What do you think?
Rate this book
Did Marco Polo Go to China?
We all “know” that Marco Polo went to China, served Ghengis Khan for many years, and returned to Italy with the recipes for pasta and ice cream. But Frances Wood, head of the Chinese Department at the British Library, argues that Marco Polo not only never went to China, he probably never even made it past the Black Sea, where his family conducted business as merchants.Marco Polo’s travels from Venice to the exotic and distant East, and his epic book describing his extraordinary adventures, A Description of the World, ranks among the most famous and influential books ever published. In this fascinating piece of historical detection, marking the 700th anniversary of Polo’s journey, Frances Wood questions whether Marco Polo ever reached the country he so vividly described. Why, in his romantic and seemingly detailed account, is there no mention of such fundamentals of Chinese life as tea, foot-binding, or even the Great Wall? Did he really bring back pasta and ice cream to Italy? And why, given China’s extensive and even obsessive record-keeping, is there no mention of Marco Polo anywhere in the archives?Sure to spark controversy, Did Marco Polo Go to China? tries to solve these and other inconsistencies by carefully examining the Polo family history, Marco Polo’s activities as a merchant, the preparation of his book, and the imperial Chinese records. The result is a lucid and readable look at medieval European and Chinese history, and the characters and events that shaped this extraordinary and enduring myth.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
About the author
Frances Wood
41 books12 followersFrom Wikipedia:
Frances Wood (Chinese: 吴芳思; pinyin: Wú Fāngsī; born 1948) is an English librarian, sinologue and historian known for her writings on Chinese history, including Marco Polo, life in the Chinese treaty ports, and the First Emperor of China.
Biography
Wood was born in London in 1948, and went to art school in Liverpool in 1967, before going to Newnham College, Cambridge University, where she studied Chinese. She went to China to study Chinese at Peking University in 1975–1976.[2]
in March 2001
Wood joined the staff of the British Library in London in 1977 as a junior curator, and later served as curator of Chinese collections until her retirement in 2013.[3][4] She is also a member of the steering committee of the International Dunhuang Project,[5] and the editor of the Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society.[3] She was also a governor of Ashmount Primary School for 20 years, relinquishing this post on the completion of her current term of office in July 2014.
She has argued in her 1995 book, Did Marco Polo go to China?, that the book of Marco Polo (Il Milione) is not the account of a single person, but is a collection of travellers' tales. This book's claims about Polo's travels has been heavily criticized by Stephen G. Haw, David O. Morgan and Peter Jackson as lacking basic academic rigor.
Frances Wood (Chinese: 吴芳思; pinyin: Wú Fāngsī; born 1948) is an English librarian, sinologue and historian known for her writings on Chinese history, including Marco Polo, life in the Chinese treaty ports, and the First Emperor of China.
Biography
Wood was born in London in 1948, and went to art school in Liverpool in 1967, before going to Newnham College, Cambridge University, where she studied Chinese. She went to China to study Chinese at Peking University in 1975–1976.[2]
in March 2001
Wood joined the staff of the British Library in London in 1977 as a junior curator, and later served as curator of Chinese collections until her retirement in 2013.[3][4] She is also a member of the steering committee of the International Dunhuang Project,[5] and the editor of the Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society.[3] She was also a governor of Ashmount Primary School for 20 years, relinquishing this post on the completion of her current term of office in July 2014.
She has argued in her 1995 book, Did Marco Polo go to China?, that the book of Marco Polo (Il Milione) is not the account of a single person, but is a collection of travellers' tales. This book's claims about Polo's travels has been heavily criticized by Stephen G. Haw, David O. Morgan and Peter Jackson as lacking basic academic rigor.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
May 27, 2018
I was very interested in this book as a history student, teacher and fan. I have no problem with revising history. I have a problem with not ‘doing’ history properly. I’m not overly familiar with Chinese history or Marco Polo beyond what ‘everyone’ knows. I read this book for a uni course and assignment.
I was optimistic and looking forward to some decent revisionism based in historical evidence.
This was a let down. The premise is indeed interesting but Wood fails to convince.
The first half of the book is not really relevant to her central question/title. It is interesting under but it veers off topic.
The biggest problem I had was Woods lack of historical method. She is criticising historical tradition and historians works on this topic without employing consistent argument and evidence to support her own view.
She is clear, throughout, that she believes polo went somewhere in Asia, and used other people’s works to write about China, but didn’t actually go or live there. Ever.
The problem is she undermines herself and her view. Repeatedly. If one of my students did this in their essay I’d be having words.
She points out herself that the final ‘work’ we have is not really polos original. It was likely ghost written. It has been translated and mistranslated over the years. Later additions all added anecdotes etc. yet she holds Polo accountable for fanciful stories and errors. But these are likely errors and entertaining additions by others, not reflective of Polo at all. There’s one account she mentions as being evidence of Polo not being in China. Yet also admits, that this account is only found in one of about 140 versions of Polos book and as such is unlikely original. She admits this. And then restates that she doesn’t think he went to China. Wtf?
It isn’t until chapter 7 or 8 that she actually starts to point out alleged flaws. He doesn’t mention the Great Wall, footbinding, Books, calligraphy, tea etc etc. all peculiar Chinese customs that she believes a foreigner would find interesting and write about.
BUT she does point out, correctly (although she then ignores it), that:
(a) Polo was a trader and not necessarily writing a cultural history. He was writing a geography. Just because he isn’t writing what she wanted he is criticised. Forget his purposes and preference.
(b) Polo hung out at the Mongol court in Peking - not amongst the Chinese. So he wouldn’t have been overly familiar with Chinese customs.
(C) as a merchant who travelled, he wouldn’t have spent much time in any one place. He had errands. He didn’t spend years drinking tea in Chinese towns.
(D) the Great Wall was in ruins and not the big wall we know today. It was in atrocious and small condition so why would he have been impressed?!?! AND there was another route into China anyway. He might not have gone that way. But still. According to wood he SHOULD have mentioned it.
(e) as a male and in the Mongol court he wouldn’t be associating with Chinese women who bound their feet. They’d be indoors and not in the Khan court. Merchant and peasant women didn’t bind their feet. Neither did the Mongol women. But still. He should have mentioned it right?
Seriously. Left right and centre she points out the flaws in her own view. And then, unreasonably, sticks to her view. This is very unhistorical in method and approach.
It’s actually quite frustrating.
I was looking forward to a revisionist argument. All she did was convince me she was wrong, we give Polo the benefit of the doubt since we don’t have his own version of the text and others stuffed it up, and that there is actually, truly NO HARD EVIDENCE, that he was lying or misleading.
Sigh. What a waste of my life.
Seriously if you’re interested in China or Polo, find another book. By a historian who is familiar with the history. Not an Art librarian who can’t present a historical argument and only contributes to populist pseudo ‘histories’.
I was optimistic and looking forward to some decent revisionism based in historical evidence.
This was a let down. The premise is indeed interesting but Wood fails to convince.
The first half of the book is not really relevant to her central question/title. It is interesting under but it veers off topic.
The biggest problem I had was Woods lack of historical method. She is criticising historical tradition and historians works on this topic without employing consistent argument and evidence to support her own view.
She is clear, throughout, that she believes polo went somewhere in Asia, and used other people’s works to write about China, but didn’t actually go or live there. Ever.
The problem is she undermines herself and her view. Repeatedly. If one of my students did this in their essay I’d be having words.
She points out herself that the final ‘work’ we have is not really polos original. It was likely ghost written. It has been translated and mistranslated over the years. Later additions all added anecdotes etc. yet she holds Polo accountable for fanciful stories and errors. But these are likely errors and entertaining additions by others, not reflective of Polo at all. There’s one account she mentions as being evidence of Polo not being in China. Yet also admits, that this account is only found in one of about 140 versions of Polos book and as such is unlikely original. She admits this. And then restates that she doesn’t think he went to China. Wtf?
It isn’t until chapter 7 or 8 that she actually starts to point out alleged flaws. He doesn’t mention the Great Wall, footbinding, Books, calligraphy, tea etc etc. all peculiar Chinese customs that she believes a foreigner would find interesting and write about.
BUT she does point out, correctly (although she then ignores it), that:
(a) Polo was a trader and not necessarily writing a cultural history. He was writing a geography. Just because he isn’t writing what she wanted he is criticised. Forget his purposes and preference.
(b) Polo hung out at the Mongol court in Peking - not amongst the Chinese. So he wouldn’t have been overly familiar with Chinese customs.
(C) as a merchant who travelled, he wouldn’t have spent much time in any one place. He had errands. He didn’t spend years drinking tea in Chinese towns.
(D) the Great Wall was in ruins and not the big wall we know today. It was in atrocious and small condition so why would he have been impressed?!?! AND there was another route into China anyway. He might not have gone that way. But still. According to wood he SHOULD have mentioned it.
(e) as a male and in the Mongol court he wouldn’t be associating with Chinese women who bound their feet. They’d be indoors and not in the Khan court. Merchant and peasant women didn’t bind their feet. Neither did the Mongol women. But still. He should have mentioned it right?
Seriously. Left right and centre she points out the flaws in her own view. And then, unreasonably, sticks to her view. This is very unhistorical in method and approach.
It’s actually quite frustrating.
I was looking forward to a revisionist argument. All she did was convince me she was wrong, we give Polo the benefit of the doubt since we don’t have his own version of the text and others stuffed it up, and that there is actually, truly NO HARD EVIDENCE, that he was lying or misleading.
Sigh. What a waste of my life.
Seriously if you’re interested in China or Polo, find another book. By a historian who is familiar with the history. Not an Art librarian who can’t present a historical argument and only contributes to populist pseudo ‘histories’.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 31, 2021
A fun and easily comprehensible book that examines the veracity of Marco Polo's "Description of the World." Wood writes with wit and with a deep knowledge of China. Many reviewers have nitpicked this book for "getting it wrong" and suggested that Wood lacks the necessary knowledge to write such a book. Though I have no deep knowledge of the materials, it seems odd to me how angry the reaction against the text is, but as Wood points out, it is unpopular to go against a powerful and deeply entrenched myth.
Wood makes two important points that call into doubt Polo’s presence in China: 1) that many of the most memorable and fantastical bits of Polo's stories only emerge in 16th century editions, and that no "original" copies exist (only copies of early copies, which in addition to suffering copying errors were also translated to other languages). This makes it hard to isolate Polo's voice from the embellishments of later copyists and publishers trying to sell a good story to their audiences; 2) that Polo leaves out many obvious aspects of Chinese geography and society that would later have a magnetic effect on the European imagination: the Great Wall, tea, foot binding, chopsticks, etc. This is odd because Polo was allegedly there for seventeen years. Even if Marco spent most of his time in a Mongolian ger yurt, it would have been hard for him to avoid tea and Chinese writing.
At this point it is important to note that the title of the book is "Did Marco Polo go to China?" not "Did Marco Polo actually go anywhere in Asia?" It could be said that Polo spent much time in the Mongolian-ruled lands of Central and Inner Asia, but nonetheless, Woods argues, his silence about important and enduring elements of Chinese culture is suspect, as are his frequent errors about the cities he claims to have visited, or even, possibly, spent time governing. There is a complementary silence in the Mongolian and Chinese sources about the role of any Polos, Italians, or even "Franks" in the positions and places Marco Polo claimed to have held and visited. Wood determines that Marco Polo probably never left the Black Sea, and that the Description is compiled from Persian guidebooks, Polo family knowledge, and other accounts from travelers who were moving around Eurasia at the time.
The skepticism seems reasonable to me, and I certainly will look at Polo's writings with a more critical eye, as a more measured Mandeville, giving distorted and embellished information rather than conveying fantasy for entertainment's sake. Polo gets a lot wrong, but the writings contained in the book are a fascinating source of early European knowledge about China that the Mongolian Empire's cosmopolitan character made available. The vast amount of scholarship about what Polo may or may not have seen has revealed a network of linguistic and geographic interaction that makes his story so hard to verify or completely disprove.
Wood makes two important points that call into doubt Polo’s presence in China: 1) that many of the most memorable and fantastical bits of Polo's stories only emerge in 16th century editions, and that no "original" copies exist (only copies of early copies, which in addition to suffering copying errors were also translated to other languages). This makes it hard to isolate Polo's voice from the embellishments of later copyists and publishers trying to sell a good story to their audiences; 2) that Polo leaves out many obvious aspects of Chinese geography and society that would later have a magnetic effect on the European imagination: the Great Wall, tea, foot binding, chopsticks, etc. This is odd because Polo was allegedly there for seventeen years. Even if Marco spent most of his time in a Mongolian ger yurt, it would have been hard for him to avoid tea and Chinese writing.
At this point it is important to note that the title of the book is "Did Marco Polo go to China?" not "Did Marco Polo actually go anywhere in Asia?" It could be said that Polo spent much time in the Mongolian-ruled lands of Central and Inner Asia, but nonetheless, Woods argues, his silence about important and enduring elements of Chinese culture is suspect, as are his frequent errors about the cities he claims to have visited, or even, possibly, spent time governing. There is a complementary silence in the Mongolian and Chinese sources about the role of any Polos, Italians, or even "Franks" in the positions and places Marco Polo claimed to have held and visited. Wood determines that Marco Polo probably never left the Black Sea, and that the Description is compiled from Persian guidebooks, Polo family knowledge, and other accounts from travelers who were moving around Eurasia at the time.
The skepticism seems reasonable to me, and I certainly will look at Polo's writings with a more critical eye, as a more measured Mandeville, giving distorted and embellished information rather than conveying fantasy for entertainment's sake. Polo gets a lot wrong, but the writings contained in the book are a fascinating source of early European knowledge about China that the Mongolian Empire's cosmopolitan character made available. The vast amount of scholarship about what Polo may or may not have seen has revealed a network of linguistic and geographic interaction that makes his story so hard to verify or completely disprove.
October 30, 2023
Can someone who has been in China for 17 years not have seen the Great Wall?
That would be strange. Yet Marco Polo, the Venetian explorer (and spy for the Venetian government), never mentions the Wall. Never. In his famous book Il Milione, dictated to Rustichello da Pisa, he does not mention it. He describes incredible details, magical beasts, detailed customs and habits, even sexual ones, but he does not mention things we know well about China today. Why is that? The theory of some historians and scholars is that Marco Polo did not go beyond Constantinople and simply listened to the reports of other merchants and travelers. Will this be the case? No one has determined that yet, but it is an interesting theory and this book addresses the question very well. An excellent read if you enjoy cognitive and even historical exploration.
I enjoyed it. Really.
That would be strange. Yet Marco Polo, the Venetian explorer (and spy for the Venetian government), never mentions the Wall. Never. In his famous book Il Milione, dictated to Rustichello da Pisa, he does not mention it. He describes incredible details, magical beasts, detailed customs and habits, even sexual ones, but he does not mention things we know well about China today. Why is that? The theory of some historians and scholars is that Marco Polo did not go beyond Constantinople and simply listened to the reports of other merchants and travelers. Will this be the case? No one has determined that yet, but it is an interesting theory and this book addresses the question very well. An excellent read if you enjoy cognitive and even historical exploration.
I enjoyed it. Really.
November 19, 2013
I read an English review of the book in a thick Sinology journal several years ago, and thought about the issues raised seriously. I also wanted to know what Frances had to say about ice cream and spagetti, so I got the e-book (http://www.amazon.com/Did-Marco-Polo-...).
I was rather disappointed with the scholarship. The book is easy to follow, but sketchy in details and rigorous arguments. For example, the "ommission" of tea, foot-binding and calligraphy was so easy to understand. She was thinking about the wrong dynasty...Marco Polo was supposedly there under the Mongols, the Yuan dynasty under Kublai Khan. Mongols drink horse milk not tea, the Mongol court would not have foot-bound women, and Mongol script is not Chinese calligraphy. The absence of the Great Wall was also questions her credibility, the wall was supposed to keep the Mongols out, and was not rebuilt on a massive scale until the Ming dynasty. So now I am more inclined towards the idea that the burden of proof should be on those who question whether Marco Polo was ever in China. http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols...
I was rather disappointed with the scholarship. The book is easy to follow, but sketchy in details and rigorous arguments. For example, the "ommission" of tea, foot-binding and calligraphy was so easy to understand. She was thinking about the wrong dynasty...Marco Polo was supposedly there under the Mongols, the Yuan dynasty under Kublai Khan. Mongols drink horse milk not tea, the Mongol court would not have foot-bound women, and Mongol script is not Chinese calligraphy. The absence of the Great Wall was also questions her credibility, the wall was supposed to keep the Mongols out, and was not rebuilt on a massive scale until the Ming dynasty. So now I am more inclined towards the idea that the burden of proof should be on those who question whether Marco Polo was ever in China. http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols...
March 5, 2015
I was afraid to read this book, Marco Polo is my heroe! He impersonates all my curious by the world, my admiration by travellers and explorers. Same before read it, already was easy to have doubts about many of Marco Polo informations, so the damage made by this book wasn't fatal. About book itself, it shows the ideas and arguments a little unorganized.
October 1, 2009
I dunno. Did he? I read the book carefully and I don't have the answer. If Wood set out to debunk the Polo-in-China case, she didn't persuade me.
April 24, 2017
Answer to question posed in title: yes.
January 31, 2023
Compré este libro en Londres durante uno de mis viajes a Reino Unido. Me intrigó el título pues yo tomaba a Marco Polo como un viajero ejemplar, e incluso había visto la película "Marco Polo el magnífico", del año 1965, que me encantó. Pero ahora, al leer el libro de Frances Wood, me desengañaba, pues de ser cierto lo que él afirma, Marco Polo no habría estado en China, ya que no describe la bebida del té, ni la Gran Muralla china, ni la atrofia de los pies de las mujeres jóvenes para parecer más bellas. Solo fue tiempo después cuando, al profundizar sobre este tema, me apercibí de que la dinastía que reinaba en China durante el viaje de Marco Polo fue la Yuan, que era mongola, y los mongoles no bebían té, sino una leche fermentada de yegua. Y las mujeres mongolas no se atrofiaban los pies, cosa que sí hacían las chinas. Y si no describió la Gran Muralla china fue porque en su tiempo aún no era tan grande, ya que se ampliaría solamente durante el siglo XV, o sea, unos dos siglos más tarde de la visita de Marco Polo.
Respiraba tranquilo, de nuevo podía considerar a Marco Polo como mi héroe, como el mejor viajero de todos los tiempos. Por eso solo asigno 3 puntos al libro, ya que confunde a los lectores.
Respiraba tranquilo, de nuevo podía considerar a Marco Polo como mi héroe, como el mejor viajero de todos los tiempos. Por eso solo asigno 3 puntos al libro, ya que confunde a los lectores.
November 10, 2022
Marco Polo infamously travelled to China, returning seventeen years later with the recipes for pasta and ice cream, and the first description of the country for the West, right? Well think again, at least Frances Wood will make you.
A difficult and controversial argument to make, Wood does deserve scholarship for her brave analysis of the true nature of Polo's travels. She challenges the authorship of his accounts, the intentions behind his travels, as well as criticising the actual content of them; including the lack of mention of fundamental aspects of China, including the Great Wall! (surely he can't have gone to China and missed the Great Wall???) In her words, he must have been 'severely visually impaired' to have done so.
Though some of her claims are rather open-ended, without sufficient proof to back them up, the evidence she does provide is certainly enough to make one question whether Polo's accounts were factual or not - a very interesting read providing a fresh perspective hardly seen before.
A difficult and controversial argument to make, Wood does deserve scholarship for her brave analysis of the true nature of Polo's travels. She challenges the authorship of his accounts, the intentions behind his travels, as well as criticising the actual content of them; including the lack of mention of fundamental aspects of China, including the Great Wall! (surely he can't have gone to China and missed the Great Wall???) In her words, he must have been 'severely visually impaired' to have done so.
Though some of her claims are rather open-ended, without sufficient proof to back them up, the evidence she does provide is certainly enough to make one question whether Polo's accounts were factual or not - a very interesting read providing a fresh perspective hardly seen before.
January 31, 2021
I read this in the early 2000s and every time someone mentioned Marco Polo, I'd tell them why he never went to China. Sadly for my credability, many historians have proved this book wrong. Don't believe everything you read.
Historian Dr Igor de Rachewiltz from ANU:
https://openresearch-repository.anu.e...
Historian Dr Igor de Rachewiltz from ANU:
https://openresearch-repository.anu.e...
Wood's "thesis is so full of holes as to be untenable from whichever angle we look at it. One of its cornerstones is the 'Persian guidebook' hypothesis extrapolated from a casual remark made several decades ago by H. Franke. In a letter to me dated 28 July 1998, Professor Franke writes: 'Yesterday I received your article ... on F. Wood's misleading book on Marco Polo. I am pleased that you pointed out how she misquoted what I had said, very provisionally, in 1965. I think that you have definitely laid to rest her theory.'"
February 20, 2025
It was interesting got read this examination of the writings of Marco Polo, but I found the writing style difficult. More treatise than history book
August 13, 2014
I read this book as part of a University course; I have always been fascinated about Marco Polo and read "his" book a few years ago; that's why I can only agree with what it is said in this book.
It is written in an easy to read language and, being a small book, I finished it in a few days. It has chapters that are a bit tedious, but most of them are really interesting.
It is written in an easy to read language and, being a small book, I finished it in a few days. It has chapters that are a bit tedious, but most of them are really interesting.
November 3, 2012
I have to admit that I was a bit disappointed in this book. I've heard Frances Wood speak on "In Our Time"; she's engaging and entertaining. This book was controversial and as such I expected a deeper treatment of her contention that Marco Polo did not actually visit China. I felt the book was lacking in strong arguments, jumped around too much and overall, was just not convincing.
April 13, 2011
Very easy and comprehensible read, considering the subject matter.
May 4, 2011
It's a fun exercise in vetting your sources, but Wood didn't really seem to push an opinion one way or another, either by declaration or evidence.
June 13, 2014
A fun and sometimes witty read that brought back many history lectures from days past.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews