1421
The Year China Discovered Americaby Gavin Menzies
Hardcover, US edition: New York: Morrow, 2003. ISBN 0-06-053763-9
Trade paperback, US edition, revised: New York: Perennial, 2004. ISBN 0-06-054094-X
As I read 1421, I was struck by how closely it resembled Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. They're both highly ambitious, promise to turn history on its head, talk about plants and animals and the archaeological record, are full of world maps with arrows on them, and made it to to The New York Times bestseller list. Diamond won the Pultizer Prize for his book, while Menzies, being a British subject, is ineligible. But even if he had been eligible, he probably wouldn't have stood a chance with such a controversial work. The original Times review for 1421 seriously questioned its many faults, while the review of Guns, Germs, and Steel rather uncritically recounted its arguments.
As much as this says about the vagaries of book reviews, it also suggests how to popularize history profitably. Make a splash, bring history to life, don't disappoint the reader, and you'll have a best-seller on your hands. The line between fact and fiction is increasingly blurred in the world of Da Vinci Code-style bestsellers.
Menzies, a retired Royal Navy submarine captain, claims that four separate Chinese fleets under the overall aegis of the great eunuch admiral Zheng He sailed on great voyages of discovery around 1421 in which they discovered the Americas, Antarctica, Oceania, various Pacific islands, and longitude — basically, every continent except Europe. The Zhu Di emperor's death, though, ended the great voyages of discovery — China turned inwards, and records of the voyages were destroyed. Within a century, though, Europeans picked up the mantle of discovery, armed with maps containing Chinese data. The great explorers bravely set forth into the (not-quite) unknown, ultimately handing Europe world dominance.
Startling as it may seem, this is not actually a new claim. Zheng He's voyages to Africa are well-known and taught in standard histories. Whether he voyaged farther afield to the Western Hemisphere is decidedly not part of the standard history. But exploration is both fascinating and romantic — if Zheng He could precede European sailors to Africa, surely he could make it to America as well? Many on the fringes of history believed that he did. For example, Murray Leinster's 1934 time-travel story "Sidewise in Time" observes without the slightest doubt, "It just happens that the Chinese happened to colonized America first." (orig. Street and Smith Publications, reprinted in Before the Golden Age, ed. Isaac Asimov).
But Menzies is the boldest of the adherents, claiming to prove such speculation as fact. The evidence for this claim is helpfully summarized in an appendix in outline form. His quest originated with examination of pre-Columbian European maps showing lands which they should not have known of, and from multiple maps he pieces together methods of transmission from the Chinese? Why the Chinese? Because only they were advanced enough to have undertaken such a journey. What proof that it was the Chinese? Various artifacts left behind in the Americas, Africa, and Oceania, and the genealogical imprint of Chinese sailors and concubines left behind in the New World.
It's all very interesting, but hardly conclusive. Menzies traces the voyages chronologically, spreading the evidence out and mixing maps and artifacts with speculation on routes (borne out by his experience as a submarine commander sailing the same seas). Yet he consistently uses terminology such as "the only logical evidence," "incontrovertible," "certain." If they are so incontrovertible, the very hostile reaction of academia is difficult to reconcile — academics tend to be very open to ideas with a sound foundation; history in particular gets turned upside down every once in a while. It's very reminiscent of Jared Diamond; I went to a book talk for Collapse, the successor to Guns, Germs, and Steel, and was shocked by how casually he dismissed any objections raised. "That's a good try, but it's completely wrong," he would say, then repeat something from his book that papered over the objection without addressing it. I'd rather an author express doubt — it suggests humility, a willingness to entertain other points of view, and most importantly, an awareness of the level of evidence necessary to overturn established history.
Also, constantly throughout the book, he refers to the website 1421.tv, where, he promises, more incontrovertible evidence will be put up. I went there expecting some voluminous material and some detailed rebuttals of his critics, but it's no more detailed than his book, and the "New Evidence" section is a pretty poor text-to-web conversion with no hyperlinks and brief summaries. Even on the web site, citations are murky. "A professor" says this. Which one? "More than 200 experts" in China were consulted, 85% of whom agree and 15% of whom disagree, and "details will be provided to any researcher who requests them." Why not just tell us which ones? Even more questionable are some of the institutions listed as having been consulted on accuracy. The Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China is doubtlessly filled with history experts, but would one rely on the US State Department to endorse a book on American history?
The postscript to the second edition of the book, which fixes some obvious errors that were criticized in the first edition but doesn't really address the more substantive and general, closes with: "The great bulk of the new evidence that has enabled me to make such startling claims has come from readers of my book. It is you, not historians or academics, who have rewritten history." As much as it fits the stereotype of the lone voice of reason in a maddening crowd, ignoring the academic concepts of peer review and standards of proof is a very dangerous attitude to take. Secrecy is essential for some fields such as warfare and technology — generals must keep plans secret from the enemy, and inventors from their competitors. But in the battlefield of ideas, holding back your sources sows suspicion.
As shaky as the thesis seems (the book would be better titled "1421: Did China Discover America?" with an all-important question mark, though it probably wouldn't have sold as well that way), the book is nevertheless tremendously enjoyable. Historical detective work is filled with Eureka! moments, and many of Menzies' discoveries are fasincating and probably true (it's the conclusions that are problematic). When he looks at rare maps, or hunts down explanations for strange notation, it gives a thrill similar to that experienced by readers (or watchers of the miniseries) of Alex Haley's Roots, as he dug through archives to corroborate his oral family history. But while Roots concentrated the detectivework in one section, making it easy to separate the plot from the discovery, 1421 intersperses them. (Indeed, Roots was later shown to have been largely fabricated.)
Chronological accounts do wonders for accounts of history, and Menzies is no exception. He was born in China, fondly recalls his Chinese amah, and has great respect for Chinese culture and history. His spectacular (and partly conjectural) description of the ceremonies surrounding the Forbidden City's opening bring to life the majesty, the pageantry, the far-reaching influence of Imperial China at its peak. The reopening of the silted-up Grand Canal, the repair of the run-down Great Wall — all speak to the massive outlays of manpower and national effort that centralized administration makes possible.
His historical detective work and accounts of the Chinese fleet sailings are likewise absorbing. Here is where he has his best credentials, and his Navy background in astronavigation, currents, and wind are used to great effect. His theory of the Chinese discovery of longitude, explained in detail in an appendix, is a fascinating reconstruction based on the technologies then available. That it was actually testedduring a lunar eclipse make it even more compelling. His reconstruction of coast lines before global warming had raised sea levels is thought-provoking.
As interesting as individual elements of his book may be, Menzies doesn't really prove that China discovered America. Before hearing of this book I gave no thought to the matter, leaving off at Zheng He's voyages to Africa. When I saw it on The Times' bestseller list, I thought, "Well, it's possible." After reading the book, I still think, "Well, it's possible." Fad or fact? Wait twenty years and see if it fades away or sticks around.
