Chinese Discovery America in 1421

[Jack the Bodiless]

Chinese junks crossing the Atlantic is the most implausible aspect.

By hugging the coasts all the way (except for the Bering Strait), Chinese explorers could reach America in one direction and Africa in the other. They could also discover Australia by island-hopping in the East Indies.

But exploration doesn't imply colonization. Let's think "Chinese" for a moment. You're a member of the greatest civilization on Earth, and you pride yourself on being more sophisticated and technologically advanced than the barbarians around you.

But you want to get off your boat, build log cabins, and never see China again? Why?

[Tolls]

I was avoiding this one, but I do feel I ought to at least post the usual set of links and stuff I do whenever Berzerker bleats on about Hapgood and the accuracy of Piri Reis:

http://www.intersurf.com/~chalcedony/FOG9.html

Article to Mercator's World:

http://www.mercatormag.com/article.php3?i=73

A letter to Mercator's World about above article, and the authors reply...halfway down, called "How Did They Know?"...

http://www.mercatormag.com/article.php3?i=106

Hapgood manipulated the map, removing inconsitencies with reality on the basis that they were copying errors from the original...thus, not surprisingly, ending up with a more accurate map...as the article above says:

"Of course, it is not too difficult to make a coastline on an old map look like another coastline on a modern map if one is allowed to change it. "

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

The balance theory has not been invented by modern scholars, but has a tradition that reaches well into antiquity. It is nothing but a myth that the Terra Australis Incognita on Piri Reis map differs much from that on other prior maps and they're not at all "astoundingly accurate", take a closer lookm and compare with you atlas at home, it's not even close!

According to what I heard,
the Map of Piri Reis shows the outlines of the Landmass of Antarctica, i.e. the coastlines of an ice-free antarctica.

So ist would be of no use, to compare any maps of the ice-covered Antarcica as it is today with the maps of Piri Reis, cause the Icecover has altered the coastlines.

[Tolls]

And here's a couple more...they put forward a good argument that the "southern continent" is none other than Argentina...

http://aps.paradoxdesigns.com/PseudoSite/reiscurves

http://aps.paradoxdesigns.com/PseudoSite/reiswasright.html

A lot more convincing than Hapgood et al...but possibly not as exciting.

[Wernazuma III]

Don't have much time. Before answering more, here's a few quotes Piri Reis made on his map near Antarctica. It can be found here: http://turkeyinmaps.com/piri.html .


VIII. On the way to the vilayet of Hind a Portuguese ship encountered a contrary wind [blowing] from the shore. The wind from the shore . . . [illegible] it [the ship]. After being driven by a storm in a southern direction they saw a shore opposite them they advanced towards it [illegible]. They saw that these places are good anchorages. They threw anchor and went to the shore in boats. They saw people walking, all of them naked. But they shot arrows, their tips made of fishbone. They stayed there eight days. They traded with these people by signs. That barge saw these lands and wrote about them which. . . . The said barge without going to Hind, returned to Portugal, where, upon arrival it gave information. . . . They described these shores in detail. . . . They have discovered them. To top



IX. And in this country it seems that there are white-haired monsters in this shape, and also six-horned oxen. The Portuguese infidels have written it in their maps. . . . To top

X. This country is a waste. Everything is in ruin and it is said that large snakes are found here. For this reason the Portuguese infidels did not land on these shores and these are also said to be very hot

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by orange
expensive yeah, but certainly possible...

ok, back to the topic: did China discover the New World and circumnavigate the globe or not? Answers people I want answers!

If the question is, could the Chinese have reached the America's?
answer: Its possible. They had the ships and the expertise to do it.
The next question is what's the relevance of this possibilty?
answer: Nothing. They formed no colony so aside from the opportunities for present-day pro-chinese propaganda, its interesting but unimportant. The vikings lived in North America long before anyone else anyway.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by SpencerH
The vikings lived in North America long before anyone else anyway.

...beside Amerindians and Inuit.

[SpencerH]

Of course

[Ned]

Is this a forgery?

Letter to Prof C.Hapgood from Lorenzo W.Burroughs Captain, USAF Chief, Cartographic Section 8th Reconnasissance Technical Sqdn (SAC) Westover, Mass.
Charles Hapgood enclosed a copy of this letter from the USAF cartographic section regarding the Piri Reis map and its construction in his book, "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings". This letter if valid is informative as it lends external validity to Hapgood's thesis that these maps could only have been constructed when the ice cover on Antarctica was absent. The problem is that the Antarctic ice cover is supposed to be millions of years old. I am interested in affirming the accuracy of these claims and would like to hear from anyone who knows if Prof Hapgoods theory has been evaluated by any other cartographers; or if anyone knows of any research or publications on these maps and/or this letter or Hapgood's theory.
" It is not very often that we have the opportunity to evaluate maps of ancient origin. The Piri Reis ( AD 1513 ) and the Oronteus Fineaus [sic] ( AD 1531 ) maps sent to us by you, presented a delightful challenge for it was not readily conceivable that they could be so accurate without being forged. With added enthusiasm we accepted this challenge and have expended many off duty hours evaluating your manuscript and the above maps. I am sure you will be pleased to know that we have concluded that both of these maps were compiled from accurate original source maps, irrespective of dates. The following is a brief summary of our findings:
A. The solution of the portolano projection used by Admiral Piri Reis, developed by your class in Anthropology must be very nearly correct; for when known geographical locations are checked in relationship to the grid computed by Mr. Richard W. Strachan ( MIT ), there, is remarkably close agreement. Piri Reis' use of the Portolano projection ( centred on Syene, Egypt ) is an excellent choice, for it is a developable surface that would permit the relative size and shape of the earth at that ( lattitude ) to be retained. It is our opinion that those who compiled the original map had an excellent knowledge of the continents covered by this map.
B. As stated by Colonel Harold Z. Ohlmeyer in his letter ( July 6, 1960 ) to you, the Princess Martha Coast of Queen Maud Land, Antarctica, appears to be truly represented on the southern sector of the Piri Reis Map. The agreement of the Piri Reis map with the seismic profile of this area made by the Norwegian-British -Swedish Expedition of 1949, suported by your solution of the grid, places beyond a reasonable doubt the conclusion that the original source maps must have been made before the present Antarctic ice cap covered Queen Maud Land coasts.
C. It is our opinion that the accuracy of the cartographic features shown in the Oronteus Fineaus [sic] Map ( AD 1530 ) suggests, beyond a doubt, that it also was compiled from accurate source maps of Antarctica, but in this case of the entire continent. Close examination has proved the original source maps must have been compiled at a time when the land mass and inland waterways of the continent were relatively free of ice. This conclusion is further supported by a comparison of the Oronteus Finneaus [sic] Map with the results obtained by International Geophysical Year teams in their measurements of the subglacial topography. The comparison also suggests that the original source maps ( compiled in remote antiquity ) were prepared when Antarctica was presumably free of ice. The Cordiform projection used by Oronteus Fineaus [sic] suggests the use of advanced mathematics. Further, the shape given to the Antarctic continent suggests the possibility, if not the probability, that the original source maps were compiled on a stereographic or gnomonic type of projection ( involving the use of spherical trigonometry ).
D. We are convinced that the findings made by you and your associates are valid, and that they raise extremely important questions affecting geology and ancient history, questions which certainly require further investigation.
We thank you for extending us the opportunity to have participated in the study of these maps. The following officers and airmen vollunteered their time to assist Captain Lorenzo W.Burroughs in this evaluation: Captain Richard E. Covault, CWO Howard D.Minor, MSgt Clifton M.Dover, MSgt DAvid C.Carter, TSgt James H.Hood, SSgt James L.Carroll, and AIC Don R.Vance."
Lorenzo W.Burroughs
Captain, USAF
Chief, Cartographic Section
8th Reconnaissance Technical Sqdn ( SAC )
Westover, Mass.

[Ned]

Here is the map of Orenteus Fineaus completed in 1531. It appears to show Antarctica as well.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Berzerker
wernazuma -

I got my info from "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings", and I think Hapgood said Piri Re'is claimed Colombus had a map like his, not that he got a copy of Colombus' map. But either way, the Re'is map does show parts of the Atlantic Colombus didn't sail to, so I'm not sure how Colombus mapped the Antarctic and S American (below the Amazon) coastline and gave Re'is a copy a few years later.

Hapgood is hardly a reliable source. He uses some crippled facts from comparing old maps with "ice-free Antarctica" and then concludes from this only that some 10000 years ago there must have been a civilization of the "sea kings". Come on.
If you really care to take a look on the old maps and compare them to Antarctica (or, ice-free antarctica), you'll find hardly any similarity beside the fact that both are centered around the south pole.
Here's a quote from the site tolls presented:

. In order to show that the outline of Terra Australis on the Fine map “matched” the outline of the real continent of Antarctica, Hapgood rotated the Fine depiction significantly, drastically altered its scale (Fine’s Terra Australis is 900 percent larger than Antarctica!), changed the position of Fine’s South Pole by 1,000 miles, omitted the 900-mile-long Antarctic (or Palmer) Peninsula, and resequenced whole sections of the Fine depiction. After these “corrections” were made, Hapgood was able to claim that the Fine map “matched” the actual configuration of Antarctica.

http://www.mercatormag.com/article.php3?i=106

Note especially the size of Terra Australis, it's really much bigger than Antarctica. Furthermore, this Terra Australis in one way or the other, always was there on maps, even medieval ones. Take a look on any world map between 1500 and 1650, it's there with a hit percentage of 85%. It just grew smaller and smaller as sailors more and more penetrated the southern seas.

[quote]The only, or should I say, main problem with Re'is map was it showed S America connected to Antarctica. [quote]

That doesn't really surprise me. The knowledge of the shape of America was very distorted at that time, laying apart the Caribbean and the Brazil coast. At that time, North America was thought to be nothing more than a small appendix of S America and many thought it was connected in the south with Terra Australis. On the Maggiolo map of 1511 e.g. it is an integrated part of TA. Then, after Magellan's voyage, it was still thought that Fireland was part of it and after Cap Hoorn was discovered, the Terra Australis was thought to be at least close.

[quote]But I've seen a map showing Antarctica as it appears under the ice sheet. The continent is actually divided into 2 sections on the map and that is how the continent appears according to sub-glacial mapping. There is another map showing the Bering land bridge, but you'll have to check out Hapgood's book to see these maps. [quote]

If you can tell me who were the authors of the maps I can tell you more.
But beside that: The Bering Street appears as "Anian Street" on many maps from ~1550 onwards. Of course it had not been discovered, it was nothing but an educated guess that was followed by many, though not all. It's name already indicates that it was a guess, as it's named after a reign which Marco Polo claimed to be situated north of China. Scholars back then discussed theoretically that Asia and America had to be either "seperated by a narrow strait or connected by a land bridge" (Father Joseph de Acosta, ~1580)

But why would modern scolars use mythical claims of a southern landmass to balance the world to rationalise these maps?

The mapmakers of their time were drawing upon all kind of sources, only parts of it being empirical data, most of it were mythical or theoretical (because the existance of the TA was a theoretical projection of geographers in antiquity, not a myth!). Not modern scholars interpret this, it's documented by cosmographers themselves that in cases, where empirical data was missing, they relied on theories and myths.

Can't anyone here have a civil discussion without insulting people?

I didn't insult you, I just said that the statements, which actually aren't yours but Hapgood's are stupid.

Then why is it a "stupidity"?

Because on a few findings, odd or not, large theories are made, but only singular indications are given. Just one example: Before I'm not given an epidemologic argument how contact between Rome and America was possible without interchanging germs, OK. If you can tell me how statues came to America but NOT grain, European rats or any other domesticated animal, OK. If not, I'll consider singular, doubtful findings illusions or fakes.

But the Aztecs did come after the Toltecs who either built or succeeded the builders of Teotihuancan which does date to that period. The Aztecs undoubtedly borrowed artifacts they found from prior civilizations. The Aztec religion contains relics of Toltec religion and presumably, Toltec religion borrowed features of older cultures.

OK, I was being polemic in this.

I'd have to check, but I believe it was a temple unearthed in Mexico City back around WWII.

Please, check.



[quote]There are several legends about Quetzalcoatl, are you familiar with them all? [quote]

With most. But there has to be made one more word. East has to be interpreted within the Mayan cosmology. Quetzalcoatl (Actually Topiltzin Ce Acatl Quetzalcoatl, the God-king, who's a person and rather a manifestation/incarnation of the God) comes from the "divine sphere". The East is associated with the paradise of the warriors generally and there he went (back?) after leaving Tollan. One version says he burnt himself at the coast becoming the Morning Star. The Toltec-Mayan version has it that he went in his boat to Yucatan. They said so because by this, the Toltec invaders legitimated their rule in Yucatan. There IS no story that tells that Quetzalcoatl came sailing with a boat over the Atlantic, it's just conjectures and wishful thinking.

It is true the word for water is "atl", but the word for water comes from the eastern sea.

This one is easy: It's not true.

If you see a list of Mayan deities, even one without Votan, you'll see the nature of the language. Votan is unique among the names of their deities.

I've checked, this God exists, it's a drum god or something similar. But although I agree that it's not a typical Mayan name, there is a Mayan god called Voltan too. No reason to think that the word is not genuinely Mayan. There's always some words in languages that resemble each other, not reason to look for contacts. In Nahuatl (Aztec) the word for hill is "tepetl", in Turk it's "tepe". Now, what does this tell us? There's tons of such examples and they've all been used to establish links between Amerindians with Dutch, Germans, Vikings, Ests, Trojans(!), Greeks (Aeneas!), the Lost Tribes of Israel,
Beside the name "votan", there's no link at all to ancient Germanics (like culture, genetics, depictions, again animals, germs etc.), so why bother?

[Ned]

A rebuttal:
Gregory C. McIntosh, The Pire Reis Map of 1513

Since 1949 and 1966, Drewry (1982) compiled the available
data obtained from seismic surveys and radio echo soundings
into what still considered the most comprehensive mapping
that has ever been published. A comparison of the portion
of the Piri Reis map, which they claim to be Antarctica, with
a both more recent subglacial bedrock topography map
(Drewry 1982, sheet 3) and a bedrock surface map isostatically
adjusted for glacial rebound (Drewry 1982, sheet 6) showed
a distinct lack of any striking similarities their coastlines and
that of the Piri Reis Map. The lack of correspondence between
the Piri Reis Map and an ice-free Antarctica is not surprising
given the evidence presented by Linde (1980) that the source
maps for the other parts of the Piri Reis Map are of no great
antiquity.

The Problem of An Ice-Free Antarctica

As previously discussed, there is an abundance of evidence that
demonstrates that Antarctica was covered by a fully developed
ice cap between 40,000 to 6,000 B.P. contrary to the claims of
FOG and Hapgood (1966, 1979). This evidence includes ice core
data (Jouzel et al 1987, Lorius et al. 1979), cores from the Ross
Sea (Licht et al. 1996, Kellogg 1979), palynological data from tip
of South America (Heusser 1989), and numerous radiocarbon
dates from glacio-lacustrine deposits and deltas (Stuvier et al.
1981). In fact, these and other studies show that a maximum
development of the ice cap and Ross Ice Shelf occurred during
that period, 21,000 to 16,000 B.P. (Denton et al. 1991), which
falsifies all of the claims made by FOG, "The Mysterious
Origins of Man," and Hapgood (1966, 1979) about the glacial
history of Antarctica.

As I have reviewed in previous posts, numerous studies, e.g.
Denton et al. (1991) and Marchant et al. (1986) present an
abundance of evidence that Antarctica was last completely
ice-free over 14 million years ago. Deep cores and borings made
into sediments filling deep basins within and thousands of
kilometers of seismic data from the continental shelf of
Antarctica confirm these studies (Cooper et al. 1995). Thus,
at no time was Antarctica ice-free enough for maps showing
either a totally or partially ice-free Antarctica to have been
made during the last 14 million years or so.

Conclusions

The clearest deduction that can be made from the above analysis
is that there is no evidence of any advanced map-making
technology being involved in the production of the Piri Reis
Map. There is really no evidence that the accuracy that it does
have reflects accuracy in the original source maps because of the
assumptions and methodology used to reconstruct the boundaries
and grid of the alleged source maps. If a person automatically
assumes that the errors are all the result of poor compilation,
then the "source maps" reconstructed using that assumption
are naturally going to be accurate. They may be accurate, but
will still be purely fictional and lack any resemblance to
the actual source maps from which the Piri Reis Map was
compiled.

[Wernazuma III]

Ned: About the Oronce Fine map: Again I have to say, that "Terra Australis" is ALWAYS there. Take a look on two things on the map: Note, where Fine puts the "Circulus Antarcticus" - midway between the pole and the coast.
Now get your atlas and take a look: The "Antarctic Circle" is about at the coast
2. Do you know that large peninsula of Antarctica towards South America? It's not there on Fine's map, neither is the large "Byrd land" recognizable. And that's only the mostz obvious "mistake".

[Wernazuma III]

The letter seems to be either a fake or was written by some guy who was paid enough.
The stated "Portolan Projection" is actually no proper projection. It uses relative datas between ports which are made with knowing the direction a ship is sailing and the estimated speed. With this method one is able to make excellent maps of coastlines (from port to port, bay to bay), but they're unreliable over large ocean distances. Piri Reis used merely Portolan data, not a projection. Actually, a Portolan world map would be similar to a Mercator projection.

The "advanced" Cordiform projection has actually been used by a few other Renaissance cartographers too. They sometimes had VERY weird and eccentric projections with complex mathematic models, yet no esoterics needed for explanation, just a new science playing with possibilities. The Cordiform projection, if I'm not mistaken, was already proposed by the famous ancient cartographer Ptolemaios (2nd cent. AD). It's his 3rd projection method I think, have to look up. You need no "Ancient Sea Kings"...

[Berzerker]

Tolls -

I was avoiding this one, but I do feel I ought to at least post the usual set of links and stuff I do whenever Berzerker bleats on about Hapgood and the accuracy of Piri Reis:

What are you bleating about now, Tolls? I mentioned a book written by Hapgood and never said the Piri Re'is map was accurate, it makes mistakes in projecting longitude and latitude which led Hapgood to believe it was a compilation of maps. I was referring to other maps that show Antarctica accurately, the Re'is map shows only one coastline. Your turn to bleat...

Wernazuma -

Hapgood is hardly a reliable source.

Even if he did nothing but write a book showing these maps, that would be enough for me.

He uses some crippled facts from comparing old maps with "ice-free Antarctica" and then concludes from this only that some 10000 years ago there must have been a civilization of the "sea kings".

I didn't say I agreed with all of his conclusions.

If you really care to take a look on the old maps and compare them to Antarctica (or, ice-free antarctica), you'll find hardly any similarity beside the fact that both are centered around the south pole.

The Fineaus map shows Antarctica as Ned as posted. But why would these ancient maps show a land mass there in the first place?

Note especially the size of Terra Australis, it's really much bigger than Antarctica.

A question of projection, still doesn't explain why the maps show any land there.

Furthermore, this Terra Australis in one way or the other, always was there on maps, even medieval ones. Take a look on any world map between 1500 and 1650, it's there with a hit percentage of 85%. It just grew smaller and smaller as sailors more and more penetrated the southern seas.

Which is evidence Antarctica was known from even earlier times. No one here is suggesting Piri Re'is made his map from his personal experience.

If you can tell me who were the authors of the maps I can tell you more.

It was in Hapgood's book, but I don't own it. I'd bet there is an internet site with these maps though, it'll take me some free time to look.

But beside that: The Bering Street appears as "Anian Street" on many maps from ~1550 onwards. Of course it had not been discovered, it was nothing but an educated guess that was followed by many, though not all.

Well, I believe an early map showed the land bridge only to be incorporated into later maps, but why would the inclusion of a land mass that no longer exists be on these maps? An educated guess? Maybe to explain Indians in the new world? Possibly, but that's just another coincidence that should raise eyebrows. The map shows a roughly 1,000 mile wide land mass connecting Asia to N America, and that is roughly the size of the Bering land bridge.

I didn't insult you, I just said that the statements, which actually aren't yours but Hapgood's are stupid.

Maybe my mistake, but the first on your list of stupidities was my comment about a Roman sculpture found in an Aztec temple.

Because on a few findings, odd or not, large theories are made, but only singular indications are given. Just one example: Before I'm not given an epidemologic argument how contact between Rome and America was possible without interchanging germs, OK. If you can tell me how statues came to America but NOT grain, European rats or any other domesticated animal, OK. If not, I'll consider singular, doubtful findings illusions or fakes.

I agree more is needed, if the sculpture was found in situ, then an explanation for it would have to account for the lack of other evidence. Anomalies like this are interesting, but not enough proof to change the consensus. It's possible the wreckage of a ship from the Mediterranean washed ashore with all aboard long dead from exposure/drowning. But when we start combining these anomalies with legends of bearded white men from the east, the case for pre-colombian contact grows stronger.

With most. But there has to be made one more word. East has to be interpreted within the Mayan cosmology. Quetzalcoatl (Actually Topiltzin Ce Acatl Quetzalcoatl, the God-king, who's a person and rather a manifestation/incarnation of the God) comes from the "divine sphere".

His name in Mayan religion was Kukulcan, Quetzalcoatl was his Aztec/Toltec name and I believe "Quetzalcoatl" means "feathered water serpent" with "Quetzal" taken from the feathered quetzal bird and "co" and "atl" being serpent and water.

There IS no story that tells that Quetzalcoatl came sailing with a boat over the Atlantic, it's just conjectures and wishful thinking.

Okay (edited here), the version I have (p352 - "The Flayed God"), Quetzalcoatl crafted a raft of serpents and set out across the eastern sea to return one day.

This one is easy: It's not true.

Atl means water, so we don't know if the word comes from a name given to the Atlantic or if it came from some other source of water. I have to track down the Nahuatl word for the Atlantic, but even that wouldn't tell us the origin of the word.

I've checked, this God exists, it's a drum god or something similar.

Votan is an ancient Mayan deity and he seems to be vague even in Mayan writings as if they don't know his origin that well.

But although I agree that it's not a typical Mayan name, there is a Mayan god called Voltan too. No reason to think that the word is not genuinely Mayan.

Votan/Voltan are unique in the Mayan language.

There's always some words in languages that resemble each other, not reason to look for contacts.

True, but when deity names start appearing in different places we usually find contacts did occur. The similarities between Indian/Aryan/Indus deities and Rome and Greece were discovered when the relationships in those languages was discovered. Now, concerning Votan/Odin, it's possible Nordic voyagers in Newfoundland told the Indians about their deity and was passed along via trade routes through N America down to the Toltecs and Maya.

In Nahuatl (Aztec) the word for hill is "tepetl", in Turk it's "tepe". Now, what does this tell us? There's tons of such examples and they've all been used to establish links between Amerindians with Dutch, Germans, Vikings, Ests, Trojans(!), Greeks (Aeneas!), the Lost Tribes of Israel,
Beside the name "votan", there's no link at all to ancient Germanics (like culture, genetics, depictions, again animals, germs etc.), so why bother?

Scholars have been investigating language groups and they are getting close to a possible mother tongue. It is also interesting that the Aztec capital was named Tenochtitlan. I don't buy into alot of that "lost tribes of Israel" stuff, but I don't dismiss it. More work needs to be done, but peoples all over the new world - from the Hopi to the Inca - have legends of white people from the east. Scholars dismissed contacts between the Inca and their predecessors and MesoAmerica, but both the Inca and Aztec/Toltecs viewed "Heaven" as divided into 13 layers with 9 layers in the (celestial) underworld.