What do you think?
Rate this book
Who Discovered America? The Untold History of the Peopling of the Americas
Greatly expanding on his blockbuster 1421 , distinguished historian Gavin Menzies uncovers the complete untold history of how mankind came to the Americas—offering new revelations and a radical rethinking of the accepted historical record in Who Discovered America? The iconoclastic historian’s magnum opus, Who Discovered America? calls into question our understanding of how the American continents were settled, shedding new light on the well-known “discoveries” of European explorers, including Christopher Columbus. In Who Discovered America? he combines meticulous research and an adventurer’s spirit to reveal astounding new evidence of an ancient Asian seagoing tradition—most notably the Chinese—that dates as far back as 130,000 years ago. Menzies offers a revolutionary new alternative to the “Beringia” theory of how humans crossed a land bridge connecting Asia and North America during the last Ice Age, and provides a wealth of staggering claims, that hold fascinating and astonishing implications for the history of mankind.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published October 8, 2013
178 people are currently reading
597 people want to read
About the author
Gavin Menzies
12 books116 followersRowan Gavin Paton Menzies was a British submarine lieutenant-commander who authored books claiming that the Chinese sailed to America before Columbus. Historians have rejected Menzies' theories and assertions and have categorised his work as pseudohistory.
He was best known for his controversial book 1421: The Year China Discovered the World, in which he asserts that the fleets of Chinese Admiral Zheng He visited the Americas prior to European explorer Christopher Columbus in 1492, and that the same fleet circumnavigated the globe a century before the expedition of Ferdinand Magellan. Menzies' second book, 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance, extended his discovery hypothesis to the European continent. In his third book, The Lost Empire of Atlantis, Menzies claims that Atlantis did exist, in the form of the Minoan civilization, and that it maintained a global seaborne empire extending to the shores of America and India, millennia before actual contact in the Age of Discovery.
He was best known for his controversial book 1421: The Year China Discovered the World, in which he asserts that the fleets of Chinese Admiral Zheng He visited the Americas prior to European explorer Christopher Columbus in 1492, and that the same fleet circumnavigated the globe a century before the expedition of Ferdinand Magellan. Menzies' second book, 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance, extended his discovery hypothesis to the European continent. In his third book, The Lost Empire of Atlantis, Menzies claims that Atlantis did exist, in the form of the Minoan civilization, and that it maintained a global seaborne empire extending to the shores of America and India, millennia before actual contact in the Age of Discovery.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 111 reviews
April 16, 2014
The thing that strikes me most about this book is how far out of control Menzies' ego has gotten. Let me give a couple of examples.
At the beginning to the book Menzies claims that he tried to make a crossing of the Bering Sea, to prove whether or not the ancestors of the Native American could have done the same. He fails, and therefore states no one else could. Imagine the hubris, first just to assume that he's personally the yardstick of human accomplishment, and secondly that he didn't bother to check to see if the conditions in the area today are the same as when they crossing happened. Spoiler: They weren't. There's ample fossil evidence that Beringia supported vegetation and wildlife far north of where it lives now. I'm also not sure how he completely ignores the existence of the Inuit and similar tribes, who live in environments that were much harsher. But as we'll see, Menzies has a pretty poor opinion of all Native Americans.
Later in the book Menzies has been informed of a map that he constantly calls the "1418" map, even though the map itself only claims to be an 18th copy of an alleged 1418 map. In any case, the map is clearly a forgery someone made up just to fit Menzies' theories. Menzies translates some of the text, and even though the map is written in Chinese he translates it into bizarrely archaic english -- "equitation," "toxophily" and "anthropophagi" are words he uses, for no apparent reason. As this inscription is supposed to describe the people of the eastern coast of North America in 1418, what he's trying to do is obscure how completely incorrect the description is. Equitation is horse riding (horses were extinct during the early human habitation of North America, despite Menzies' pathetic attempts to claim otherwise), toxophily is archery (Native Americans used bows, though whether Chinese people would call it "archery" is debatable), and anthropophagi is cannibalism (self-explanatory). The only reason Menzies wrote it that way is because his ego won't allow him to admit that the map is a forgery, and he thinks his readers are stupid.
The real point of Menzies' theories is to rob the Native Americans of their history -- everything noteworthy that happened in the Americas before Columbus was because of some outside influence, whether it was the the Chinese, the Japanese, the Minoans, or whoever. Like most alternate historians of the modern era he realizes that calling Native Americans stupid or uncivilized won't fly, but I note that at one point in the book Menzies slips up. In discussing the Windover archeological site, which he thinks is the remains of a Minoan colony, Menzies writes that the people found there "were a kind and caring people -- not savages." There it is, right out in the open -- the racism that underpins the whole alt history movement.
At the beginning to the book Menzies claims that he tried to make a crossing of the Bering Sea, to prove whether or not the ancestors of the Native American could have done the same. He fails, and therefore states no one else could. Imagine the hubris, first just to assume that he's personally the yardstick of human accomplishment, and secondly that he didn't bother to check to see if the conditions in the area today are the same as when they crossing happened. Spoiler: They weren't. There's ample fossil evidence that Beringia supported vegetation and wildlife far north of where it lives now. I'm also not sure how he completely ignores the existence of the Inuit and similar tribes, who live in environments that were much harsher. But as we'll see, Menzies has a pretty poor opinion of all Native Americans.
Later in the book Menzies has been informed of a map that he constantly calls the "1418" map, even though the map itself only claims to be an 18th copy of an alleged 1418 map. In any case, the map is clearly a forgery someone made up just to fit Menzies' theories. Menzies translates some of the text, and even though the map is written in Chinese he translates it into bizarrely archaic english -- "equitation," "toxophily" and "anthropophagi" are words he uses, for no apparent reason. As this inscription is supposed to describe the people of the eastern coast of North America in 1418, what he's trying to do is obscure how completely incorrect the description is. Equitation is horse riding (horses were extinct during the early human habitation of North America, despite Menzies' pathetic attempts to claim otherwise), toxophily is archery (Native Americans used bows, though whether Chinese people would call it "archery" is debatable), and anthropophagi is cannibalism (self-explanatory). The only reason Menzies wrote it that way is because his ego won't allow him to admit that the map is a forgery, and he thinks his readers are stupid.
The real point of Menzies' theories is to rob the Native Americans of their history -- everything noteworthy that happened in the Americas before Columbus was because of some outside influence, whether it was the the Chinese, the Japanese, the Minoans, or whoever. Like most alternate historians of the modern era he realizes that calling Native Americans stupid or uncivilized won't fly, but I note that at one point in the book Menzies slips up. In discussing the Windover archeological site, which he thinks is the remains of a Minoan colony, Menzies writes that the people found there "were a kind and caring people -- not savages." There it is, right out in the open -- the racism that underpins the whole alt history movement.
March 16, 2014
I have read the complete set of Menzies' "Chinese navigators" books and this is by far the most ludicrous of the bunch. The book wobbles through varies "theories" of various peoplings, the most noteworthy being Peru and North Carolina(!) Menzies continues to display a penchant for devising a theory, seeking the data that fit it, making astonishing but unsupported claims, and disregarding perfectly good evidence that contradicts him, making him the 21st Century Erich von Daniken. His North Carolina "theory" is that the Shawnee, Mingo and other tribes are actually Chinese in ethnicity (which would surprise them, I think). Ostensibly these Chinese shipwrecked, promptly marched to the mountains to mine minerals, and yet managed (Menzies explains not) to get a remarkably accurate map of the eastern seaboard back to China. A purported wrecked junk in the Dismal Swamp is accepted from unreliable accounts (one that has not been examined or photographed), and a critical map displaying the "Azores" and the eastern seaboard looks all the world like one of the Korean peninsula and surrounding islands. Or did the ancient Minoans settle the American interior? I can't tell. Menzies took an idea that had plausibility for the eastern Pacific and has magnified it into new depths of absurdity. I strongly urge all to avoid this book.
December 28, 2014
Menzies' first book "1421" offered an interesting premise which I think has promise. His style of writing was a bit unpleasant as he was so eager to make the point that China had visited the Americas pre-Columbian that he verged on missionary fervor. Since it was his first book, I overlooked it. Unfortunately, that fervor became worse: he offered up a LOT of opinions without offering much critical analysis. The fact is he is not an archaeologist, biologist, botanist, or other scientist that can credibly analyze and write cogently on this subject. He spent much time quoting at length from this person or that person's writing, but these tended to be more opinions rather than validation of the theory. He also wasted space telling the reader of how he went hither and yon in his pursuit of proof, with very little to show for all those words. His comments about the Silk Road were unbelievably shallow and unedifying, for example.
If you like travelogues, read Paul Theroux or Bill Bryson. If you prefer science writers like Simon Winchester or Mark Kurlansky, who really research their books and present them to the reader in logical, readable, informative format, you should avoid this book.
If you like travelogues, read Paul Theroux or Bill Bryson. If you prefer science writers like Simon Winchester or Mark Kurlansky, who really research their books and present them to the reader in logical, readable, informative format, you should avoid this book.
October 17, 2013
I found this book after a curiosity with DNA research led me to it. I'm also a biologist and after having my own DNA run and discovering a huge percentage of what is called "Asian/Native American Admixture" I had to do more research. I'm Puerto rican and I knew I was part Native American but Asian??? The black/white xtian thing is so dominant here in the US conversation that we just ignore anything that doesn't fit our stupid idea of MURICA. I remember never liking history as a kid. It was blatantly obvious even by a child that it was skewed by whomever wrote it regardless of truth. Natives were here FIRST and where did they come from...oh yes, the ridiculous "armchair" Bering Straits theory...and even then we were told the civilizations that existed here weren't important and didn't contribute. All I can say...I read this book in about a week and it was GREAT. This needs to be taught in class.
October 21, 2021
Looked really interesting, but a number of 1 star reviews state that his conclusions lack foundation. This is backed up by several articles.
Excerpt from "History News Network", an article by Timothy Furnish
https://historynewsnetwork.org/articl...
Authors that aim to rewrite 500 years of accepted history should rely less on subjective claims and more on hard evidence. And this is where Menzies ultimately fails to persuade. First, he does not read Chinese and thus cites no primary sources--a problem even if one accepts that the records were all destroyed. Even more fatal to his argument, Menzies often fails to provide corroborating data for many of his claims. To cite just four examples, he: never provides the DNA evidence supposedly linking the American Indians and Chinese; fails to document the discovery of Chinese anchors off the coast of California; appeals to unspecified "local experts," as when arguing that remains of 15th century Chinese shipwrecks have been found in New Zealand; and says that a Taiwanese museum's copy of a Chinese map allegedly showing Australia and Tasmania "unfortunately...has been lost." Questionable speculative leaps are also Menzies's stock-in-trade, as when claiming that the inscription on a stone column in the Cape Verde Islands (off Africa's western coast) is in Maylayam, a language of South India, and that this proves the Chinese were there. Yet why would a Chinese fleet admiral order a message inscribed in a language other than Chinese? And sometimes Menzies just plain contradicts himself, as when he asserts that "sea levels in 1421 were lower than today" (p. 257) because of modern global warming, but then later claims "Greenland was circumnavigable in 1421-2, for...the climate...was far warmer than it is today" (p. 306).
Wikipedia entry for Gavin Menzies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_M...
states that "Historians have rejected Menzies' theories and assertions and have categorised his work as pseudohistory."
So don't bother reading this.
Standard Disclaimer
Look at what shelves this book is on. This book is on my 'do-not-read' shelf I thought I might want to read it. I did some research & found that it was crap. I'll post why I think so & might even rate it with 1 star if it is really bad. If you disagree & want to discuss in the comments, you need to prove that it isn't with solid evidence. That means peer reviewed science, not anecdotes, opinions, or sites that are biased. Read The Debunking Handbook which is available for free here
https://skepticalscience.com/the-debu...
& follow its guidelines for providing proof. I'm willing to look at good evidence. I've been wrong before.
Comments that don't adhere to the above will be deleted. We're not going to change our minds if you just want to troll. If you repeatedly troll, your comment will be flagged & support will spank you. I may block you, too.
Excerpt from "History News Network", an article by Timothy Furnish
https://historynewsnetwork.org/articl...
Authors that aim to rewrite 500 years of accepted history should rely less on subjective claims and more on hard evidence. And this is where Menzies ultimately fails to persuade. First, he does not read Chinese and thus cites no primary sources--a problem even if one accepts that the records were all destroyed. Even more fatal to his argument, Menzies often fails to provide corroborating data for many of his claims. To cite just four examples, he: never provides the DNA evidence supposedly linking the American Indians and Chinese; fails to document the discovery of Chinese anchors off the coast of California; appeals to unspecified "local experts," as when arguing that remains of 15th century Chinese shipwrecks have been found in New Zealand; and says that a Taiwanese museum's copy of a Chinese map allegedly showing Australia and Tasmania "unfortunately...has been lost." Questionable speculative leaps are also Menzies's stock-in-trade, as when claiming that the inscription on a stone column in the Cape Verde Islands (off Africa's western coast) is in Maylayam, a language of South India, and that this proves the Chinese were there. Yet why would a Chinese fleet admiral order a message inscribed in a language other than Chinese? And sometimes Menzies just plain contradicts himself, as when he asserts that "sea levels in 1421 were lower than today" (p. 257) because of modern global warming, but then later claims "Greenland was circumnavigable in 1421-2, for...the climate...was far warmer than it is today" (p. 306).
Wikipedia entry for Gavin Menzies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_M...
states that "Historians have rejected Menzies' theories and assertions and have categorised his work as pseudohistory."
So don't bother reading this.
Standard Disclaimer
Look at what shelves this book is on. This book is on my 'do-not-read' shelf I thought I might want to read it. I did some research & found that it was crap. I'll post why I think so & might even rate it with 1 star if it is really bad. If you disagree & want to discuss in the comments, you need to prove that it isn't with solid evidence. That means peer reviewed science, not anecdotes, opinions, or sites that are biased. Read The Debunking Handbook which is available for free here
https://skepticalscience.com/the-debu...
& follow its guidelines for providing proof. I'm willing to look at good evidence. I've been wrong before.
Comments that don't adhere to the above will be deleted. We're not going to change our minds if you just want to troll. If you repeatedly troll, your comment will be flagged & support will spank you. I may block you, too.
January 22, 2015
When Menzies published 1421 he received a lot of attention. His theories threatened to shake up academe. Unlike other revisionists, he packs in a lot of references to beef up his claims. He draws on a variety of fields - biology, anthropology, linguistics, history, oceanography, etc. Consequently, it is nearly impossible to systematically evaluate his claims. This book is presented as an addendum to 1421 and his subsequent books on prehistoric explorers.
I was eager to finally read one of Menzies' books. I agree with a basic premise, that it is hard to fathom migrants from Siberia walking over Berengia and settling the Western Hemisphere all the way to Tierra del Fuego. I want to believe him. However, his informal writing style, poor citations, and disorganized structure, and blatant misinterpretation of other authors leads me to disbelieve the rest of his data.
The informal writing style quickly began bothering me when he introduced the book with what reads like a cross between disclaimer and a plea to take him seriously. That is not a good way to start a book. Then he begins with a chapter on the Minoans. He does not attempt to connect this to the Chinese (or any other Asians). Sailing into chapters on biology, disease, linguistics, and astronomy, Menzies style is to present an enormous amount of data within a small number of pages, rat-a-tat-tat, effectively overloading the reader with information, and then pauses to describe his worldly travels, concluding with a snide conclusion that the evidence is overwhelming in support of his theory.
The citations present a more tricky problem. Many readers praise Menzies because of his citations. This book has many pages of endnotes and references. However, many studies are not properly cited. The text says Professor Smith proved Theory X. The endnotes refer readers to Menzies earlier books, Menzies' website, or maybe Professor Smith's publications. I wanted to read more about these studies; but found the poor citations did not allow me to easily retrieve Menzie's sources.
The disorganization comes heavily from his style of presenting information so quickly and moving onto the next bit of evidence. The Minoans are a great example. What is their purpose in this book? Near the end of the book, he has a couple of chapters about early hominids in North America, and he advances the possibility that they are European....therefore...Minoan? I am still uncertain.
The misinterpretation of other authors is what really bothers me. I have only read two of the books Menzies mentions. Simon Southerton used DNA analysis to determine that Native Americans were from Asia, not the Middle East (lost tribe of Israel). He said the DNA shows that Asians were in North America, at least as far back as 15,000 years ago. That happens to be mainstream science. However, Menzies twists Southernton's writings into his theory that Asians had been visiting North America more recently. Southernton never claimed that. He merely disproved that Native Americans were the Lost Tribe of Israel. Menzies also misinterprets Ibn Battuta's Medieval explorations. Battuta traveled throughout the Muslim world and into East Asia. Menzies claims that Battuta's memoirs prove that the Chinese traveled by ship from China to Morocco. Battuta may have sailed on a Chinese junk; but not to Morocco or from Morocco to China. Battuta was a great traveler and explorer, he was not the norm for the Medieval world.
I find Menzies' evidence fascinating. I want to learn more. I Googled many of the things he talks about. It is easy to find critics refuting him. There are myths and stories about Chinese junks in America; but none have been photographed....There are plausible explanations for the Chinese anchors near Los Angeles. Even his concluding chapters on the Minoans are full of controversy with strong arguments against Menzies. Even the US National Park Service, no longer offers anything about the archeology at Sandida Cave in New Mexico because of the criticism surrounding the artifacts.
Some of his strongest evidence is in maps. The Kangnido Map, for example, supposedly shows the Azores, Africa, and Europe. Menzies even has an insert of it in his book. Don't read Chinese (or Korean)? Don't see the Azores on the map? He does not help you there. In fact, the map looks awful. Korea is portrayed beautifully. This was a Korean map. However, further away from Korea, the map is more abstract. China is out of proportion, Japan is....somewhere. Africa and Europe are blobs. Southeast Asia is one huge landmass. I do not believe the Azores are there. To me, it looks like JRR Tolkein's map of Middle Earth with a random island labeled volcanic islands (like the Azores in the Kangnido map).
Menzies has some interesting evidence. However, when I consider his evidence alongside evidence I have prior knowledge about, and more that I can evaluate for myself, I question more and more of the evidence. Anyone can look at the Kangnido Map and have trouble seeing the Azores. Many readers may have some background in biology, DNA, parasitology, etc. Is there such a thing as Taiwanese DNA? Who knows. Now, I am mistrustful of all of his writings. Read this book with care. Please look for additional information on your own. Many people have taken the time to carefully rebut his evidence; but it is piecemeal.
I was eager to finally read one of Menzies' books. I agree with a basic premise, that it is hard to fathom migrants from Siberia walking over Berengia and settling the Western Hemisphere all the way to Tierra del Fuego. I want to believe him. However, his informal writing style, poor citations, and disorganized structure, and blatant misinterpretation of other authors leads me to disbelieve the rest of his data.
The informal writing style quickly began bothering me when he introduced the book with what reads like a cross between disclaimer and a plea to take him seriously. That is not a good way to start a book. Then he begins with a chapter on the Minoans. He does not attempt to connect this to the Chinese (or any other Asians). Sailing into chapters on biology, disease, linguistics, and astronomy, Menzies style is to present an enormous amount of data within a small number of pages, rat-a-tat-tat, effectively overloading the reader with information, and then pauses to describe his worldly travels, concluding with a snide conclusion that the evidence is overwhelming in support of his theory.
The citations present a more tricky problem. Many readers praise Menzies because of his citations. This book has many pages of endnotes and references. However, many studies are not properly cited. The text says Professor Smith proved Theory X. The endnotes refer readers to Menzies earlier books, Menzies' website, or maybe Professor Smith's publications. I wanted to read more about these studies; but found the poor citations did not allow me to easily retrieve Menzie's sources.
The disorganization comes heavily from his style of presenting information so quickly and moving onto the next bit of evidence. The Minoans are a great example. What is their purpose in this book? Near the end of the book, he has a couple of chapters about early hominids in North America, and he advances the possibility that they are European....therefore...Minoan? I am still uncertain.
The misinterpretation of other authors is what really bothers me. I have only read two of the books Menzies mentions. Simon Southerton used DNA analysis to determine that Native Americans were from Asia, not the Middle East (lost tribe of Israel). He said the DNA shows that Asians were in North America, at least as far back as 15,000 years ago. That happens to be mainstream science. However, Menzies twists Southernton's writings into his theory that Asians had been visiting North America more recently. Southernton never claimed that. He merely disproved that Native Americans were the Lost Tribe of Israel. Menzies also misinterprets Ibn Battuta's Medieval explorations. Battuta traveled throughout the Muslim world and into East Asia. Menzies claims that Battuta's memoirs prove that the Chinese traveled by ship from China to Morocco. Battuta may have sailed on a Chinese junk; but not to Morocco or from Morocco to China. Battuta was a great traveler and explorer, he was not the norm for the Medieval world.
I find Menzies' evidence fascinating. I want to learn more. I Googled many of the things he talks about. It is easy to find critics refuting him. There are myths and stories about Chinese junks in America; but none have been photographed....There are plausible explanations for the Chinese anchors near Los Angeles. Even his concluding chapters on the Minoans are full of controversy with strong arguments against Menzies. Even the US National Park Service, no longer offers anything about the archeology at Sandida Cave in New Mexico because of the criticism surrounding the artifacts.
Some of his strongest evidence is in maps. The Kangnido Map, for example, supposedly shows the Azores, Africa, and Europe. Menzies even has an insert of it in his book. Don't read Chinese (or Korean)? Don't see the Azores on the map? He does not help you there. In fact, the map looks awful. Korea is portrayed beautifully. This was a Korean map. However, further away from Korea, the map is more abstract. China is out of proportion, Japan is....somewhere. Africa and Europe are blobs. Southeast Asia is one huge landmass. I do not believe the Azores are there. To me, it looks like JRR Tolkein's map of Middle Earth with a random island labeled volcanic islands (like the Azores in the Kangnido map).
Menzies has some interesting evidence. However, when I consider his evidence alongside evidence I have prior knowledge about, and more that I can evaluate for myself, I question more and more of the evidence. Anyone can look at the Kangnido Map and have trouble seeing the Azores. Many readers may have some background in biology, DNA, parasitology, etc. Is there such a thing as Taiwanese DNA? Who knows. Now, I am mistrustful of all of his writings. Read this book with care. Please look for additional information on your own. Many people have taken the time to carefully rebut his evidence; but it is piecemeal.
August 25, 2016
I read this with no foreknowledge of Mr. Menzies' previous books or academic credentials, and had to stop after the first chapter to look him up because I couldn't believe that he was a historian. No historian would write with overconfidence in the face of such scanty evidence. He made way too many "I feel" statements for me to take what he was saying seriously.
His dismissive and self righteous tone were really off putting. He also made a few over- generalized statements that came across as racist.
I am all for new ideas, but if you are going to put it out there (especially with such bombast) make sure you can back it up.
His dismissive and self righteous tone were really off putting. He also made a few over- generalized statements that came across as racist.
I am all for new ideas, but if you are going to put it out there (especially with such bombast) make sure you can back it up.
March 19, 2019
A very interesting read. So much of the archaeological history of south and North America was unknown to me. I am convinced that Columbus was the last to discover America, after the Asians before then prehistoric Europeans.
July 18, 2020
I had read 1421 and was fascinated. Menzies has discovered and studied the fact that China launched the largest and most successful fleet for a voyage of discovery in the history of the world more than 70 years before Columbus. 1421 focuses on the archeology that supports his findings throughout Polynesia, Oceania and South America. He spends some time on findings in North America, but that is not the focus of 1421, it's the focus of Who Discovered America?
I'm not so cynical as to believe the "true" history of the world has been subverted. I am at my desk in my home in Suburban Connecticut because of a series of events that began with Columbus. Never the less, it is clear from my study of history that the world knew North America was here. The genius of Columbus was to have found a route that he was able to repeat and thus open the way for Spain to colonize South America. However, it would be naive to believe that people of the East could build the Great Wall but not find a way across the Pacific.
In this fascinating little book, Menzies goes beyond the idea that China had found the Americas before Columbus and shows evidence that Asians peopled the Americas not by crossing the Bering Straights, but by sailing for thousands of years. He presents DNA evidence as well as cultural artifacts that are quite compelling.
I really enjoy this kind of revisionist history. In light of newly re-discovered evidence, we have a responsibility to re-assess our understanding of the way things happened and how our world came to be what it is today. I believe our author is on to something, but if you read and do not, it is still fascinating. Well researched, well written, important and entertaining. Really, check this out.
I'm not so cynical as to believe the "true" history of the world has been subverted. I am at my desk in my home in Suburban Connecticut because of a series of events that began with Columbus. Never the less, it is clear from my study of history that the world knew North America was here. The genius of Columbus was to have found a route that he was able to repeat and thus open the way for Spain to colonize South America. However, it would be naive to believe that people of the East could build the Great Wall but not find a way across the Pacific.
In this fascinating little book, Menzies goes beyond the idea that China had found the Americas before Columbus and shows evidence that Asians peopled the Americas not by crossing the Bering Straights, but by sailing for thousands of years. He presents DNA evidence as well as cultural artifacts that are quite compelling.
I really enjoy this kind of revisionist history. In light of newly re-discovered evidence, we have a responsibility to re-assess our understanding of the way things happened and how our world came to be what it is today. I believe our author is on to something, but if you read and do not, it is still fascinating. Well researched, well written, important and entertaining. Really, check this out.
December 18, 2013
Interesting topic but the text could have done with better editing. It would have been helpful too if there had been more maps/diagrams in the text about where was being discussed. Thankfully there is a reasonable good index.
I bought the book thinking I would send it to a friend in Brazil, who is interested in the populating of the Americas. But when I got to chapter five I realised I would be wasting my money doing that. In chapter five is a paragraph that says:
I wondered if the book's title is rather misleading. May be a better title would be "Who I think Discovered America!", because so much of what Mr Menzies writes is conjecture.
I also wondered about Mr Menzies contention at the end of the book that you can become an expert on any one of a number of topics related to his theory in just a month by judicious reading. I suppose it may be true, if there is very little information of which you would need to become aware.
I bought the book thinking I would send it to a friend in Brazil, who is interested in the populating of the Americas. But when I got to chapter five I realised I would be wasting my money doing that. In chapter five is a paragraph that says:
"(It must also be noted that a great deal of research has been carried out concerning the possibility of pre-Columbian voyages to the New World from sub-Saharan Africa. That material is beyond the scope of this book, but we have added links to this research on our website.)"
I wondered if the book's title is rather misleading. May be a better title would be "Who I think Discovered America!", because so much of what Mr Menzies writes is conjecture.
I also wondered about Mr Menzies contention at the end of the book that you can become an expert on any one of a number of topics related to his theory in just a month by judicious reading. I suppose it may be true, if there is very little information of which you would need to become aware.
January 11, 2016
Here's the thing about books like this: you either believe what is written in them or you don't. I am not an expert on this subject, so I couldn't tell you whose research is right and whose is wrong and when I chose this book to listen to, I wasn't interested in anything other than hearing someone's theory on the subject. On that count this book hit the mark. It very clearly defined the author's position on the "discovery" of the Americas and what culture or person was the first to visit what area. Though I was hoping for something on the history of the Native Americans, I wasn't bothered by this suggested history of interaction with the Native peoples after they were already established.
Is any of the information in this book factual? That's not for me to say. I'll leave that debate for the experts. Did it provide some interesting possible history ideas to wrap my mind around? Sure, which is all that I really wanted anyway.
Is any of the information in this book factual? That's not for me to say. I'll leave that debate for the experts. Did it provide some interesting possible history ideas to wrap my mind around? Sure, which is all that I really wanted anyway.
December 17, 2019
I've read 1421 and 1434, which were enlightening. This book is filled mostly with evidence and research done by others. It references several other books related to Native American and maps and perhaps too much reference to his previous books. Mr. Menzies does additional visiting to new sites and describes the research that has been ongoing or what his team observes. I don't think his team is performing deep research but perhaps trying to understand what is going on to improve the big picture understanding of what might have happened. I like the fact that he specifically has expanded his material to address critics of his previous books. 1421 focused on a specific period of voyages by the Chinese, this book discusses travels over at least a 1000 year period and ends with historical data spanning several thousand years. It isn't just about Chinese, but Japanese, Korean, Minoan and even Russian visits to the new world and all by sea.
May 4, 2014
Really? I can buy into the basic premise, but this author feels like he must discredit other theories of human migration into the Americas in order for his to have primacy. It would be OK if he did so with evidence and reason, but he resorts to anecdotal stories and his own out-of-context experiences to claim other theories are wrong and assert his conjecture as the only way people came to this continent.
I could live with his ego-trip if he worked his evidence and theory in support of present fossil evidence of humans crossing a land bridge across the Bearing Strait and stuck with his claim of Chinese sailors reaching the Americas prior to Columbus or the Norse. That is until he starts using parallel development of scientific principles as evidence as if they were determined by random chance.
I could live with his ego-trip if he worked his evidence and theory in support of present fossil evidence of humans crossing a land bridge across the Bearing Strait and stuck with his claim of Chinese sailors reaching the Americas prior to Columbus or the Norse. That is until he starts using parallel development of scientific principles as evidence as if they were determined by random chance.
August 14, 2019
Ok, I'll be honest about it, I didn't read the entire book. Anymore I will give a book 50 pages. If I don't care by that time, it's time to move on. There is too much to read to try to slog through books. I enjoyed his book "1421: The Year China Discovered America" and enjoyed that. I then read "1434: the year a magnificent Chinese fleet sailed to Italy and ignited the Renaissance". That was before I had my 50 page rule. I have now read this book (50 pages) and have my 50 page rule. If I had that rule in place on the 1434 book, I would have stopped at 50 pages. In the latter two books, he spends way too much time telling the reader what he did and how he discovered and researched the information. I'll put this kindly, I don't care. I want to read of the history, not how you unearthed it.
May 27, 2015
Intriguing and seemingly well-researched, but has a tendency to either ramble or make jumps in narrative or theme that can be quite jarring and leave you re-reading sections to see what you missed. The author also seems to have a particular bone to pick with a university in Singapore, and repeatedly singles them out for ridicule because of their reactions to his theories. Based on their actions this might be justified enough, but it can come across as though the authors are bitter and hurt that someone could come to alternate conclusions from the research. These are all fairly minor niggles, and overall don't affect the author's defense of his core thesis. I'm intrigued enough that I'll certainly be looking into some of the corresponding research to see how solid his conclusions are.
December 11, 2013
I finished this mainly as an object lesson to be more careful in the books I choose. To put it simply, Menzies maintains that the Americas were settled by sea by the Chinese (and as almost an afterthought at the very end, by the Mionians). The sad thing about it is that there are probably some truths hidden in the book, but they are so overshadowed by fuzzy logic that it's hard to take much of it seriously. I find his writing and thought patterns more like Von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods than a serious scientific effort. There are a number of quite good studies that tend to support some of his ideas and I suggest that those with an interest stick with these.
November 16, 2015
This book presented information that was new to me. This is a genre that I don't generally read but I was fascinated by the title and as a result I enjoyed the book. Parts of it were slow reading especially when the author presented many examples that drew the same conclusion. The evidence was convincing that Columbus was by far not the first person to land in the Americas. He wasn't even close to being the first. DNA evidence can not be dismissed. As the author states in his conclusion, there is much more evidence to support his positions that has yet to be discovered it it is out there.
July 10, 2016
poorly researched, desperately grasping at straws, you want it to be true - and it may well be, but as a work of historical research it's basically crap. Take note of his source material and go and make up your own mind - reminds me of Terrence McKenna - nice ideas, hopeless logic
Certainly worth reading, but not worth basing a worldview on. A good place to begin from.
3 stars for originality and for the general idea that there's more to history than is taught in schools. If this were a student's essay it'd barely pass. But the guy worked as a sailor, not an academic, so you can't expect too much from him.
Certainly worth reading, but not worth basing a worldview on. A good place to begin from.
3 stars for originality and for the general idea that there's more to history than is taught in schools. If this were a student's essay it'd barely pass. But the guy worked as a sailor, not an academic, so you can't expect too much from him.
July 12, 2020
"Who Discovered America" is the last book of a series of books written by the late Gaven Menzies. The information in this book is additional information found/collected since the writings of 1421 and 1434. If you read this book without reading one or both of the other books, you will see his ideas lacking research and flimsy. His theory of China reaching the Americas VERY long ago is well-researched and documented. His additional information included DNA connections. It is very eye-opening. This is definitely a topic that needs to be addressed and introduced in the educational world.
July 7, 2021
An interesting and completely believable history lesson that was a little marred by the less than clear timelines and the rather meandering nature of the history. Perhaps a little less of "I did this and I did that" and a little more about contributions from other historians. The book would probably have benefited from a more robust discussion of the accepted route for populating America, across the frozen Bering Strait, rather than just dismissing it as being too cold and inhospitable. There are other reasons to doubt the large scale immigration from Asia via the land bridge
August 5, 2014
Good grief is this an amusing testimony of ego. He tosses out standard, accepted theories in under a sentence. Perhaps, just maybe, he has a point, but he sure isn't taking the standard route of convincing academics that his theory is valid. As a travelogue, this book is fabulous. As a history/science book, it is quite sketchy.
December 14, 2018
I don't think I've laughed so hard at a history book that wasn't trying to make me laugh ever. There's some food for thought in Menzies' critique of the mainstream historical narrative, but between the leaps of logic, poorly cited science, and the inconclusive evidence he claims backs him up 100% … it's hard to find. Don't bother.
April 1, 2023
Provides a lot more depth to the settlement of America - but does not explain some obvious things. For example he posits that there were many many Asia expeditions and settlements to the American Contenants, but does not explain why the Asians would not have brought their advanced technology for metal working or ship building. Still, this perspective is worth knowing.
August 5, 2015
An interesting hypothesis about the discoveries of America which is very different from the standard interpretation that Columbus discovered America. Worth reading but it is difficult to believe the claims that are made about Chinese influence in early America.
October 21, 2017
Each of Mr. Menzies books are getting harder and harder to read as he slips further and further into the logic processes of a conspiracy theorist.
Although there is quite a bit of basic data in this book, the conclusions that he reaches are both insulting and ridiculous. First, he concludes that the Bering Ice bridge was just too tough for people to have come across because it is too tough for him. Talk about hubris. Then we have his assertions that various plants, etc. could ONLY have been brought by sea - demonstrating a failure to actually grasp the known migration of plants, etc. in Europe, Asia - by land.
I didn't catch any flat-out contradictions in this book like I did in 1434, but it wouldn't surprise me if there are some there which would be caught by someone a bit more familiar with specific histories.
Gavin Menzies seems to think that the Chinese invented everything and discovered everywhere. I am waiting for his claim that the earliest man was Han Chinese. Maybe that is the next book. What is most striking is that he cannot consider the possibility that different people, widely separated, could possibly discover the same principles and techniques based on physical facts.
I wonder how he deals with Popov and Marconi?
Although there is quite a bit of basic data in this book, the conclusions that he reaches are both insulting and ridiculous. First, he concludes that the Bering Ice bridge was just too tough for people to have come across because it is too tough for him. Talk about hubris. Then we have his assertions that various plants, etc. could ONLY have been brought by sea - demonstrating a failure to actually grasp the known migration of plants, etc. in Europe, Asia - by land.
I didn't catch any flat-out contradictions in this book like I did in 1434, but it wouldn't surprise me if there are some there which would be caught by someone a bit more familiar with specific histories.
Gavin Menzies seems to think that the Chinese invented everything and discovered everywhere. I am waiting for his claim that the earliest man was Han Chinese. Maybe that is the next book. What is most striking is that he cannot consider the possibility that different people, widely separated, could possibly discover the same principles and techniques based on physical facts.
I wonder how he deals with Popov and Marconi?
January 27, 2025
This book is about the author's journey to learn about the origins of human inhabitation in the American continent. I listened to the audiobook, and I imagine the print copy must have maps in them.
The author gives an account of the places he's been for his research, from China to South America, North America and Canada. This included efficient use of time to learn about the subject matter by taking turns with his travel companions over/after dinner on overnight trains to teach one another about the background and history.
It was fascinating to hear about the DNA studies of flora and fauna, archaeological findings and vernacular research. His research has taken him to many universities, libraries and archives across the world.
The author gives an account of the places he's been for his research, from China to South America, North America and Canada. This included efficient use of time to learn about the subject matter by taking turns with his travel companions over/after dinner on overnight trains to teach one another about the background and history.
It was fascinating to hear about the DNA studies of flora and fauna, archaeological findings and vernacular research. His research has taken him to many universities, libraries and archives across the world.
March 7, 2020
The writer comes across as fairly egocentric, not a great quality for someone claiming to write a history of others in the world before him. I want to know about them, not them through your own experience. It isn't a about you! ... or is it? I abandoned the book a few chapters in after suspecting that there was little academic integrity behind the premise; rather this text is a series of anecdotes underscoring what an amazing and clever adventurer our author truly is.
July 20, 2021
Menzies passed away last year but my just discovering his books has me riveted. The vast sources of evidence makes it difficult to believe that a 15th century A.D. European found the Americas. Menzies quotes physical, DNA and anecdotal evidence to support the idea that many peoples have traveled to the Americas by ship. The history books will have to change in light of more research and excavation concerning the peoples of the Americas and where and how they came.
June 6, 2022
I was saddened to learn from Menzies himself that his books have been the subject of much criticism from historians. The message I took from the first book (keep an open mind about what we think we know) is important but cheapened by learning that most actual historians consider this complete fiction. This time, Menzies still write with conviction but his constant pushback against his critics made it less convincing to me. Still interesting to listen to and think about.
May 4, 2017
There are a lot of interesting ideas in this book, but I just don't think I like the author. He includes way too many details about his travels around the world and the resistance that he's faced in some of his research. I just found the book to be far too much about him and not enough about his research findings.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 111 reviews