Columbus did not discover America

A new book by Gavin Menzies makes this claim again. While it is pretty clear the Leif Ericson was the first man to successfully sail from Europe to America and back in the last few thousand years, it has long been argued that Zheng He navigated over stretches of water equal in distance to that which Columbus sailed from Canary Islands to the Bahamas.,


But a new book claims that this map was based on Zheng He's voyages, and that he did discover America 70 years before Columbus.


For good measure, the books also claims that the Chinese sailed across the Pacific 40,000 years ago, and their bloodlines were mixed with the people who walked across the current Bering Strait.

I have to think that this theory must be a load of dookie. Even if Zheng He managed to sail across the Pacific before Columbus, there is no way he could have drawn a map with that degree of accuracy.

Everyone has a point of view I guess.

Discovery mostly does little to no good without communication. Mendel discovered the basics of biological inheritance decades before anyone else, but he did not publicize his finding. This led to a decades-long delay in furthering the understanding of genetics.

So maybe everyone and their kid sister discovered America before Columbus, but only Chris went back to Europe and reported it.

Next, a discoery can also be useless, or of limited or little value, if you cannot exploit it. Suppose Mendel had lived and made his findings in 600 BC, and told every living soul about it. Nothing would have come of it. In the case of Columbus, regardless of other considerations, he came from a civilziation which had, or could obtain, the means to exploit the knowledge of America's location.

What about theory that the native Americans are descended from the lost tribe(s) of Israel? Did they come by boats, and if so, where did they land?

Quote: Wizard

What about theory that the native Americans are descended from the lost tribe(s) of Israel? Did they come by boats, and if so, where did they land?

I thought it was the Greeks who conquered the Yucatan Peninsula and build the Toltec cities... no, wait, that was a story idea I discarded... Hmm. Then wasn't it a Viking who conquered the Yucatan Peninsula and then defeated the invading Roman legions with the aid of poisoned darts and a hurricane? Oh, no, wait, that was Robert Silverberg's story. Hmm. I'm at a loss.

The ancients had more capabilities than people today think they did. Consider the engineering achievements of the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, which has stood for about 1500 years! But navigation in the West concerned almost exclusively the Mediterrenean and other rather secluded bodies of water like the English Channel, the Baltic, the North Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. Ships were built for that.

The thing is voyages were limited in these places and typically land was usually a day or two away. Could you sail across the Atlantic in, say, a Roman trireme? Possibly, but it would be like today crossing the Atlantic in an ultralight plane not speciphically designed for the trip. With the added disdvantage that the Romans had no clue how far the Atlantic went.

Therefore all stories of ancient mariners crossing the Atlantic or Pacific should be taken with a megaton of salt.

Quote: Wizard

What about theory that the native Americans are descended from the lost tribe(s) of Israel? Did they come by boats, and if so, where did they land?

If you look to Native lore, Natives of course originated here (here being present day America) and have only existed here. Obviously, that's all religion based, and relies on zero science or evidence.

Personally, and this is just observation also with no science or study to back it up, I find Natives share a lot of physical similarities with those of the high north (Inuit), the Pacific Rim (Polynesian), and even with those from the East Asian coast. The theory that they came across the Bering Strait all those years ago... kind of makes sense to me.

If you'd ask if they came by boat, I'd ask how come they didn't continue in their ship building ways. While I'm not as learned in the Native cultures of the west as I am of the east, I know of no vessel of theirs that's even remotely plausible to have handled a transoceanic journey.

Quote: Wizard

What about theory that the native Americans are descended from the lost tribe(s) of Israel? Did they come by boats, and if so, where did they land?

That theory is part of pseudo history that attempts to unite religion with observed archeology. However, it is very possible that Columbus was secretly Jewish and that much of his crew were Jews who were hiding from the massive eviction of Jews from Spain.

The Chinese were certainly a century ahead of the Europeans in boat building. The Vikings made it to Newfoundland because they island hopped via Iceland and Greenland. It seems almost certain that the Basque Whalers and fisherman were working in the waters near Nova Scotia, but they didn't build any settlements and may have had limited or no landfalls.


The 3650 miles from the Grand Canary island to the Bahamas was much more than the 2400 miles from Gibralter to Palestine, but Ireland to NewFoundland was only 1900 miles and Verde Islands to Brazil was about 1700 miles. A ship could sail over 100 miles per day, and stay at sea for up to 6 weeks, so the distances were not overwhelming once they knew how to navigate.

Acapulco to Manila is 8900 miles along a great circle. but Magellan crossed the Pacific only 28 years after Columbus's voyage (while losing most of his men to starvation). But a century after Columbus, they could do the crossing

The Manila-Acapulco galleon trade finally began when Spanish navigator Andrés de Urdaneta discovered the eastward route in 1565. Urdaneta sailed north to the 38th parallel, before heading east, and hitting the eastward winds that would take him to Mexico. When he arrived in Acapulco on October 8th, 1565.

The ship traveled 12,000 miles (20,000 km) in 130 days. Fourteen of the crew had died; only Urdaneta and Felipe de Salcedo, nephew of López de Legazpi, had strength enough to cast the anchors.

Quote: Face

If you'd ask if they came by boat, I'd ask how come they didn't continue in their ship building ways. While I'm not as learned in the Native cultures of the west as I am of the east, I know of no vessel of theirs that's even remotely plausible to have handled a transoceanic journey.

It is believed that settlers from the Marquesas sailed to Hawaii (2300 miles) between 1200 and 1800 years ago.And that voyage crosses several ocean currents going in opposite directions. While there is no direct evidence that settlers crossed the Atlantic, it is still within the realm of reasonable speculation.

Quote: Pacomartin

It is believed that settlers from the Marquesas sailed to Hawaii (2300 miles) between 1200 and 1800 years ago.And that voyage crosses several ocean currents going in opposite directions. While there is no direct evidence that settlers crossed the Atlantic, it is still within the realm of reasonable speculation.

The Polynesians' ancestors certainly did long ocean trips with ships that would have lead even the ancient Greeks to call them primitive <w>. Yes, it's possible. But one has to wonder two things: how and why.

How presents many problems. In an overland journey, say from Greece to China, one can conceivably live off the land for a long time (our pre-human ancestors ranged all over Africa, Europe and Asia that way). There would be water and food available, even if one were limited to simple stone tools (again, our pre-human ancestors did it). But on a sea voyage that's not possible. Conceivably one could catch fish for food, maybe even trap a bird or two from time to time, but fresh water is non-existent. Even today, ocean-going ships carry massive amounts of fresh water. Plus people can more readily withstand hunger than thirst. Any voyage, therefre, would be limited to fresh water stores, or be contingent upon finding a means to resupply along the way (meaning finding islands with fresh water).

Then there's the why. Today you know Europe is across the Atlantic and Asia across the Pacific. In ancient times this wasn't known. For all you knew you'd fall off the map (literally) if you sailed far enough away from land. The Romans knew of the Atlantic Ocean. So, for that matter, did the Phoenicians and their descendant Carthaginians, who were the sailing power sof the ancient world (until the Third Punic War). Neither crossed the Atlantic or, to my knowledge, even attempted to. Carthage had colonies on the Iberian peninsula, and perhaps they circled it northward and extended trade to what today is northern France and Germany. There's no proof of this, but it would have been the natural, expected dvelopment: Following the coast line to new alnds, rather than venturing into a seemingly endless ocean.

Maritime trade may have been sporadic and haphazard but its safer to be in a small boat out at sea than near shore where rocky coasts and pirates await.

The driving force behind the Crusades was the wealth of the spice trade that was blocked by Musselmen who often lied about the origin of their goods anyway. A sea route to the spice trade was worth any risk.

Settlements may not have lasted and customs may have died out but there is evidence of a great deal of trade well before the European Age of Discovery.

Even our own Corps of Discovery followed the rivers that French traders and Frontiersmen had been following for years.