Jump to content

Talk:Zheng He/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
See the next page to read this debate in outline form, as summarized by Weston.pace. Please use these pages for reference and feel free to continue the debate at the sandbox forum devoted to this topic. Thank you.

America?

My old chinese textbook says that Zheng He also visited America on one of his voyages. Any confirmation on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.118.149 (talk) at 00:38, 3 November 2006

  • No. -- Rob C (Alarob) 21:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, this is a widely discussed topic. There is evidence that Zheng He did explore America, though it is not enough to be certain. This website provides some good information: http://www.asiawind.com/hakka/america.htm; it is a little one-sided in favor that Zheng He explored the Americas, but it does have many good references. Obviously, your textbook is very biased on the topic, as Asian history textbooks are notorious for one-sided views. I believe that the originator of the theory that Zheng He explored the Americas was a Menzies person. His primary evidences are certain Chinese artifacts found in possession of the Cherokee Indian tribes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.150.33 (talk) at 23:43, 27 November 2006

Menzies was a British naval commander. Also, most Chinese/Asian historians do not believe that Zheng He reached America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IntranetUSA (talk • contribs) 22:32, 20 January 2007

* See the discussion below for more on this topic. -- Rob C (Alarob) 04:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Section on America Original research

This [following passage] sounds like original research -- Roadrunner 20:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that? I count four references in that section, and the information is attributed to Siu-Leung Lee. I don't agree that it sounds like original research. It sounds more like educated speculation on possible contact between Ming Chinese and Pre-Columbian America. Maybe the section just needs to be renamed. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible contact of Ming Chinese with Pre-Columbian America

In June 2006, Siu-Leung Lee (Columbus, Ohio) presented evidence that might indicate contact of Ming Chinese and Pre-Columbian Americans. A 7-cm diameter brass disk has been unearthed in a scantly populated Appalachian region of west North Carolina. It bears the inscription of six Chinese words "Da Ming Xuan De Wei Ci", meaning "commissioned to be granted by Xuan De the emperor of Great Ming". Xuan De was the fifth emperor of Ming dynasty that dispatched Zheng He for the last voyage (1431). The disk (or medallion) is unearthed at a site that was the cultural center of Cherokee, which is known to be one of the most culturally advanced of the native American tribes.

The Cherokee tribe had a flag with the Big Dipper, but they only associated that with the seven clans without knowing the meaning of the Big Dipper as a constellation. This flag may be an imported concept from China. The Big Dipper has been a symbol of Chinese emperors since Zhou dynasty. [1] According to the official history of Song, Jin, Yuan, Ming and Qing, a Big Dipper flag was always used as a central display in the imperial parade. The Big Dipper was especially revered during the Ming dynasty as a symbol of Daoism, a favorite of the Ming emperors. Zheng He also used the Big Dipper as his navigation guide (Chinese: 过洋牵星术). Peace and war flags were used by Zheng He's fleet when encountering friends or foes in their visit to new lands. The Cherokees also had the Big Dipper flag made for peace (white with red stars) and war (red with white stars).

The Catawba tribe along the coast of South Carolina is still the most capable potters among native Americans. They continue to make a three-legged pot resembling the famous Xuan De censer, a special design by the Ming emperor. The knowledge of the Catawba on processing raw clay into refined clay for pottery was notably advanced. While England had been trying to learn the secret of porcelain making from China without success, their first porcelain industry came only after importing the china clay from Catawba/Cherokee. [1] The word for china clay in Cherokee is "unaker", a corruption of English transliteration of Chinese southern dialect "uk-na(ke)" (-ke is silent). [2] The term was used during Ming dynasty and later gradually replaced by Kaolin (Gaolingtu) in Qing dynasty.

All these cultural relics seem to imply that there may have been contact between the Ming Chinese and the Catawba and Cherokee during Ming period. It is therefore possible that some of Zheng He's 27,000 crew members actually landed in America. [2]

Objections re: Reliable Sources

I have read Dr. Lee's assertions and, while I can say little about the authenticity of the brass disk, I must insist that it comprises far too little evidence to support the elaborate theory that is being advanced here. In particular, the theory incorporates a number of uninformed statements and assumptions concerning the southeastern Indians. A few brief questions (which will probably suggest others):

  1. If Zheng He approached the North American continent from the west, why would the only physical evidence of the visit occur in the east, through tribes near the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico? Why wasn't the brass disk found in, e.g., California or near the Pacific coast of Mexico?
  2. Assuming the brass disk is not a forgery -- and considering that it could have been left in the ground at any time between its creation in the 14th century and its discovery in the 20th century -- it might well have gone around the world by way of India, Africa, and Europe, to be conveyed to the Indians by a Spanish trader. (The southeastern Indians possessed other objects of Spanish origin, and their languages include Spanish loan words.) This seems far more likely than a direct transmittal by Zheng He's mariners, who left no other surviving physical traces in North America.
  3. The presumed kinship between Cherokee unaker and southern Chinese uk-na (plus silent -ke) is extremely improbable. The resemblance is superficial, based solely on the two words' appearance when transcribed into the Roman alphabet, and makes no attempt to show that unaker is a loan word and not Iroquoian. (Cherokee is closely related to the Iroquois languages.)
  4. The three-legged pot can be traced back to ancient Mexican and Mississippian culture. The Chinese were not the only people on earth who found such a design useful.
  5. The supposed Big Dipper flag of the Cherokees is based on a single secondary source and may never have existed. Even if it did, there is no reason to assume that 19th-century Cherokees were influenced in their choice by a 15th-century Chinese mariner, any more than were the good people of Alaska.

Assertions like these can be pernicious, as they reinforce the idea of American Indians as crude primitives who did not experience historical change until "civilized" nations brought it to them. I do not wish to suggest that Dr. Lee was guided by such impulses, but I do not believe his theories deserve to be treated as authoritative in this (or any) encyclopedia. -- Rob C (Alarob) 19:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Responses by User:Edluu on 28 June 2007
  1. Answer-Zheng He and his crew have approached America in several directions, North and South, East and West, it's a matter of time in finding the evidence, yet we are talking about a small medallion the size of a coin, the chance is very slim to find it again. T.D.
  2. Answer-Going throught so many countries and traders like you describe, the coin would have been lost. Chinese physical traces were there, but because of neglect in the past 600 years, they got either burried, forgotten, and simply lost. Native Indians were not going to preserve any of your belonging unless you are very meaningful to them. -T.D.
  3. Answer- A loan word could be from Chinese.
  4. Answer- Now that you mentioned, Mexican people and cultures have the most resemblance to Chinese people and culture. Zheng He and his crew also have been to mexico, as evidenced by the 1418 Chinese map, Zheng He's map makers wrongly drawn the island/peninsula of Gulf of California, which belongs to Mexico geographically, erroneously conjoined it with California, the island/peninsula was misplaced, and this misplacement only proved Zheng He and his crew have been to Mexico, and ofcourse California also, thus the West and East coast of North America. If Europeans have been to the places they would not have misdrawn the map as Europeans map makers were more accurate in their drawings. -T.D
  5. Answer-the use of the 'flag color' to communicate is also key, that is Chinese's and mariners' way of communication on the sea. There are hundreds and thousands of way of using colors- combinations and designs with various objects, shapes(and stripes for example,) it's too coincidental that the Indian tribe and Zheng He's crew used the same flag, with same pattern and the same two color schemes with two contrasting purpose of using the back and front of the two color to signify peace and war. Highly probable the two groups have had lasting contact and exchanges with each other at this point.

I mean if I was Indian, to communicate with other Indians I would probably have used an ax or other weapons symbols to signify war, then maybe a peace pipe flag to call for truce or peace, -T.D.

[Response to last paragraph] Answer-That's what the evidences have showed so far, Zheng He and his crew have landed in North and South America, the West and East coast of North America, and ofcourse the Southern tip of America. -T.D

Earlier responses

Then please feel free to edit the article accordingly (with sources). Regards Gun Powder Ma 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, do they not offer an image of Native Americans as representing the sort of culture with which the Ming wished to treat on an honourable basis, sending embassies and the like ? -- HenriLobineau
I don't see how that comment addresses any of the five objections above.
I do see that my earlier edit to this section has been reverted without comment. I object to that behavior. -- Rob C (Alarob) 18:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed "brass medal" section

I have removed the section headed "Chinese imperial brass medal found in America" on the grounds that it describes an absurd theory without indicating any grounds for doubt. If Dr. Siu-Leung Lee's theory is to be mentioned here, it must be done in an appropriate context, indicating that the theory is highly speculative and does not reflect a consensus of experts.

The section did contain such language previously, but it has been deleted without discussion. That is inappropriate and discourteous behavior. My response is to challenge the mention of Dr. Lee's theory at all. I have stated concerns on this page (above) and there has been no attempt to address them. Let us have a discussion here before continuing on this matter.

I welcome comments from all interested, of course. -- Rob C (Alarob) 19:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Would interested editors please scroll down, and note this gentleman's unhelpful (almost closed-minded) attitude, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the views of someone seeking to assist the debate in a spirit of concord, not of deletionism. -- HenriLobineau 13:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Geoff Wade section repeatedly deleted

Sllee19 kept deleting a paragraph describing Geoff Wade's findings, with source, even though more than one other editor restored it. Here's the paragraph in question:

Geoff Wade of the Asia Research Institute at the National University of Singapore has strongly disputed the authenticity of the map and has suggested that it is either an 18th or 21st-century fake. He has pointed out a number of anachronisms that appear in the map and its text annotations. For example, in the text next to Eastern Europe, which has been translated as "People here mostly believe in God and their religion is called 'Jing' (景, referring to Nestorianism)", Wade notes that the Chinese word for the Christian God is given as "Shang-di" (上帝), which is a usage that was first borrowed from Chinese ancient text by Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci in the 16th century.[3]

To save space, here is a list of the reverts by Sllee19:

  1. 00:29, 6 June 2007
  2. 00:44, 6 June 2007
  3. 16:02, 23 June 2007
  4. 01:34, 24 June 2007
  5. 15:33, 24 June 2007
  6. 07:11, 26 June 2007
  7. 10:08, 26 June 2007
  8. 12:41, 26 June 2007

-- Rob C (Alarob) 13:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC) and after...

Geoff Wade biased

The term Shang Di is a Chinese term used in Han dynasty or earlier. Jing Jiao (Nestorianism) came to China in Han dynasty. The map has been indicated by the owner as a 18th century copy of an earlier map. There is nothing special to have the term Shang Di or Jing Jiao on the map, just like the word America is on it. These words were apparently added in the copy, not the original. The appearance of these terms has nothing to do with what the map indicates geographically. I am not defending anything about when this map was made, but Geoff Wade's points are groundless. If one wanted to question a map, the Waldseemueller map now in Library of Congress should be more controversial. The map purchased by the US government from Germany for $10 million is called the "birth certificate" of America because the word "America" appeared on this map for the first time. Yet the map is dated 1507, six years before Balboa saw the Pacific Ocean for the first time after crossing the Panama isthmus. Even so, how could the map maker know that the Pacific Ocean extended from North to South America? and how could the continent of the two Americas fit their latitude in modern maps? As mentioned in my other statement, Geoff Wade is at the most a translator of Ming Shi Lu. He has no knowledge about the revolutionary technology of making brass in Xuan De era, as clearly demonstrated by Xuan De censers. Ask any laymen with some rudimentary knowledge of Chinese antique, they can tell you that Xuan De censers were made with brass. What kind of qualification is this "Ming expert" if he does not even know about the brass technology of Ming dynasty? See my statement on : http://www.asiawind.com/forums/read.php?f=10&i=47&t=47 The worse thing to do for a good historian is to tie ethnic and nationalistic bias in research. Some people insist that Australia was "discovered" by Dutch and try to disrupt discussion and new evidence of a different view point. This is totally unscholastic. Sllee19 16:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Instead of simply trashing Geoff Wade, show us what you have, from reliable sources, that contradicts him, or at least presents an equally plausible interpretation of evidence. Censoring his views is not the way to proceed, and I ask you again to refrain from doing so. -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My proof is in the section you deleted! Who is censoring? I am now providing details of everything again with additional information:

1. A Xuan De medallion was unearthed around 1996 in a scantly populated area of North Carolina. http://www.asiawind.com/zhenghe/. Its inscription says "authorized gift by Xuan De, the Great Ming emperor" (大明宣德委锡)

2. It is well documented in Ming history that every new emperor would announce to the other nations of his enthronement by dispatching envoys and gift medallions inscribed with the new reign era (nian hao年号). http://www.yifan.net/yihe/novels/history/msqztyz/ms.html The medallion was brass, a new technology just started in Xuan De era, when they learned how to distill and re-capture pure zinc(a comparatively low boiling metal). Brass is made by mixing zinc with copper and tin. Tian gong kai wu 天工開物 by SongYingxing http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/21478759&referer=brief_results http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A9%E5%B7%A5%E9%96%8B%E7%89%A9 Xuan De is famous for his brass censers.

3. The Cherokee used to carry a flag with the Big Dipper, which has been the symbol of the Chinese Emperor in the imperial parade for Song, Jin, Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties, as recorded in the official history. The big dipper is one unique constellation that never sets below the horizon in the northern hemisphere, and is used as the symbol of the emperor. The Big Dipper is especially important to the Ming emperors who were devoted believers of Daoism that uses Big Dipper as the key symbol. In the illustrated publication by Luo Mao Deng(罗懋登 d. ~1596)about Zheng He's journeys http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/15251473&referer=brief_results, a picture of Zheng He riding a horse is led by a soldier carrying a Big Dipper flag.

4. The Cherokee Big Dipper flag is quoted from Whitney Smith's Flag Book of the United States http://www.rootsweb.com/~itcherok/history/flags.htm. Dr. Whitney Smith, a world authority in flag research, is the one who gave the name Vexicology to the study of flags. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_Smith

5. Chinese had been observing the stars since at least 6500 years ago. Since Chunqiu era, a group of courtiers was assigned to watch and record the stars daily. Maps of the 28 constellations and the Big Dipper are numerous in Chinese literature.

6. The Big Dipper was found in the burial of an important leader with shells arranged as a dragon and a tiger (the first dragon symbol in China). http://scholar.ilib.cn/Abstract.aspx?A=qnmzsfxyxb200205011 http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%A5%BF%E6%B0%B4%E5%9D%A1%E9%81%97%E5%9D%80

7. Cherokee only knew about the sun, the moon, and stars in general. [James Mooney, Myths of the Cherokee, originally published by US Government Printing Office, 1900]. There is no written language for Cherokee to pass down the observation of constellations, the concept of which would take generations to develop. Cherokee did not have any written language until the 1800s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_language

8. The Crow Indians also had a flag with Big Dipper, which they called "Carrier of Messages". http://users.aol.com/donh523/navapage/crow.htm. The Big Dipper was removed in their later flags, but it was recorded in Dr. Whitney Smith's book. [Who was the carrier? What messages was he carrying? We know Zheng He was dispatched to announce the enthronement of Xuan De. That is the message, and Zheng He the carrier.]

9. There has never been any Big Dipper in European flags and American flags prior to the 20th century.

10. Red flag and white flag were first developed in China during the downfall of Shang dynasty. The war flag of Zhou was red. The term war flag (戎旃) include color red in a word. The last Shang emperor was beheaded and his head hung on a white flag to indicate surrender, peace. The Cherokee's red war flag and white peace flag obviously adopted the same meanings and design of the Chinese flags. http://www.qxzc.net/qsdc/zd/new_page_3.htm

11.There is a bronze Big Dipper flag erected in Ming dynasty (1602AD)still hoisted in the golden temple in Kunming, Yunnan. http://www.51766.com/img/ynjd/

12. The significance of Big Dipper (or Seven Stars) in Chinese is seen in every city. There is not a single city that does not have something related to the Big Dipper. It is a symbol of China just as much as the dragon.

13. The Cherokee calls china clay "unaker" similar to Chinese 垩泥, the Cherokee also uses "unega" for the color white. This is the same usage as the word "垩" meaning white and china clay in Chinese. This is definitely a borrowed term like chocolate and chocolate color, orange and orange color.(Unaker and unega are just English transliteration of the Cherokee language. They are never accurate, just like Cherokee is a degeneration of Tsalagi).

14. The Catawba call china clay "i-to" or "i-tu", the same pronunciation as "e-tu" or "e-to" (垩土) in Chinese Cantonese, Hakka, Minnan, the dialects the potters would have used in Ming dynasty. Catawba and Cherokee have different languages, but they call china clay by similar pronunciation as Chinese did in Ming dynasty. [tu 土 is dry clay, na(ke) 泥 is wet clay]. In Qing dynasty, the term e-tu was replaced by "Gaolingtu" 高岭土(Kaolin by the English) when they found a new source of china clay. This is consistent with the fact that the Catawba and Cherokee were in contact with Chinese in Ming dynasty.

15. The Catawba potters still make a traditional tripod that they claim to have thousands years of history. http://www.danandmary.com/historyofcharlotteabs.htm . These tripods bear great resemblance to Xuan De censer, which in turn are copies from the best looking ding and other tripods in Chinese pottery and bronze ware. http://image2.sina.com.cn/cj/imgtable/U248P31T88D506F2016DT20040924210233.jpg These tripods are unique and well distinguished from the Central American tripods in shape.

16. With an otherwise much less developed culture, the Catawba was superior to the advanced Europeans at that time in their knowledge of china clay processing. The English porcelain industry was only founded after Andrew Duché imported china clay to England from the American Indians through Savanna and Charleston. http://www.smokymountainnews.com/issues/11_01/11_14_01/mtn_voices_macon_clay.shtml The Catawba was not making porcelain and their technique of pottery was much more primitive (no spinning wheels), implying that they only learned the method of collecting and processing clay and making pottery after a model of Xuan De censer. Today, this area in N. Carolina is still known to have the best potters in US.

17. Corn, sweet potato, pumpkin, peanut and a "smoking grass" (tobacco)were mentioned in a Yunnan Herbal book, authored by Lan Mao (1397-1441 AD) http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/62135320&referer=brief_results. He died 50 years before Columbus 'discovered' America. His book was 140 years before Materia Medica (Ben Cao Gang Mu 本草纲目) by Li ShiZhen(1558-1593), http://www.answers.com/topic/li-shizhen, who also mentioned corn, sweet potato, and pumpkin, in his publication. All of these plants are well known native American crops not available in any other continent before.

18. John Lawson (d. 1711), the first Englishman who traveled up to Carolina, met Indians and recorded that he saw the biggest iron pot he has even seen. American Indians never had iron technology. They had a brief encounter with De Soto, who did not carried much food, let alone a big heavy iron pot. A large crew like Zheng He's fleet would need to equip with such a big iron pot to feed hundreds of people at a time. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/nvycr10.txt

19. In Columbus's own description, he saw "Indians" dressed in silk. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1492/1492-h/1492-h.htm [Where did they get silk? Who had silk at that time?]

20. The recent dating of chicken bones in Chile is a new evidence that worth further study. http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-chickens5jun05,0,5155665.story?coll=la-home-center They were dated the same period of time as Zheng He's explorations. There is no prior record of chicken in America. If they were deposited by the Polynesians, they would have to travel against a strong current and somehow survived a 6000-mile journey with the chicken. Zheng He's fleet is known to carry chicken, sheep and dogs for food. If they came sailing east to west from Chile to Samoa, they would be with the current and wind. Chinese boat people today still raise chicken on their boats. The dating of these chicken bones fall within the timing of Zheng He's trips is of interests for further investigation.

A total of 20 different pieces of evidence is listed, consistent with Zheng He's fleet (not necessarily himself) traveling westward, around the Cape of Good Hope to N. America (all assisted by the currents). The last piece about going around the southern tip of S. America still requires more support. On the other hand, the possibility of Polynesians going east on man-powered canoes and rafts with limited storage of food and fresh water, counter current, is equally debatable.

The chance for all the evidence to be circumstantial and coincidental is astronomically remote. It started with the medallion, but ultimately the strongest support comes from the exchange of Chinese culture (crops) and Cherokee/Catawba culture (china clay preparation, pottery design, borrowed language), which in turn give strong support to the veracity of the medallion. Zheng He's group certainly had the motive, the opportunity(timing) and means to have completed circumnavigation.

This will be posted to the main article and I believe you should have the decency to leave it for all to critique. Sllee19 22:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to 20 points

Concerning "the section (I) deleted": As explained above, I deleted the section "Chinese imperial brass medal found in America" because it advanced a specious theory. First I edited the passage to indicate grounds for doubt, but you (Sllee19) reverted my changes (diff). I responded by deleting the section and called for a discussion on the talk page. The response was silence.

As for the 20 points you just listed, I note that they fail to address the five questions I raised months ago at Talk:Zheng He#Original research. I will not repeat those unanswered questions, but will add new concerns about the evidence you just gave.

  • I cannot read Chinese, so am unable to evaluate your claims for 滇南本草 (Diannan ben cao) by 兰茂 (Mao Lan; note that Lan Mao is a cartoon character). I wish you (or someone) would begin a Wikipedia article about this 15th-century author. Your claims for his book need to be better sourced, however. It is not enough to mention the title, especially when you wish to use the book to overturn the consensus of both Chinese and American historians about both Zheng He and Columbus.
  • The provenance of the brass medallion (which you own) remains a secret, and this makes it difficult to evaluate some of your claims about it. Allowance must be made for the possibilities that it is a forgery, a replica, or that, if authentic, it was conveyed to North America by someone other than Zheng He's mariners in the five centuries between its creation and its rediscovery. It cannot be accepted as irrefutable evidence of Zheng He's presence in America just because its owner says so.
  • Lawson's sighting of a large iron pot among the Cherokees is not so surprising, unless one assumes that they never saw a European between Soto's expedition in the 1540s and Lawson's at the end of the 1690s. There is no need to introduce a Chinese mariner to explain it.
  • Your assertion that Columbus saw Indians dressed in silks is based on a misreading of Hale's Life of Christopher Columbus, which you cite. Columbus saw Indians with "worked [i.e., decorated] handkerchiefs on their heads. At a little distance it seemed as if these were made of silk...."[3] On closer examination, they turned out to be something else, probably plant fiber.
  • The chicken bones in Chile are at least on the shore of the more plausible ocean; however, even if this evidence proves convincing, there are numerous ocean-going cultures somewhat closer than China that could have introduced the chickens, despite your denial. (See Mau Piailug, for example.)
  • It is apparently your view that every culture in which red and white were significant colors must have been molded by the Chinese. What's more, any coincidental resemblance to an element of Chinese culture is taken, in your analysis, as proof of a Chinese imprint. This is a fundamental error in reasoning.
  • You assume that North American Indians were childlike primitives with impaired vision until Zheng He enlightened them. Somehow the Indians were unable to perceive patterns in the stars or to describe them to one another, to make decent pots, or even to come up with a word for the color white on their own. I don't wish to be unkind, so I will not attempt to describe this assumption.

For these reasons, as well as the concerns already stated before, I am unconvinced by your evidence and do not agree that your improbable theory belongs in this article. I hope other editors will give their views. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted Sllee19's insertion of his 20 points into the article. See WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SOAP, WP:BATTLE. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism: repeated deletions

Sllee19 (Lee): This is my response to the reasoning of the deletion :

  • [Alarob:] I cannot read Chinese, so am unable to evaluate your claims for 滇南本草 (Diannan ben cao) by 兰茂 (Mao Lan; note that Lan Mao is a cartoon character). I wish you (or someone) would begin a Wikipedia article about this 15th-century author. Your claims for his book need to be better sourced, however. It is not enough to mention the title, especially when you wish to use the book to overturn the consensus of both Chinese and American historians about both Zheng He and Columbus.
Lee - A great deal of the article on Zheng He is based on translation of original Chinese texts. If one cannot read Chinese, how can he qualify to have the authority to edit any of the articles based on Chinese original? Lan Mao is the proper name of the person as addressed traditionally in Chinese (Family name first, given name last). Not knowing this fact is totally ignorant of Chinese culture. Associating that with a cartoon character is not even worthy of commenting. If the editor challenges Lan Mou should be Mou Lan, should he propose to rename Zheng He as He Zheng? Rather than just quoting the name and author of the book as bibliography, I have cited even the library source for the readers to easily find the book in the closest library.
Thanks for clarifying the proper use of the name Lan Mao. I got the inverted order from your link to the book at Worldcat. I know about the proper order of Chinese names, and had assumed that the WorldCat compilers also know, and that you had made an understandable error in recollecting the name. I also looked for Wikipedia references to Lan Mao and only encountered the "Blue Cat" cartoon character. (Would you like to begin an article on Lan Mao, the author?)
In your answer above, you spell the name as "Lan Mou" instead of Lan Mao. Was that a typo or a deliberate choice? I am not trying to give offense by asking. -- Rob C (Alarob) 14:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
My interpretation of your passage led me to Mu Lan (another cartoon, the female warrior)which could be spelled as Mou Lan (French). The lack of knowledge and citation to the original Chinese name would be the source of a great deal more misunderstandings.-- Sllee19 13:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • [Alarob:] The provenance of the brass medallion (which you own) remains a secret, and this makes it difficult to evaluate some of your claims about it. Allowance must be made for the possibilities that it is a forgery, a replica, or that, if authentic, it was conveyed to North America by someone other than Zheng He's mariners in the five centuries between its creation and its rediscovery. It cannot be accepted as irrefutable evidence of Zheng He's presence in America just because its owner says so.
Lee - The medallion was analyzed at Ohio State University by one of the best of three scan electron microscopes in America using energy dispersion spectroscopy. It has been the subject of my lectures in Hong Kong to the Royal Geographic Society (HK is the only overseas branch of this British institute), University of Hong Kong, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong History Mueum, Foreign Correspondent Club, all in 2006, and then in Chinese Culture Centre of Greater Toronto (the largest Chinese culture center of N. America) in 2007. A summary is posted on my website with pictures and analysis. A forum is set up to invite discussion. How can any one call it secretive? My presentation is open to critique of any kind. If it look secretive to some, it is because some people are constantly suppressing the publication of the data and repeatedly removing the section in Wikipedia.
I have read everything I could find online about the medallion, and have not been able to find the basic archaeological facts: where it was unearthed, what items were found nearby that would help date it. The analysis you describe may not tell us much about the age of the object; although it may prove that it was made in China, it cannot prove that it was Ming China, unless I am very much mistaken. -- Rob C (Alarob)
The Wikipedia has limited space for discussing details. The detailed analysis of the medallion have been given in my talks in Hong Kong. It is also archived in Ohio State University's Department of Material Sciences and Engineering site. The erroneous accusation of Geoff Wade that brass was only available in China very recently is a statement of ignorance. In fact, the best dating for the medallion is its composition and manufacture because Xuan De era was the time when China could make brass intentionally. The medallion shows heterogeneity of blending the metals, yet clearly shows the incorporation of zinc. -- Sllee19 13:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • [Alarob:] Lawson's sighting of a large iron pot among the Cherokees is not so surprising, unless one assumes that they never saw a European between Soto's expedition in the 1540s and Lawson's at the end of the 1690s. There is no need to introduce a Chinese mariner to explain it.
Lee - Lawson and De Soto came through Carolina at different times by very different routes. Lawson is the first European to have traveled and made records of Carolina. If De Soto was the one who left the iron pot, then proper reference should be given.
You have cited James Mooney's Myths of the Cherokees, but overlooked his reference to archaeological and place-name evidence of continuing contact with the Spanish after 1540 and through the 1600s. When I have access to my copy of Mooney, I will provide a specific citation if you like. The point: Not all early contacts between Indians and Europeans are recorded in surviving records, so one should not assume that a gap in the records means an absence of contact. -- Rob C (Alarob)
The route of De Soto has been an intense investigation available by Googling. -- Sllee19 13:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • [Alarob:] Your assertion that Columbus saw Indians dressed in silks is based on a misreading of Hale's Life of Christopher Columbus, which you cite. Columbus saw Indians with "worked [i.e., decorated] handkerchiefs on their heads. At a little distance it seemed as if these were made of silk...."[4] On closer examination, they turned out to be something else, probably plant fiber.
Lee - First hand accounts are always the most accurate and trusted. Interpretation by others are more questionable.
I do not understand what "first hand account" you are referring to. I also remind you of WP:RS and WP:OR. If your conclusions about the medallion are novel, they should be published elsewhere before appearing in Wikipedia, per WP:RS. -- Rob C (Alarob)
First account of Columbus's observation can be interpreted in any way by a second or third person. Let's stay with the original. -- Sllee19 13:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • [Alarob:] The chicken bones in Chile are at least on the shore of the more plausible ocean; however, even if this evidence proves convincing, there are numerous ocean-going cultures somewhat closer than China that could have introduced the chickens, despite your denial. (See Mau Piailug, for example.)
Lee - The chicken bone remains an equivocal issue that will be settled with further research. I am raising questions rather than providing answers.
OK, I share your interest, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to raise such questions. (This is not my decision; it is the encyclopedia's policy: WP:NOT) -- Rob C (Alarob)
  • [Alarob:] It is apparently your view that every culture in which red and white were significant colors must have been molded by the Chinese. What's more, any coincidental resemblance to an element of Chinese culture is taken, in your analysis, as proof of a Chinese imprint. This is a fundamental error in reasoning.
Lee - Whether the use of red or white flags have any influence on others is a different question. Chinese do have the record as the first to have such flags with the correct symbolism as we see today.
It does not follow that every other culture that assigns great significance to red-white pairs was influenced by Chinese culture. Do you see what I mean? Also, the red and white moieties among southeastern tribes did not simply represent "war" and "peace." This is an error that is often repeated (including in some Wikipedia articles). We can pursue that further if necessary. -- Rob C (Alarob)
I am referring to the Cherokee convention of using red and white color for war and peace. They also have war and peace chiefs dressed in red and white. Sllee19 13:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
This is somewhat misleading. I'll defer further discussion to the sandbox. -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • [Alarob:] You assume that North American Indians were childlike primitives with impaired vision until Zheng He enlightened them. Somehow the Indians were unable to perceive patterns in the stars or to describe them to one another, to make decent pots, or even to come up with a word for the color white on their own. I don't wish to be unkind, so I will not attempt to describe this assumption.
Lee - I have the highest respect for native Americans on their contribution to the world, especially on agriculture. I would be happy to hear any record of watching stars by Cherokee and Catawba. So far there is none. The constellation assignments by Chinese and Europeans (Greeks) have many differences. There are many ways to associate the stars into certain constellation systems. There is no reason why the Cherokee should view the Big Dipper as a system and isolate that from the millions of other stars. Their interpretation of the stars on the Big Dipper flag was a representation of their 7 brothers.
American Indian cultures had oral traditions that, in some cases, have largely disappeared since the 18th century. Our only evidence that Indians watched the sky and created lore about the stars is in myths that have been written down. So we have evidence from many tribes that the Big Dipper was known as the "Big Bear," and that Indians were aware of the apparently fixed position of the Pole Star. I am not aware of a preserved Cherokee tradition about the constellation, but I would hesitate to conclude that they did not have one. It would require an assumption that a people could look at the stars every night for thousands of years without noticing much about them. -- Rob C (Alarob)
I am aware of the Cherokee referring to the Big Dipper as "Yonega" (bear), which could be the interpretation taught by Europeans. Cherokee only refer to the stars as 7 brothers, not the constellation.-- Sllee19 13:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
N.B. The Cherokee word yona (ᏲᏅ) means "bear." I am not sure what yonega means, perhaps "Great Bear." -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. In doing some online checking, I found that one "Big Bear" legend is labeled as Iroquois on one website[4] and Cherokee on another[5]. Unfortunately neither one gives a source for the text, which is identical. In any case the Cherokee language is related to the Iroquois languages, and the two groups were in frequent contact. -- Rob C (Alarob) 15:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There are too many points that this 'editor' could not defend his removal of the post, an action described by another editor as "vandalism". (Sllee19)

I too was concerned about the accusation. On 29 June I posted a request for help from other editors at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Zheng_He. Please read my request and see if you think I have been unfair. -- Rob C (Alarob)

From the time (22:48, 26 June 2007) I post the new section to his deletion (00:26, 27 June 2007 ) was merely 1.5 hours. That includes the time I was editing the post on line and the time this 'editor' was writing his 'reasoning'. It is easily seen that such removal was almost instant, not based on in-depth research and thoughtful process. What is the motive behind such hasty deletion? Skepticism is healthy for scientific research and an inquisitive mind. In that case, why did not this 'editor' question the Waldseemueller 1507 map now installed in the Library of Congress that shows the entire Pacific Ocean while Balboa was the first to see the Pacific Ocean 6 years later, in 1513? -- Sllee19 07:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have apologized for the deletion and indicated I would not delete the passage a second time. I do think that the writing in the passage is not up to Wikipedia standards, and I have the concerns indicated above about the content.
I have been involved with this article because I think Zheng He is a figure of world-historical importance, and that his significance is seldom appreciated in the English-speaking world. I would like to see this become a featured article. However, I do not think that this will be achieved by making bold claims that cannot be supported with reliable evidence and a consensus of scholars.
Dr. Lee, I have benefited by visiting your website; for example, I have decided that I must read a translation of Hong Yingming's "Vegetable Roots" classic, which I had never heard of before. I admit that my knowledge of Chinese history is far too limited, and I am doing what I can to educate myself. Perhaps we can help one another. I believe your theory rests on a thin knowledge of the southeastern Indians, whose culture and history I am more familiar with than you. The best Wikipedia articles involve teamwork, not solo writing. HenriLobineau suggested that we start a separate page (a "sandbox") to work on the text you proposed. What do you say? -- Rob C (Alarob)
P.S. Please also see comments by Weston.pace below. -- Rob C (Alarob) 15:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Earlier comments

Pardon a neophyte for commenting, but does 25 minutes constitute, in your eyes, adequate time for "other editors" to respond to your points, before removing 9,000 charcaters of research ? Perhaps, when I am more experienced in Wiki-etiquette, I will be abel to understand the fundamental difference between this and vandalism. -- HenriLobineau
I accept the rebuke. If you wish to restore the passage, I will not be disruptive. If you do restore it, please have a look at some of the awkward language, at least, and I will do the same. My intention has been to resolve the controversy, not to prevail over another editor. -- Rob C (Alarob) 15:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
SL Lee runs a web forum focused on China in which many of the most respected participants are highly nationalistic, anti-semitic and often verbally abusive in asserting their views, although SL Lee himself, a chemist, partakes little in the raging discussions. P Goodwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.21.201.130 (talk) at 18:45, 27 June 2007
The forums are my way towards net democracy and global thinking. It has participants from all continents. Other than spammers, all kinds of viewpoints are allowed. It has nothing to do with the discussion here about Zheng He. Sllee19 13:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, a part of the problem may come from (again) divergent viewpoints. The "disputed" text (which I am certainly unqualified to edit on a factual level) is couched in a style which piles fact on fact to make its conclusion. Were I writing it myself, I would have preferred a more fluid form, concatenating evidence into fewer blocks. Nevertheless, if the evidence exists (assume good faith), then it is clearly right that it be recognised, but at the same time recognised as remaining in the realm of arguable conclusiveness. Perhaps what it required is for the text to be placed in a sandbox (I think that is the Wiki-term), for separate mutual drafting, so that User:Sllee19's facts are phrased in language more tolerable to User:Alarob. It is my view that, unless a theory is clearly without foundation, Wiki ought at least to give it space. Alternatively, perhaps this ought to be its own article, cross-ref'd from Zheng he and other articles, on Theorised pre-European contacts with the Americas by the Chinese. -- HenriLobineau 07:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
A sandbox is a good idea if any other editors are willing to assist Sllee19 in expressing his views. I remain concerned about conflict of interest (concerning the brass medallion) and original research. We do not yet have a reliable source concerning this medallion's authenticity or notability. (The author's own website, plus other websites about Ming brass in general, do not qualify.) I conclude that the theory is, as you put it, clearly without foundation. -- Rob C (Alarob) 11:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
With respect, I would therefore rather withdraw my suggestion, since it would appear that your mind is already made up. You have misrepresented me totally -- I find no reason whatsoever to rule these theories out of court, and in my opinion the proper course would be for you immediately to revert your edit, restore the text, and allow the community of editors to debate the pertinent issues. -- HenriLobineau 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I didn't mean to imply that you considered the theory to be "clearly without foundation." I was explaining why I think so, and borrowed your phrasing.
I cannot in good conscience restore the passage inserted by Sllee19, but as I said before, I will not stand in the way of anyone else who wants to take responsibility for doing it. I would prefer that we discuss the subject first, though, and a sandbox is fine if anyone besides Sllee19 thinks his theory is worth pursuing. He and I are not the only ones who count, in other words. And I don't want to tie up this talk page with a sterile controversy between us two. -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
HenriLobineau, I believe that Alarob was right in reverting the 20 points from the article. Firstly, Sllee19 did not give any time for others to critique his points before he added them to the article, consequently, I don't believe Alarob was required to give any notice before he removed the 20 points. Secondly, the talk page is the proper place to have a discussion on the content of the article. People's unsourced opinions do not belong on the main article. I would not have been as opposed to Sllee19 listing the sourced points in a section stating that the points as evidence and then writing a short theory to explain the evidence, but even then, this article is not the place to debate history, it is the place to record well proven and sourced history.Weston.pace 22:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
As for the sandbox idea, I agree that that would be the best approach for resolving this dispute. I believe Alarob has made several points in both his original questions and in his response to the 20 points that validly argue the veracity of Sllee19's statements. I believe a good starting point would be to summarize the points from both parties, and I may do that later, but I currently plan on eating dinner.Weston.pace 22:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox Created

As the discussion over purported evidence of a Chinese presence in the Americas before 1492 has become lengthy and is drawing on highly detailed evidence, I have acted on the suggestion by HenriLobineau and created a sandbox for the discussion. Everyone is invited to continue this discussion at User:Alarob/Zheng He. My hope is that we can arrive at a consensus and perhaps improve one or more sections of this article.

Please visit the page (which contains only a descriptive header) and let me know if you would like to see some additional ground rules or a better description of the page's purpose. Also let me know how the debate should be structured. Perhaps there should be a section on the brass medallion, one on the Big Dipper flag, and so on. I look forward to an instructive and friendly exchange of views. -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't know what year the Ming Chinese first landed on America. I do not want to limit the discussion around 1421, Gavin Menzies book or the 1418 map. Sandbox implies something less serious. Participants of this topic should have the basic knowledge of Ming history and the Chinese language. Any one who does not know brass Xuan De censer is a major breakthrough of Xuan De in Ming dynasty is unqualified to discuss Ming history. Those who cite ignorance are putting themselves in the same category. -- Sllee19 22:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I unreservedly apologise :: my intention in proposing a sandbox was to allow the material to be re-edited away from the article, not to disparage your work; furthermore, I submit that I have always admitted my ignorance, have never sought to alter one iota of the material, and entered this discussion to protest against the wholescale deletion of material. In respect to your wishes I will cease from further comment. -- HenriLobineau 10:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
In response to concerns expressed by Sllee19:
  • I have removed the phrase "in 1421." There is still a link to the article 1421 hypothesis, as the article refers to much of the evidence raised in our discussion so far, but please do not take that as meaning that only the Gavin Menzies 1421 hypothesis is up for discussion.
  • "Sandbox" is a term that can refer to a place for child's play, but that is not the meaning here. This kind of sandbox gets its name from computer programming (see Sandbox (software development) and the Wikipedia:Sandbox where new users are encouraged to practice Wiki markup). If you find the name disagreeable, I am willing to call it something else, such as "forum."
  • If participation is to be limited to those who already know Ming history and the Chinese language, then Wikipedia is the wrong place for what you are trying to do. The first thing every visitor to the Wikipedia main page sees is: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." This is not a peer-reviewed journal, and it is not a place for original research. These are basic facts that have been mentioned repeatedly in this discussion.
My offer to host a thorough discussion of the evidence for Zheng He in the Americas stands, but I am beginning to suspect that a thorough discussion is the last thing that you want. Please be aware that simply adding controversial assertions without discussion is discourteous, and the content will be subject to immediate removal. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it is not acceptable for you to try to exploit it to promote the alleged historical value of your brass medallion. I assume that is not why you are here, and as you are a scientist, I am sure I do not have to explain how your appeals to authority do not satisfy the standard of verifiability. So it's up to you; either we all discuss this thoroughly and openly, or you can continue to try to sneak in changes to the article and hope nobody notices. -- Rob C (Alarob) 14:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Daoist Philosophy
  2. ^ The Mystery of Zheng He and America
  3. ^ [www.singtaonet.com:82/arts/200702/t20070208_465576.html]
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zheng_He/Archive_2&oldid=551515803"