http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5381851

China beat Columbus to it, perhaps
Jan 12th 2006

From The Economist print edition

An ancient map that strongly suggests Chinese seamen were first round the world

THE brave seamen whose great voyages of exploration opened up the world are iconic figures in European history. Columbus found the New World in 1492; Dias discovered the Cape of Good Hope in 1488; and Magellan set off to circumnavigate the world in 1519. However, there is one difficulty with this confident assertion of European mastery: it may not be true.

It seems more likely that the world and all its continents were discovered by a Chinese admiral named Zheng He, whose fleets roamed the oceans between 1405 and 1435. His exploits, which are well documented in Chinese historical records, were written about in a book which appeared in China around 1418 called “The Marvellous Visions of the Star Raft”.

Next week, in Beijing and London, fresh and dramatic evidence is to be revealed to bolster Zheng He's case. It is a copy, made in 1763, of a map, dated 1418, which contains notes that substantially match the descriptions in the book. “It will revolutionise our thinking about 15th-century world history,” says Gunnar Thompson, a student of ancient maps and early explorers.

The map (shown above) will be unveiled in Beijing on January 16th and at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich a day later. Six Chinese characters in the upper right-hand corner of the map say this is a “general chart of the integrated world”. In the lower left-hand corner is a note that says the chart was drawn by Mo Yi Tong, imitating a world chart made in 1418 which showed the barbarians paying tribute to the Ming emperor, Zhu Di. The copyist distinguishes what he took from the original from what he added himself ...............

This is interesting and if true, we'll have to rewrite some history books.
I'm wondering tho, how Leif Ericson fits into all of this? According to most sources, while he didn't circumnavigate the globe, he most likely was the first white man to set foot in North America, c 1000.

http://www.mnc.net/norway/ericson.htm

Originally posted by rendova
This is interesting and if true, we'll have to rewrite some history books.
I'm wondering tho, how Leif Ericson fits into all of this? According to most sources, while he didn't circumnavigate the globe, he most likely was the first white man to set foot in North America, c 1000.The map is clearly a composite, combining information from multiple sources. The maker must have had access to much of what the Khanate knew, for example. I don't know the level of their cartography, perhaps Frogger can enlighten us there. The point is, if the map is authentic there was a lot more sharing of information going on back then than is commonly recognized today. If so, I wouldn't rule out any possible source of data.

Wikipedia is upgrading their 1421 page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1421_theory

From there (or here) you can click on the Vinland map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland_map) link.

Zheng He was the heir to a long history of exploration that stretched back much further than that in the Europe of Prince Henry the Navigator. He came from the same general area as Ibn Batuta, another Moslem explorer. He was also able to draw on much greater resources than Columbus. Columbus had three ships, the longest less than 100 feet long. Zheng He's fleet consisted of hundreds of ships, some over 500 feet long.

Drawing the maps would not have been a problem since good cartography had existed for a very long time before that. Most of the maps were either land based or coastal though until the discovery of the compass allowed ships to travel out of sight of land with a degree of certainty they would be able to find their way back to shore.

Frogger

Check out the Di Virga (http://www.1421.tv/pages/maps/di_virga.htm) map (c. 1410). Although Di Virga was Venetian, the center of the map is the observatory of Ulugh Begh in Samarkand. Your friends the Mongols again!

And what is that depicted in the upper-left corner?

Now, I'm not suggesting that the Mongols visited America. But it does make sense that they would compile as much information as was available to them. And if this information could be transmitted to Italy by 1420 it could also be transmitted to China in a like amount of time. For me, this strengthens the case that Zheng He could have been aware of a large land mass to the East. He certainly knew the world was a sphere.

I know you're not arguing with me, but I find this fascinating.

I'm a little weak on Oriental history--well, in all honesty--very weak.
Is there anything in their histories or other sources outside of the Mongol area that would support this --that they were years before Magellan? I never knew that they were a great seafaring people and this is all new to me.

Originally posted by rendova
Is there anything in their histories or other sources outside of the Mongol area that would support this --that they were years before Magellan? I never knew that they were a great seafaring people and this is all new to me. Last year I read a good article in National Geographic about Zheng He. Here's the link they provide:

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0507/feature2/

To get the entire article you need the magazine, but the map is cool. Also, the related links at the wikipedia are a good place to start.

Thank you, sedan. I'll look into this and hopefully won't be as ignorant as I am now on this topic!

Sedan

People usually think of the Mongols as barbarians. By the fourteen hundreds the Mongols had been 'civilized' for two and a half centuries. The Mongol Yuan Dynasty was begun in the middle of the thirteenth century. Even after the Chinese defeated the Mongols and forced them to retreat to their original homeland they maintained a highly sophisticated court.

Frogger, by most historical accounts, the Mongol invaders wuz BRUTAL, yet FAIR...



Ya did it THEIR way or ya DIED...




Put that in modern terminology: "It's our way, or the highway..."



But fer those who are of the half-Irish, half-drunk persuasion... my way IS the HIGH way...



;)



Toodles, from yer half-Irish, half-drunk friend...

Where is your family from in Ireland, Odder?
Mine hails from County Cork.:)

Rend - Psssstt....Oriental is a type of rug, not asian history...

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Rend - Psssstt....Oriental is a type of rug, not asian history...

Oriental refers to East. History of the Ming Dynasty counts as history of the Orient or Oriental history.
The opposite term, Occidental, would be the West. Such as the history of Great Britain. Although you rarely hear the term 'Occidental'.

right but to call it 'Oriental history' is to align oneself with those who suppossedly "studied" it. Orientalism was a bunch of westerners stereotyping the asian population then presenting it as fact. The same thing happened with those who studied the 'indians'. When you want to speak somewhat accademically about asian hisotry it is better to say just that "asian history."

http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Orientalism.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism

Thanks for the links :)