One of the books I read on the summer cruise was, "1421, The Year
China Discovered America"

Makes a convincing case that about 70 years before Columbus and about
100 before Magellan an enormous Chinese fleet circumnavigated the
world. The Chinese introduced horses (before the Spanish reintroduced
them) and chickens to South America. They also colonized both the east
and west coasts of North America- there's a wrecked Chinese Junk in
the Sacaramento River that carbon dates to the early 1400's, and early
Spanish explorers of the California Coast recorded an encounter with
an "unusal Indian tribe that appears to speak Chinese".

Like the Europeans, the Chinese had no real talent for determining
longitude.
In fact, the Chinese determined latitude by observing a cluster of
stars surrounding the pole star.

The Chinese sailed to the Southern Hemisphere to locate stars that
would allow them to determine latitude in that hemisphere as well.
They were successful.

The map prepared by Turkish Admiral Piri Reis was copied from earlier
sources. Much of the material archived by Chinese scholars contains
drawings that match the outlines on Piri Reis pretty precisely. The
author of "1421.." contends that if allowance is made for the Chinese
inability to
determine precise longitude the southern hemisphere and Pacific Ocean
portions of Piri Reis are surprisingly accurate. The book speculates
that the Chinese map was captured by the Turks when they took a ship
commanded by an officer who had sailed with Columbus.

The second "compass rose" for the southern hemisphere on Piri Reis can
be coordinated with the star systems the Chinese used to navigate when
south of the equator.

Curious note: One of the major exports from America to China was
pottery.
Sounds silly with the Chinese reputation for porcelain and ceramics-
but apparently some of the advanced cultures in Central America had
devised a way to make much thinner pottery than the Chinese and it was
highly prized.

Of course there are two schools of thought on the author's theory.

Here's the author's web site: http://www.1421.tv/

There is also an "anti-1421" web site, of course: http://www.kenspy.com/Menzies/index.html

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:00:26 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Of course there are two schools of thought on the author's theory.

More like four or five.

The Chinese were pretty nifty sailors. Whether they did or didn't do
what they said they did is subject to interpretation, but the devil is
in the details and the details tell a very interesting story.

While a lot of the early Dynasty's maps don't exist, there is a
written record of some of the earliest voyages and it's evident that
5th/6th Century Chinese sailors visited places like India, Siri Lanka
and Madagascar. The written record shows details of shore and harbors
that couldn't be made up.

So it's possible they very well could have visited places in the
Pacific, including the West Coast of the Americas - when you are
talking ships large enough to house and 1,000 people, anything is
possible.

However the point is moot. The Vikings were there first.

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:20:26 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:00:26 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Of course there are two schools of thought on the author's theory.

More like four or five.

The Chinese were pretty nifty sailors. Whether they did or didn't do
what they said they did is subject to interpretation, but the devil is
in the details and the details tell a very interesting story.

While a lot of the early Dynasty's maps don't exist, there is a
written record of some of the earliest voyages and it's evident that
5th/6th Century Chinese sailors visited places like India, Siri Lanka
and Madagascar. The written record shows details of shore and harbors
that couldn't be made up.

So it's possible they very well could have visited places in the
Pacific, including the West Coast of the Americas - when you are
talking ships large enough to house and 1,000 people, anything is
possible.

However the point is moot. The Vikings were there first.

Vikings? Don't be silly. We know who was first...... like, who built
the pyramids?

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:02:30 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:20:26 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:00:26 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Of course there are two schools of thought on the author's theory.

More like four or five.

The Chinese were pretty nifty sailors. Whether they did or didn't do
what they said they did is subject to interpretation, but the devil is
in the details and the details tell a very interesting story.

While a lot of the early Dynasty's maps don't exist, there is a
written record of some of the earliest voyages and it's evident that
5th/6th Century Chinese sailors visited places like India, Siri Lanka
and Madagascar. The written record shows details of shore and harbors
that couldn't be made up.

So it's possible they very well could have visited places in the
Pacific, including the West Coast of the Americas - when you are
talking ships large enough to house and 1,000 people, anything is
possible.

However the point is moot. The Vikings were there first.

Vikings? Don't be silly. We know who was first...... like, who built
the pyramids?

G'ouald of course.

Who were interstellar Vikings.

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:39:09 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:02:30 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:20:26 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:00:26 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Of course there are two schools of thought on the author's theory.

More like four or five.

The Chinese were pretty nifty sailors. Whether they did or didn't do
what they said they did is subject to interpretation, but the devil is
in the details and the details tell a very interesting story.

While a lot of the early Dynasty's maps don't exist, there is a
written record of some of the earliest voyages and it's evident that
5th/6th Century Chinese sailors visited places like India, Siri Lanka
and Madagascar. The written record shows details of shore and harbors
that couldn't be made up.

So it's possible they very well could have visited places in the
Pacific, including the West Coast of the Americas - when you are
talking ships large enough to house and 1,000 people, anything is
possible.

However the point is moot. The Vikings were there first.

Vikings? Don't be silly. We know who was first...... like, who built
the pyramids?

G'ouald of course.

Who were interstellar Vikings.

Nope. The interstellar Vikings were the Asgards.

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:46:36 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:39:09 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:02:30 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:20:26 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:00:26 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Of course there are two schools of thought on the author's theory.

More like four or five.

The Chinese were pretty nifty sailors. Whether they did or didn't do
what they said they did is subject to interpretation, but the devil is
in the details and the details tell a very interesting story.

While a lot of the early Dynasty's maps don't exist, there is a
written record of some of the earliest voyages and it's evident that
5th/6th Century Chinese sailors visited places like India, Siri Lanka
and Madagascar. The written record shows details of shore and harbors
that couldn't be made up.

So it's possible they very well could have visited places in the
Pacific, including the West Coast of the Americas - when you are
talking ships large enough to house and 1,000 people, anything is
possible.

However the point is moot. The Vikings were there first.

Vikings? Don't be silly. We know who was first...... like, who built
the pyramids?

G'ouald of course.

Who were interstellar Vikings.

Nope. The interstellar Vikings were the Asgards.

Ok, I'll give you that one.

But the Vikings were still there first.

~~ mutter ~~

On Aug 27, 3:20?am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:00:26 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
Of course there are two schools of thought on the author's theory.

More like four or five.

The Chinese were pretty nifty sailors. Whether they did or didn't do
what they said they did is subject to interpretation, but the devil is
in the details and the details tell a very interesting story.

While a lot of the early Dynasty's maps don't exist, there is a
written record of some of the earliest voyages and it's evident that
5th/6th Century Chinese sailors visited places like India, Siri Lanka
and Madagascar. The written record shows details of shore and harbors
that couldn't be made up.

So it's possible they very well could have visited places in the
Pacific, including the West Coast of the Americas - when you are
talking ships large enough to house and 1,000 people, anything is
possible.

However the point is moot. The Vikings were there first.

The Vinland expeditions predated the Chinese. However, the Chinese
circumnavigted and the Vikings did not. I don't know that there is any
real evidence for Viking presence in the Pacific at all. The Chinese
also
traded with native populations and mapped the coastlines of N and S
America. The Vikings abandoned Vinland, but there is some evidence
that the Chinese left behind either survivors of shipwrecks or
colonists that eventually blended into native society. One interesting
claim (see website) is that the Tartar dialect of Chinese and the
Apache tongue are virutally the same language- so close that speakers
of Tartar and speakers of Apache can converse easily without ever
formally studying the other language. The mathmatical odds that two
societies that had never interacted would independently assign the
same meanings to sounds and structures comprising a language are
pretty remote.

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:16:11 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

One interesting
claim (see website) is that the Tartar dialect of Chinese and the
Apache tongue are virutally the same language- so close that speakers
of Tartar and speakers of Apache can converse easily without ever
formally studying the other language. The mathmatical odds that two
societies that had never interacted would independently assign the
same meanings to sounds and structures comprising a language are
pretty remote.

Heh - would you believe that a sub-dialect of Hebrew also closely
matches the native Apache language and hints of other Native American
languages?

That's where the whole American Indians being the 13th Tribe of Isreal
thing came about.

Also, Navajo, if I remember correctly, is supposed to match Tartar
closely.

I'm not a linguistics expert, but I have some questions about the
Chinese Tartar claims.

1 - There are seven different Apache languages and not all of them
"match".

A - A lot of the evidence of this closeness of language is acnecdotal
and not direct.

2 - Chinese Tartars live almost exclusively in Northwestern China and
it would seem unlikely that they would even be on a ship at sea
serving as seamen as they are largely horse nomads with a very sparse
population.

A - There are a ton of different types of "Tartar" groupings, but
mostly it related to Eastern Europe which would also make it seem
unlikely.

3 - The Apache language is closely related to the Athabaskan language
family of languages which has no relation to the language of the
Tartars.

So, where does that leave us.

I don't know that there is any
real evidence for Viking presence in the Pacific at all.

Yeah but the Vikings were not known for leaving a lot evidence for any
of the places they went. Many of the places they visited we know
about from the original inhabitants accounts. We know they went to
the middle east but don't see a lot of evidence there. We know they
came to N.A. and have very limited evidence there. It's not Spanish
or English explorers that really want everyone to know they were
there. Also, and I'm not disputing the book here but, carbon dating
is a tricky thing especially when dealing with sample that has been
submerged for hundreds of years. There are a lot of factors that can
make the sample appear much older or much younger than it really is by
hundreds of years.

On Aug 27, 8:48?am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:16:11 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
One interesting
claim (see website) is that the Tartar dialect of Chinese and the
Apache tongue are virutally the same language- so close that speakers
of Tartar and speakers of Apache can converse easily without ever
formally studying the other language. The mathmatical odds that two
societies that had never interacted would independently assign the
same meanings to sounds and structures comprising a language are
pretty remote.

Heh - would you believe that a sub-dialect of Hebrew also closely
matches the native Apache language and hints of other Native American
languages?

That's where the whole American Indians being the 13th Tribe of Isreal
thing came about.

Also, Navajo, if I remember correctly, is supposed to match Tartar
closely.

I'm not a linguistics expert, but I have some questions about the
Chinese Tartar claims.

1 - There are seven different Apache languages and not all of them
"match".

A - A lot of the evidence of this closeness of language is acnecdotal
and not direct.

2 - Chinese Tartars live almost exclusively in Northwestern China and
it would seem unlikely that they would even be on a ship at sea
serving as seamen as they are largely horse nomads with a very sparse
population.

A - There are a ton of different types of "Tartar" groupings, but
mostly it related to Eastern Europe which would also make it seem
unlikely.

3 - The Apache language is closely related to the Athabaskan language
family of languages which has no relation to the language of the
Tartars.

So, where does that leave us.

Wondering what the statistical probablities are that cultures so
distant and removed from one another independently developed such
extremely similar
sytems of sound and structure to express thought.

I thought it was interesting that in comparing the Pro-1421 website
and the "1421 Debunked!" site that the debunking site seems limited to
addressing only a handful of the scores of items supposedly in
evidence to support the Chinese navigation contention.

Have you read the book? It's very interesting.