient Asian seagoing tradition--most notably the Chinese--that dates as far back as 130,000 years ago. Menzies offers a revolutionary new alternative to the "Beringia" theory of how humans crossed a land bridge connecting Asia and North America during the last Ice Age, and provides a wealth of staggering claims, that hold fascinating and astonishing implications for the history of mankind.… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member mirrani
Here's the thing about books like this: you either believe what is written in them or you don't. I am not an expert on this subject, so I couldn't tell you whose research is right and whose is wrong and when I chose this book to listen to, I wasn't interested in anything other than hearing
Is any of the information in this book factual? That's not for me to say. I'll leave that debate for the experts. Did it provide some interesting possible history ideas to wrap my mind around? Sure, which is all that I really wanted anyway.
Show More
someone's theory on the subject. On that count this book hit the mark. It very clearly defined the author's position on the "discovery" of the Americas and what culture or person was the first to visit what area. Though I was hoping for something on the history of the Native Americans, I wasn't bothered by this suggested history of interaction with the Native peoples after they were already established. Is any of the information in this book factual? That's not for me to say. I'll leave that debate for the experts. Did it provide some interesting possible history ideas to wrap my mind around? Sure, which is all that I really wanted anyway.
Show Less
LibraryThing member DanJlaf
Somewhat decent theory on chinese discovering Americia before columbus
LibraryThing member tuckerresearch
Slop. Menzies has done it again! And not in a good way. This book is a bit more organized and reads a bit better than his previous output because he has added a co-writer. But the text still is choppy and meanders needlessly. And probably a third of the book is mindless, boring travelogue with the
Now let me begin with a caveat: I do think it is possible some Chinese ships (and Portuguese and the Polynesians and maybe some others, for that matter) may have discovered the Americas before 1492, but they had no long-lasting impact. However, I seriously doubt that there was sustained contact, trade, and colonization as Menzies and his ilk would have us believe.
Menzies still doesn't really understand DNA. He speaks of "Chinese DNA" and "Japanese DNA" and even, at one point, "Taiwanese DNA" but fails to realize that Amerindians have Asian-type DNA because scholars say they are descended from Asians! No big mystery there. But the "Asian DNA," Menzies implies, is evidence of recent contact when, in fact, it is evidence of nothing but distant connections. Any biologist or anthropologist could tell you that.
Menzies still holds to the pyramid fallacy: that if one group built pointy buildings and another group built pointy buildings, then there must be some concrete connection between the two groups. This, of course, is poppycock. First, pointy buildings are easy to build. Second, the logic that one must have gotten the idea from another is faulty. I could just as likely write a book claiming that Amerindians colonized China in the distant past and taught them how to build pyramids. Prove me wrong.
Menzies still does not understand the early European explorers or their maps. When John Smith or Coronado or whomever wrote down "we heare there are China ships in the far ocean" it doesn't mean there were actually Chinese ships plying American waters, it means Europeans were eager to have a China connection and fabricated it. It's why Christopher Columbus can hear that the "Caniba" are close by (the Caribs) and he can distort that to "the Khan is close by." Now, using the logic of Menzies, this means that the Great Khan must have had a colony on Cuba in 1492. That is, of course, silly. But it is the type of logic Menzies uses. Take, for instance, his use of the 1776 Antonio Zatta map on page 225. It shows a "Colonia dei Chinesi" on the west coast of North America, which, to Menzies is proof positive there was a Chinese colony there. (He doesn't seem to notice the toponym Fou-sang right next to it). But this doesn't mean there was a Chinese colony there, it just means Zatta was wrong. If you know anything about European cartography of the Americas from 1492-1800, you know it is full of guesses and silliness. There is a 1545 map by Caspar Vopell, one of my favorites, that shows the place-names of Asia alongside those of Mexico and America as an extension of Asia. The Gulf of Mexico is even called the "Mare Cathayum" (Chinese Sea)! This doesn't mean that the Gulf of Mexico was full of Chinese ships and colonies, it just means that Vopell had no friggin clue what was going on. But Menzies and his fellow travelers would posit that this is evidence of Chinese voyages to the Americas.
This is the kind of "evidence" that Menzies and team adduces. It is all poppycock. For instance, on page 146, Menzies claims that the Peruvian city of Chan Chan was built by Chinamen from the city of Canton because Canton is "Chan Chán to the Chinese." You would think that someone whose stock and trade is China would know that the Chinese for the city of Canton is Guǎngzhōu, though it once went by the appellation Shěng Chéng, which means "the provincial capital." How Guǎngzhōu or Shěng Chéng is made into "Chan Chán," and how that is the equivalent of the pre-Columbian city of Chan Chan, is locked away in Menzies's mind.
Lastly, as long as Menzies relies on a supposed 1763 copy of a supposed 1418 map as evidence (Google "1418 map"), you need not take him seriously. First, most experts consider it a fake and it has zero in the way of provenance. Second, it apparently has modern characters on it. Third, it is wildly inaccurate, though Menzies would have you believe that the Chinese were the most accurate mapmakers of all time. A map that displays California as an island is based on faulty European maps; and a map that can't show China correctly doesn't bode well for Chinese mapmakers. But let us, for the sake of argument, declare that this map is genuinely from 1763 (though Menzies persists in calling it the "1418 map," he admits it is only a copy from 1763). Even if it was from 1763 and based partially on 1418 exemplars, it is not proof of Chinese voyages to the Americas in 1418. It is only proof that the Chinese know of America after 1763 and that someone added it to an earlier map. If I stumbled across a copy of the 1851 novel Moby-Dick printed in 1998 that has an introduction mentioning the 1956 film Moby Dick, it doesn't mean Herman Melville invented film and filmed his novel back in 1851, it means someone added something to his 1851 text in 1998. But, using Menzies logic, Herman Melville invented the movies in 1851. See?
One and a half stars for pretty pictures. But Menzies is doing the field a disservice with his grandiose and idiotic claims. And why do such authors always claim some dark conspiracy of "professional historians" are out to get them. I know for damn certain that if ANY scholar had any real proof of a Chinese voyage to the Americas, he would publish it and rake in the fame and money. And, it is funny that on pages 249-250 Menzies can thank PhDed scholars (like John Sorenson and Carl Johannessen) and then denigrate "'professional' historians" who won't listen to his theories.
In the end, this book is just poppycock. All you need to know about Gavin Menzies you can find by watching National Geographic's documentary 1421: The Year China Discovered America (which you can find online). It presents his theory and then demolishes it completely. Watch especially at the end when the interviewer confronts Menzies on his misinterpretations, quoting the actual documents Menzies uses as proof and showing they in fact contradict Menzies. His face is priceless. That's all you need to know about Gavin Menzies and his theories.
Show More
royal we of the "1421 team" (usually just Menzies and his wife) going on expensive travels funded by the books he has sold to the gullible . A whole chapter, for instance, describing every modern-day stop along the old Silk Route. Why? When the point of the book is to show again (without evidence, again) that China discovered the Americas by sea. Why? Filler. Otherwise the book would have been just one hundred pages of misinterpretations, innuendo, and silliness.Now let me begin with a caveat: I do think it is possible some Chinese ships (and Portuguese and the Polynesians and maybe some others, for that matter) may have discovered the Americas before 1492, but they had no long-lasting impact. However, I seriously doubt that there was sustained contact, trade, and colonization as Menzies and his ilk would have us believe.
Menzies still doesn't really understand DNA. He speaks of "Chinese DNA" and "Japanese DNA" and even, at one point, "Taiwanese DNA" but fails to realize that Amerindians have Asian-type DNA because scholars say they are descended from Asians! No big mystery there. But the "Asian DNA," Menzies implies, is evidence of recent contact when, in fact, it is evidence of nothing but distant connections. Any biologist or anthropologist could tell you that.
Menzies still holds to the pyramid fallacy: that if one group built pointy buildings and another group built pointy buildings, then there must be some concrete connection between the two groups. This, of course, is poppycock. First, pointy buildings are easy to build. Second, the logic that one must have gotten the idea from another is faulty. I could just as likely write a book claiming that Amerindians colonized China in the distant past and taught them how to build pyramids. Prove me wrong.
Menzies still does not understand the early European explorers or their maps. When John Smith or Coronado or whomever wrote down "we heare there are China ships in the far ocean" it doesn't mean there were actually Chinese ships plying American waters, it means Europeans were eager to have a China connection and fabricated it. It's why Christopher Columbus can hear that the "Caniba" are close by (the Caribs) and he can distort that to "the Khan is close by." Now, using the logic of Menzies, this means that the Great Khan must have had a colony on Cuba in 1492. That is, of course, silly. But it is the type of logic Menzies uses. Take, for instance, his use of the 1776 Antonio Zatta map on page 225. It shows a "Colonia dei Chinesi" on the west coast of North America, which, to Menzies is proof positive there was a Chinese colony there. (He doesn't seem to notice the toponym Fou-sang right next to it). But this doesn't mean there was a Chinese colony there, it just means Zatta was wrong. If you know anything about European cartography of the Americas from 1492-1800, you know it is full of guesses and silliness. There is a 1545 map by Caspar Vopell, one of my favorites, that shows the place-names of Asia alongside those of Mexico and America as an extension of Asia. The Gulf of Mexico is even called the "Mare Cathayum" (Chinese Sea)! This doesn't mean that the Gulf of Mexico was full of Chinese ships and colonies, it just means that Vopell had no friggin clue what was going on. But Menzies and his fellow travelers would posit that this is evidence of Chinese voyages to the Americas.
This is the kind of "evidence" that Menzies and team adduces. It is all poppycock. For instance, on page 146, Menzies claims that the Peruvian city of Chan Chan was built by Chinamen from the city of Canton because Canton is "Chan Chán to the Chinese." You would think that someone whose stock and trade is China would know that the Chinese for the city of Canton is Guǎngzhōu, though it once went by the appellation Shěng Chéng, which means "the provincial capital." How Guǎngzhōu or Shěng Chéng is made into "Chan Chán," and how that is the equivalent of the pre-Columbian city of Chan Chan, is locked away in Menzies's mind.
Lastly, as long as Menzies relies on a supposed 1763 copy of a supposed 1418 map as evidence (Google "1418 map"), you need not take him seriously. First, most experts consider it a fake and it has zero in the way of provenance. Second, it apparently has modern characters on it. Third, it is wildly inaccurate, though Menzies would have you believe that the Chinese were the most accurate mapmakers of all time. A map that displays California as an island is based on faulty European maps; and a map that can't show China correctly doesn't bode well for Chinese mapmakers. But let us, for the sake of argument, declare that this map is genuinely from 1763 (though Menzies persists in calling it the "1418 map," he admits it is only a copy from 1763). Even if it was from 1763 and based partially on 1418 exemplars, it is not proof of Chinese voyages to the Americas in 1418. It is only proof that the Chinese know of America after 1763 and that someone added it to an earlier map. If I stumbled across a copy of the 1851 novel Moby-Dick printed in 1998 that has an introduction mentioning the 1956 film Moby Dick, it doesn't mean Herman Melville invented film and filmed his novel back in 1851, it means someone added something to his 1851 text in 1998. But, using Menzies logic, Herman Melville invented the movies in 1851. See?
One and a half stars for pretty pictures. But Menzies is doing the field a disservice with his grandiose and idiotic claims. And why do such authors always claim some dark conspiracy of "professional historians" are out to get them. I know for damn certain that if ANY scholar had any real proof of a Chinese voyage to the Americas, he would publish it and rake in the fame and money. And, it is funny that on pages 249-250 Menzies can thank PhDed scholars (like John Sorenson and Carl Johannessen) and then denigrate "'professional' historians" who won't listen to his theories.
In the end, this book is just poppycock. All you need to know about Gavin Menzies you can find by watching National Geographic's documentary 1421: The Year China Discovered America (which you can find online). It presents his theory and then demolishes it completely. Watch especially at the end when the interviewer confronts Menzies on his misinterpretations, quoting the actual documents Menzies uses as proof and showing they in fact contradict Menzies. His face is priceless. That's all you need to know about Gavin Menzies and his theories.
Show Less
Subjects
Language
Physical description
viii, 308 p.; 24 cm
ISBN
006223675X / 9780062236753
Similar in this library
The island of seven cities : where the Chinese settled when they discovered America by Paul Chiasson
The fourth part of the world : the race to the ends of the Earth, and the epic story of the map that gave America its name by Toby Lester
A Voyage Long and Strange: On the Trail of Vikings, Conquistadors, Lost Colonists, and Other Adventurers in Early America by Tony Horwitz
Crossing the continent, 1527-1540 : the story of the first African-American explorer of the American South by Robert Goodwin, 1969-
Over the Edge of the World: Magellan's Terrifying Circumnavigation of the Globe by Laurence Bergreen