Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Nonentity

New Book Claims Chinese first discovered USA

21 posts in this topic

Something new to debate on besides Atlantis (ad nauseum).

Does a 600-year-old Chinese map prove that Christopher Columbus was not the first explorer to navigate the New World?

In his book “Who Discovered America?,” published Tuesday, author Gavin Menzies says the settling of North America by nonnative peoples is more complex than previously thought.

‘The traditional story of Columbus discovering the New World is absolute fantasy, it’s fairy tales,” Menzies, 76, said in an interview with the Daily Mail.

However, not everyone is sold on the theory. Menzies has been derided as a “pseudo-historian” by critics, who say his claims are grandiose and not based in historical fact. Menzies has primarily focused his studies on when and how North America was first explored but he has also argued that the mythological city of Atlantis was real.

Menzies also has passionate supporters — his previous books have been best-sellers, and proponents of his theories have donated millions to his efforts, allowing him to hire a number of experts to join in his investigations.

Full story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is NOT new news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had that here, look a little down.

And the author is dead wrong, the find of negroid type skeletons on the North-East of Brazil dating to before the Mongoloid migration seems to indicate that the Australian aborigines were there first.

For those who don't like to read, there was a BBC documentation about it that is available on Youtube now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is NOT new news.

Had that here, look a little down.

And the author is dead wrong, the find of negroid type skeletons on the North-East of Brazil dating to before the Mongoloid migration seems to indicate that the Australian aborigines were there first.

For those who don't like to read, there was a BBC documentation about it that is available on Youtube now.

Well I am sorry I posted this. I don't generally post here because the only ever thing I see is crap about Atlantis. Thought I'd inject something new. Tell a moderator to remove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I am sorry I posted this. I don't generally post here because the only ever thing I see is crap about Atlantis. Thought I'd inject something new. Tell a moderator to remove it.

Don't be down just because a couple of replies are negative, CoB.

I, for one, am always fascinated with reading of early explorations and discoveries. I did note, however, the map in question dates from the 18th century and is only reported to be copied from 15th century maps - so the article you linked to told a little white fib there in it's preamble.

However, weren't the Vikings (and the Irish) supposed to have beat both the Chinese and other Europeans to the New World?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I am sorry I posted this. I don't generally post here because the only ever thing I see is crap about Atlantis. Thought I'd inject something new. Tell a moderator to remove it.

Don't be sorry, had I not known that we had it I would have posted the same thing. Atlantis is getting very old, and stone block lifting Geysers too.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be sorry, had I not known that we had it I would have posted the same thing. Atlantis is getting very old, and stone block lifting Geysers too.

The reason I don't post much on this forum is all the Atlantis topics.

Plato was wrong.

Anyways, the Chinese finding America makes the idea of America owing China debt even more humorous.

My question is - has the map been sincerely dated to the 1400's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be down just because a couple of replies are negative, CoB.

I, for one, am always fascinated with reading of early explorations and discoveries. I did note, however, the map in question dates from the 18th century and is only reported to be copied from 15th century maps - so the article you linked to told a little white fib there in it's preamble.

However, weren't the Vikings (and the Irish) supposed to have beat both the Chinese and other Europeans to the New World?

Not to forget the Danish/Portuguese expedition.

My problem with the Chinese story is that there is no archeological record (which we have with the Vikings) and there is no documentation (like with the Danish/Portuguese expedition). It is all based on the "fact" that the Chinese ships of Zheng He could have reached America. Which nobody doubts. But then, why do we have records of the Western expeditions and none of the Eastern expedition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I don't post much on this forum is all the Atlantis topics.

Plato was wrong.

Anyways, the Chinese finding America makes the idea of America owing China debt even more humorous.

My question is - has the map been sincerely dated to the 1400's?

If it is the map we have debated up and down a year ago, it seems to be consistent with one of Zheng He's. What I doubt very much is that it shows America. Nobody can successfully navigate a fleet and get the location and distances so wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that since the original colonization of America by what we now call native Americans, people from different parts of the world have been frequently "re-discovering" the continent, be it the Chinese, the Vikings, the Polinesian, or possibly also the central African civilizations and maybe even Phoenicians and others

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without any archeological background or any other knowledge I would have to say that

It seems fairly possible to me. We in the West tend to be Eurocentric more so in the past then we are now. So I doubt any archeologist in the past would of given credit to the Chinese for discovering America.

for example Its now commonly accepted that the Vikings were here before.

Edited by spartan max2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be sorry, had I not known that we had it I would have posted the same thing. Atlantis is getting very old, and stone block lifting Geysers too.

Then stand by for the stone blocks being moved by soundwaves theory about to take off any time soon.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always wondered that while Inuit are clearly Siberian, and simply going by looks not DNA, there are Siberian traits in other Native Americans. Two things stand out to me. Firstly Amazonian Indians live a lifestyle and have the physical appearance of South Asians, not Siberians, though still Asians of course. Then there is the question of noses. Siberian/Mongoloid noses are small, so why do so many American Indians have impressive Roman noses on their otherwise Siberian type faces. I say Siberian type becaue North American Indians apart from Inuit don't look Chinese or Japanese Mongoloid at all, and only partially like the non European inhabitants of that part of North Asia usually called Siberia. Where have these Roman noses, or if not exactly Roman then quite similar, come from?

Edited by Kaa-Tzik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i say its possible, can we prove it 100? no, so that will leave many to hop up onto the hate wagon for this type of theory, atlantis is real! its in the minds of any adventure seeking thrill rider! or its just a made up story or we will never know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does a 600-year-old Chinese map prove that Christopher Columbus was not the first explorer to navigate the New World?

Norse still beat them by 400 years :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always wondered that while Inuit are clearly Siberian, and simply going by looks not DNA, there are Siberian traits in other Native Americans. Two things stand out to me. Firstly Amazonian Indians live a lifestyle and have the physical appearance of South Asians, not Siberians, though still Asians of course. Then there is the question of noses. Siberian/Mongoloid noses are small, so why do so many American Indians have impressive Roman noses on their otherwise Siberian type faces. I say Siberian type becaue North American Indians apart from Inuit don't look Chinese or Japanese Mongoloid at all, and only partially like the non European inhabitants of that part of North Asia usually called Siberia. Where have these Roman noses, or if not exactly Roman then quite similar, come from?

Evolution via natural (or perhaps sexual) selection or genetic drift.

The implication that a specific feature of one ethnic group of humans cannot also arise in another ethnic group without interbreeding, ignores that human DNA in all of us contains the potential for any of the disparate features the different ethnicities exhibit.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution via natural (or perhaps sexual) selection or genetic drift.

The implication that a specific feature of one ethnic group of humans cannot also arise in another ethnic group without interbreeding, ignores that human DNA in all of us contains the potential for any of the disparate features the different ethnicities exhibit.

The reason I asked about the noses is that a large nose is what is needed for cold climates. So we see neanderthals with large nosed and Europeans all with large noses and this trait of course exhibited by all those under the rather large umbrella of "Caucasoid", and we all see Semetic peoples with particulary big noses even though they inhabit hot locations. So If all causasoids share a common ancestor, and I'm not going back all the way here, then it would seem that, for instance, Semetic peoples have sort of rebelled against evolution and kept their big noses when they ought to have developed smaller noses. So, why then do Siberian/Mongoloid peoples living in Asia have the small nose typical of them, while American Indians have these big noses, though not all of course. I wonder if they were a similar though seperate group before they migrated from Asia, a group that for some reason had developed big noses while the stay behinds had small noses. An answer could be that what we see as Siberian/Mongoloid today have migrated from South East Asia, while the ancestors of big nosed American Indians, though presumably sharing a common ancestor, had moved North into Siberia long long before modern Siberians did, long enough for evolution to give them big noses because of the cold. Or, are they related in some way, other than being human of course, to Caucasoids, a possible mix. Why have not Semetic peoples not developed smaller noses and modern Siberians bigger ones, particulary Inuit who do not seem physically suited to their environment. They should have huge noses and white skin, I would have thought. This is a bit of ramble I know, but I hope it is understandable

Edited by Kaa-Tzik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I asked about the noses is that a large nose is what is needed for cold climates.

No. A large, protruding nose is not a cold-climate adaptation as it is less efficient in heating the air drawn in to remove the moisture before the air goes to the lungs (and has the most surface area relative to volume to allow heat-loss). 'Snub' or 'flat' noses (of whatever 'size') are the most efficient cold-weather design, and these are seen in most (if not all) cold-weather adapted peoples.

The large, but thin, Roman nose you describe is not a cold-climate adaptation. Which is fine because most of continental North America (i.e. south of Canada) where the native Americans live(d) does not have a cold-climate, but temperate to sub-tropical.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. A large, protruding nose is not a cold-climate adaptation as it is less efficient in heating the air drawn in to remove the moisture before the air goes to the lungs (and has the most surface area relative to volume to allow heat-loss). 'Snub' or 'flat' noses (of whatever 'size') are the most efficient cold-weather design, and these are seen in most (if not all) cold-weather adapted peoples.

The large, but thin, Roman nose you describe is not a cold-climate adaptation. Which is fine because most of continental North America (i.e. south of Canada) where the native Americans live(d) does not have a cold-climate, but temperate to sub-tropical.

Yet then why do those who live in hot climates, for instance sub Saharan Africans, have smaller and broader noses than those who live in colder regions. It's only a minority of people who live in the North have small noses, the Sami and Inuit, the rest of us have typical European nose. And all I have ever been told or have read on this subject says that big noses are a cold weather adaptation. Neanderthals we are always told were better adapted to Northern Europe than us, and reconstructions show big noses.

Edited by Kaa-Tzik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet then why do those who live in hot climates, for instance sub Saharan Africans, have smaller and broader noses than those who live in colder regions. It's only a minority of people who live in the North have small noses, the Sami and Inuit, the rest of us have typical European nose. And all I have ever been told or have read on this subject says that big noses are a cold weather adaptation. Neanderthals we are always told were better adapted to Northern Europe than us, and reconstructions show big noses.

The reason is right there. Small broad noses are hot-climate adaptations, while large broad noses are cold. As for variations, you have to consider how long evolutionary adaptations take to occur - especially if there is little pressure for that change - and what other behaviours or traits a population may exhibit which might render special adaptation unnecessary. Modern (i.e. within the last couple of thousand years) populations of people in arctic and sub-arctic conditions express sophisticated behaviours which more than accommodates for a lack of, or slightly less pronounced, physiological adaptation.

Adaptation is biologically expensive, and if a population doesn't have to adapt because of other factors (behaviour, etc) it won't - or might but to a lesser degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.