Book Note Column Editor/The Sign of Jonah

Dear Dr. Kline,

I have just finished Gavin Menzies’s “1421: The Year China Discovered America” you sent me for commentary. I appreciate your offer as it has given me a chance to enjoy such a delightful read that makes an important page of the Chinese history in overseas voyages in the fifteen century. That is the greatest time of the human global exploration of the planet ever seen in history. I did not know much that the Chinese were an active participant of this great adventure until I pored over the book.

Here is what I think. It may well be wrapped under the title “Still a Big Question in Need of Further Investigation.” (2,200 words in 3 pages).

1

Indeed the book presents a fascinating premise: in the year 1421 a huge armada set forth from China to explore the oceans of the world, visiting not only India and East Africa, where they had been before from previous expeditions. It brings up what he believes an entirely new idea, namely the ancient Chinese sailors led by Zheng He reached farther than ever before to Americas decades before European explorers did. The figure compares the two boats used in the two voyages. It surprises me that the Chinese could have made the one so much bigger.

As is well documented, when they returned home after two years sailing on the great oceans, a significant change in the Ming Dynasty court had taken place. It is universally believed that the central government at their newly build capital, Beijing, close to the northern border to the Mongolians, was preoccupied with the risk of their new invasion. They were what founders of the Ming Dynasty had just defeated and succeeded their rule in China, Yuan Dynasty, a few decades earlier. Now the Mongolians had somewhat recovered from its total collapse in China and often attacked Ming’s northern border. To focus limited resources on its defense from the archetypal enemy, the authorities in Beijing decided to give up the marine achievement and power far away on the south of the nation.

Another cause of the drastic change, according to some credible anecdotes reported in Chinese historical notes, is related to Zheng’s personal position alternation. A eunuch and a major designer and commander of the fleet sailing down to the south and west of China commissioned by the Ming Emperor, Zheng won his trust and favor, hence being very powerful. This had roused hidden jealousy and hate from the intellectuals who always saw eunuchs in contempt in China’s tradition. When the new emperor took the throe, Zheng’s influences fell significantly.

Ever since then China withdrew within itself, after destroying the records of the expedition, and the great adventure was forgotten. Nonetheless, some critical information about their discoveries was believed to convey to the West, as the marine communications, with cargoes and personnel, were quite frequent and effective at the time. Menzies suggested that Ming Dynasty’s sailors accomplishments sparked the European age of exploration.2

Who is Menzies anyway? Born 1938, the captain of a Royal Navy’s nuclear submarine for 35 years when he retired, Menzies must be a no-nonsense man. Interesting to note, he was raised by a Chinese nanny until he was 5. Only 9 years later he joined the British Royal Navy at 15. There is little to tell why he left home so early, but it is reasonable to assume, his bond with the nanny who happened to be Chinese would well compete with that with his biological parents. This may well hint his early interest in China’s affairs, including its history of ocean navigation. This was noted even when he was still in the Navy, as he was contemplating Zheng’s sailing route 600 years back, wondering if or how Zheng had reportedly accomplished the job, like visiting all over the world.

After retirement Menzies and his wife took time to follow Zheng’s some route by the sea with a clearer idea than before that he believes Zheng did make the same route. These travels reciprocally augmented his belief in Zheng’s cause. He made the allegation that Zheng’s sailors, if not himself, arrived Americas’ shores in 1421, seven decades before Columbus. This is what the book is all about.

It is tempting to dismiss Menzies as being simply yet another in a long line of authors who have proposed extremely ambitious revisions to traditional history based upon much speculation and little universally acceptable solid evidence. Yet, Menzies does outline a large body of evidence in support of his theory. They can be categorized in five classes from reading “1421”.

1. Maps and charts dating from the 15th and early 16th centuries which appear to show in detail coastlines of the Americas long before European ships reached those shores. A seasoned sailor and commander of a Royal submarine with a stint of 35 years, Menzies is confident in what he sees in ancient maps and charts and hence his allegation. He insists the charts had helped Columbus and Magellan in their ‘discoveries’ of places already made by some folks before setting out the sail. Menzies believes only ancient Chinese sailors were capable of making the charts. He has been surprised by lukewarm response to his claims from his contemporaries, who feel that those charts were made with too much inaccuracy tempered with many imaginaries, hence limited value in confirming anything.

2. The wrecks of Chinese junks and other physical evidences left where they had arrived in the fifteen century, including Chinese porcelains, carved stones, artifacts, etc. They have been questioned academically by archaeological experts, who claim that in a grab-bag approach, he does not know what the “testimonies” are because he lacks special training in this regard. Even though the discussion appears to be very professional that ordinary readers could hardly be persuaded one way or the other, apparently few have agreed with Menzies, who is definitely the minority, even alone, in the debate as I read.

3. Linguistic evidence noted in some Indian tribes in South America, in the region of Chile and Peru. Menzies claims that even the title of the two nations have come from ancient Chinese settlers left by Zheng. Menzies has brought attention to some local dialect in those tribes that sounds similar to Chinese dialect and inherited by generations down to these days. He would not have found the similarity himself, but helped by some linguistic expert. This is again a narrow knowledge only highly trained linguistics possess. People without that training would not be able to know what to believe. Menzies, though, seems pretty confident in their conclusion.

4. Menzies lists many species of agricultural products thriving in one continent but traced back in origin in another between Americas and Asia, especially its eastern part, China, which had the earliest development of agricultural skills. He adored ‘China’s greatest contribution to civilization’, namely, ’the cultivation and propagation of plants’. He mentions a gene found in an America’s cotton came from India that later went to Canton in Southern China before it somehow was propagated to the western sphere.

These might well be facts acknowledged by all scholars, but hardly could it give rough year when it happened except pre-Columbian age, let alone the allegation that it was brought by Zheng’s fleets one way or the other.3To look into the issue deeper with a broader aspect from a modern Chinese view, I have surfed on the websites and books published in China related to the research. In addition I have applied my own knowledge whatever I could to some aspect of the evidences brought up by Menzies in his book. I have the following few ideas to doubt his presentation of the evidences to support his claim.

1. There are remarkably little documentation from China’s scholars and academic facilities to support Menzies’s theory. I have found, on the contrary, many questions brought up to argue against him. Again because of its specialization so narrow, I could not tell myself whom to believe. All I can say is they are very few if any to agree with Menzies. I have not seen sentiments out of national reason to embrace Menzies theory as it would happen in other similar situation related to the national pride of the Chinese people. On the other hand I find good hints in Menzies’s book that he loves Chinese people and its culture more than average Europeans. I am not sure how much of this affection would affect his judgment, but have smelled some smacks.

2. Menzies claims that almost all ancient original archives and records documenting Zheng’s sail leading Americas’ discovery were destroyed when Ming Dynasty changed its foreign policy, legally forbidden marine activities. Yet I still have read some photocopy of official navigation records. One of the most influential is Yin Ya Sheng Lan (瀛涯勝覽，Magnificent Views of Farthest Corners by Sea) authored by Ma Huan (馬歡). Officially an Arabian interpreter, Ma was on three of the seven Zheng’s sails, including the critical 1421 one “down to the West” in charge of documenting all the expeditions deep, the farthest, to East Africa. He spent more than three decades (1413-1451) in working up the documentation until official announcement. He left no single word or suspicion of reaching Americas in the whole endeavor. Its absence is just as telling as what it has. Another one is Wu Bei Zhi (武備誌, The Archives of Military Readiness). It is an official documentation of all military activities at the time, including, amazingly, Zheng’s all overseas expeditions. There are even detailed technological instructions of the navigation, such as, surprisingly, how to use the location of some non-moving stars, like North Polar Star (北极星) aside from compass on the high sea for oriental guidance.

3. Somewhere in the book Menzies described how the emperor saw Zheng’s fleet off in a magnificent ceremony in Beijing as his new capital just moved from Nanjing. This is geologically impossible, because Beijing is far away from any port the fleet could have been launched the sail no matter how great it would have been. Beijing was as it is today an inland city. The nearest port is Tianijng, at least 50 miles away.

4. Menzies observes a stone with inscription found in Massachusetts as an evidence left by ancient Chinese sailors. Moreover he made up some deduction based on the allegation. As a matter of fact, at Zheng’s times, the Chinese language has already evolved to what we see today. Despite some obscurity due to being worn out by age, to me it is clearly visible to allow me or any Chinese literate to say: “This has nothing to do with the Chinese language in any stage of its development.” Does this case show his gra-bag approach as some scholars have criticized? At least, Menzies’s conclusion is reckless.

5. Menzies presents a picture of a tower found in Rhode Island, wondering if it could have been built by Zheng’s men. I can answer the question with confidence, ’No’.

1) There are a few letters above the observing window aiming horizontally that are definitely non-Chinese as we can see today.

2) It is easy to find the project a product of good masonry instead of carpentry while in the ancient Chinese fleet there must have been many smart carpenters but few good masons.

3) The architectural style is hardly seen as typical of Chinese tradition. There have been countless pavilions all over China built over the ages for varied purposes. Most of them are octagonal for a panoramic view, not round as it shows here. I cannot recall a single round one made out of masonry, except those made roughly and temporarily in war times by garrison. There must be immense amount of woods centuries ago should the carpenter-sailors have ever had any intention to build a pavilion they would have made a wooden one.

6. Menzies believes there is some linguistic linkage between some Indian tribes in Chile and Chinese dialect as a living testimony of its historical relationship. This is far-fetching deduction. He may not know how diversified the folks under the label of Chinese people read the same characters over the past 2000 years and many local dialect have no writing signs at all because they cannot fit into any writing form. With an obsession it can be heard like any other foreign language in a short string of words. To me linguistic linkage with Chinese language means nothing.

However, even though these reasons appear strongly against Menzies theory, they are not conclusively overthrowing his allegations because he may have something making sense. So I think the topic will remain alive until some stronger testimony floats up, one way or the other. I believe they would be best found in biological researches, like tracing of DNA, in either botany or anthropology with a new technology that would help its ageing. (Ending)