Maps Suggest Marco Polo May Have "Discovered" America 276
An anonymous reader writes in with news about maps attributed to Marco Polo that seem to show the coast of Alaska. "For a guy who claimed to spend 17 years in China as a confidant of Kublai Khan, Marco Polo left a surprisingly skimpy paper trail. No Asian sources mention the footloose Italian. The only record of his 13th-century odyssey through the Far East is the hot air of his own Travels, which was actually an "as told to" penned by a writer of romances. But a set of 14 parchments, now collected and exhaustively studied for the first time, give us a raft of new stories about Polo's journeys and something notably missing from his own account: maps. If genuine, the maps would show that Polo recorded the shape of the Alaskan coast—and the strait separating it from Asia—four centuries before Vitus Bering, the Danish explorer long considered the first European to do so. Perhaps more important, they suggest Polo was aware of the New World two centuries before Columbus."
And then... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And then... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And then... (Score:5, Informative)
The correct way to shape that joke is to omit the "Polo".
Re: (Score:2)
His brother's name was actually Walter, but that got deformed over the centuries by that stupid joke.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My brothers and I would call out instead: "Marcus...Welby...Marcus...Welby..." to avoid being too conventional.
Re: (Score:2)
He got the nickname Marco after he lost his horse. Before, it was just straight Polo ... and apparently it's his shirt I'm wearing.
Re: (Score:2)
He did, which was amazing since by that time he'd gone blind.
Big Old Liar (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I still don't get the Columbus story. The "everyone thought the world was flat" BS annoys me. Everyone knew the world was round, Columbus' argument was he thought the world was SMALLER than it was (and smaller than everyone thought)... and he was wrong. So, basically, we celebrate a man who was both wrong and just plain lucky as a great explorer...
Re:Big Old Liar (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea that is why we celebrate him. Pray what the fuck have you ever done that ranks in significance to what he has done. We should always celebrate explorers. Whether he was 100% correct in everything he tried to do. Are you going to make fun of astronauts in the Shuttle Columbia because they couldn't even land their space plane, and besides they really didn't build it in the first place.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. "
-Uncle Teddy
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect AC has not murdered hundreds of people, nor sold their daughters into sex slavery. As such, I think AC deserves quite a bit more celebration than Columbus.
But if you've got to celebrate explorers, there are far more noble ones than that bastard Columbus. He was really truly a despicable person. He does not deserve that kind of credit. He was wrong, he was not the first, and he was a terrible person. But he brought in lots of wealth for the colonial powers, and that's why he's famous.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Big Old Liar (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a little stronger than "ha ha I forgot to mention, you don't have to leave tips!" He (essentially) wrote a book about China, and didn't mention chopsticks, foot-binding, or tea? But does mention a race of men who had dog-heads instead of human-heads? He also claimed to be governor of Yangzhou and other obvious bullshit.
Centuries before Marco Polo, Arab Traders were well-established in China [wikipedia.org], Italians had extensive contacts with the Persian and Arab world, and it seems very likely that Marco Polo just compiled stories he had heard. We know his stories were full of BS, exactly how much is BS is impossible to say.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And it's been established that Italians were in China (living here) before Marco Polo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... [wikipedia.org]
As much as they try to shrug off foreigners in China, the statue and museum in Yangzhou dedicated to him are touching. I didn't know of them before I visited, and I certainly had no knowledge that there were already Italian communities!
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't mention Chinese tea houses. Tea has been important in China for thousands of years but Polo makes no mention of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Big Old Liar (Score:5, Informative)
What? "never pointed out major inventions like paper" - he pointed out specifically and meticulously the use of paper money and salt. http://www.history.com/news/ma... [history.com]
"Historians before him have touched on these issues while defending Marco Polo’s honor, but Vogel also relies on another compelling body of evidence: the explorer’s meticulous descriptions of currency and salt production in the Yuan era. According to Vogel, Polo documents these aspects of Mongol Chinese civilization in greater detail than any of his Western, Arab or Persian contemporaries, a hint that the Venetian relied on his own powers of observation. Polo’s claims about the size of paper money and the value of salt, among other aspects, check out against archaeological evidence and Chinese documents maintained by Yuan officials, Vogel concluded."
One thing I find interesting - is that they teach Chinese students of Marco Polo in China. I would imagine that, if presented with "Hey, look, this dude from Europe visited you guys hundreds of years ago and did trade with the Mongols!" the first to refute and expose that would be the Chinese, as it would seem that their history would more likely be the source of truth (or closer to the source) rather than simply speculating on the contents of his verbal transcript.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, unless they cared more about trading with the europeans than offending them.
Native Americans anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of european perspective (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Because of european perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say being able to spread the knowledge of your discovery is an important part of that discovery. After the Vikings reached America, one tribe knew about the discovery and it was subsequently forgotten. After Columbus discovered America, this knowledge spread throughout Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it was not forgotten. The knowledge was still there, it was just seen as a bad investment at the time to try and settle there, for various socioeconomical and political reasons.
Icelandic Norse still had that knowledge for example, and Icelandic sources dated to the late 1400's mention him visiting there and talking to local sailors and traders
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Native Americans anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of the subconscious "us" vs "them".
To think of the discovery as "The moment Americans and Europeans met for the first time" requires a very objective and open mind. And we know that way of thinking isn't common because otherwise there wouldn't be wars.
I believe the main reason is that thinking in "us vs them" terms is evolutionary superior to "we are all one humanity" unless there's a third party involved. Or, in other words, had there been an enemy to humanity other than itself, man would be friend to man.
Re: (Score:2)
To think of the discovery as "The moment Americans and Europeans met for the first time" requires a very objective and open mind. And we know that way of thinking isn't common because otherwise there wouldn't be wars.
While it is true that your description is technically correct, it is also true that Columbus' voyage was only one of a series of contacts where Europeans actively traveled far at a great risk while the natives didn't. To claim that this series of events was merely "Europeans and Xs meeting for the first time" is as misleading as claiming that between 1969 and 1972, there was a series of contacts between the Moon and a few boots. Also technically accurate, but hardly giving a credit to people who could have
Because Europeans didn't know about it (Score:2)
Just because one group of people knows about something, doesn't mean another group can't discover it as well. It would be much like if aliens visited Earth. They could discover Earth, and humanity. Doesn't matter we were already here, it is still a discovery to them.
Re: (Score:2)
because they didn't discover it, they already existed in it. The biggest part of discovering new lands was sharing the new knowledge gained from it / about it with the rest of the world, obviously native americans couldn't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure how any European can claim to be the first to discover America when the continent was populated by humans for thousands of years.
discover verb \dis-k-vr\
: to see, find, or become aware of (something) for the first time
Our civilization became aware of the land to be known as America thanks the Norwegians, Columbus (officially) and as it appears, Marco Polo.
The humans that used to live there was not part of the current European centric civilization - au contraire, we dizimate this ancient, previously stablished civilization and took his place.
Believe-me: giving them the "credit" for discovering America is adding Offense to the Injury.
Re: (Score:3)
The claim was never that Columbus or anyone was the first PERSON to "discover America." The question is who was the first EUROPEAN to discover it and make it known to Western civilization.
Lief Erikson was the first European to discover it, but he didn't end up making its existence known outside of Iceland and maybe Norway. Then the knowledge got buried.
When Cristorforo Colombo discovered the Americas, they stayed discovered permanently and their existence became common knowledge across Eurasia.
And it's wo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If tomorrow an astronomer miraculously found an exoplanet that was also provably home to intelligent life, would you say that he didn't discover it because there was already intelligent life there? No?
Yes. Particularly if I was one of those aliens
What if a somewhat uneducated man sailed a yacht around the world from africa and stumbled upon 21st century America? Would it be valid to say that he 'discovered' it, because it was new to him? Why not?
Re:Native Americans anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like the metric system... (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's like the metric system... (Score:4, Informative)
> Columbus was the first to enslave the indigenous inhabitants
I believe that many of the native inhabitants practiced that well before he got here.
Re: It's like the metric system... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's like the metric system... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, life in the Americas was a Bunny Life. The next tribe over the hill enslaved your women and killed your warriors in a spirit of love an harmony. The Aztecs were a hippie culture which cherished medicinal "herbs" and sang Kum-by-Ya by the firelight in the evenings before going off to make free love.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's like the metric system... (Score:5, Insightful)
Columbus' travel was about the circumfence of the Earth. While most scholars in the 15th century estimated the circumfence to be about 26,000 miles, quite close to reality, Columbus was convinced it was only 15,000, making a travel westward to India to seem actually feasible and shorter than the Portuguese way around the Cape of Good Hope.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its hard to miss. Basically a wall from the Arctic to the Antarctic.
Re: (Score:2)
The only sources are two obscure byzanthine scholars from the 4th and 6th century
Who were those? I figure they must have been actively denying Eratosthenes for being a pagan or something. Some people were like that back then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's like the metric system... (Score:4, Insightful)
Easy way to see that Christians did not believe this is look at the art they created, from the 300s, you will find various art works of the Christ where he is holding a representation of the earth with a cross over it and that representation is a round sphere.
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of the wayfaring sailors of the time knew the Earth WAS NOT FLAT.
Uh, EVERYONE knew that. And how the hell is that relevant to the topic in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that anyone who is not seafaring had any clue about that, e.g. farmers or simple town folk who where illiterate and bond slaves till late middel ages at least.
It is a common saying/teaching that even aged simple sailors feared long espeditions because they expected 'to fall over the edge of the world'.
That some scholars knew the world must be a sphere is certain, that it was an consensus I doubt!
That's the Italian way for you (Score:5, Funny)
A guy who is reported as traveling in China in fact was getting into America 200 years before a guy who bumped into America when trying to reach India using a shortcut which in fact was much longer.
Re: (Score:2)
So... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure if you look at a map you will see that the vast majority of our discoveries were ON THE WAY to China, haha, or entirely in the opposite direction, across the Atlantic Ocean :) :)
Like, you know, the entirety of Africa, India, and Brazil?
We certainly didn't discover the Bering Strait or anything up north. Beyond China, we went to Japan and Indonesia and that's about it.
Re: (Score:2)
The back even says "Made in China".
John Cabot? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the journey were reversed, Columbus would have discovered the Azores. The first exploration by Europeans [who recorded their discovery] of continental North America in 1497 was led by John Cabot. He was always thought of as the discoverer of America until the early C19th (why would a bunch of British immigrants credit a Spaniard?).
Then came the War of 1814, burning of the White House, etc. and a wave of anti-British sentiment. Suddenly, the US's founding father became good ol' Christopher.
Re:John Cabot? (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cabot, aka Giovanni Caboto;( c. 1450 – c. 1499) was an Italian navigator and explorer )
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... [wikipedia.org], aka Giovanni Caboto;( c. 1450 â" c. 1499) was an Italian navigator and explorer )
Yes, and GP is also wrong about Columbus being a "Spaniard." His journey may have been financed by Spain but he was from Genoa (in modern-day ITALY).
Both Cabot and Columbus were Italians.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the correction- but why is Spaniard in quotations? It's not derogatory or euphemistic. It's the name for people from Spain!
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably because it's a quotation.
Re: (Score:2)
Not offended, just curious at the use of a quote for one term. Apologies if it came across that I was affronted in any way.
Re:John Cabot? (Score:4, Insightful)
yea but he was commissioned by England
Re: (Score:3)
War of 1812.
So where were the chili peppers? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's fake (Score:5, Funny)
Poloshopped
Polo? (Score:2)
Hmm, it always grates against my soul when people use names without checking whether it is usage; I'm probably just being pedantic.
So, historically things like last names were not commonly used the way we do now; I don't recall when they came into use. So, you would call people by their personal names + perhaps a description - 'John the Baptist', 'Leonardo da Vinci', 'Genghis Khan' etc. The last is not really a name as much as a title: 'Great Khan' - his name was Temüjin, but still you see him re
No. (Score:2)
Get in line (Score:4, Funny)
Unlikely (Score:2)
I'm going with Phoenicians at about 350 BC as the first westerners in the Americas.
Bering Straits (Score:3)
I solved the mystery (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, there is strong evidence that the Native Americans discovered America.
No. Their ancestors did. The Asian people who first discovered North America were not, by definition, native to America - they were native Asians. Their descendants were native Americans, but by then, North America had already been discovered.
Re:So the Italians win the latest round ... (Score:5, Informative)
So the Italians win the latest round, the North American Discovery trophy moves back to Italy.
Nope that trophy still belong to the Norsemen. (If we are going to continue to insist on not counting the native Americans, that is). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:So the Italians win the latest round ... (Score:5, Informative)
It's "Discovery by a civilized man", so Norsemen mustn't count.
Essentially, to discover a continent you apparently need:
1 - To be white.
2 - A cup of tea. (ideally, with biscuits)
3 - A towel.
You discover countries... by having flags! (Score:5, Funny)
Oblig. Eddie Izzard clip [youtube.com]... no flag, no country!
Re: (Score:2)
It's "Discovery by a civilized man", so Norsemen mustn't count.
Essentially, to discover a continent you apparently need: 1 - To be white. 2 - A cup of tea. (ideally, with biscuits) 3 - A towel.
The Norsemen did indescribable things to civilized men with towels and cups of tea.
Re: (Score:3)
The northmen only lacked the tea :)
They where around their time likely the most civilized people in Europe/Scandinavia, if count bathing and washing etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in the south civilization regarding hygiene etc. broke down just like everywhere else in 'christian' countries :D
Re: So the Italians win the latest round ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Bathing in Europe broke down because of the black plague. Up until that point the public baths built by the Romans were still in wide usage. People incorrectly associated bathing with the Black Plague and of course decided to cut it out as much as possible from their lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's "Discovery by a civilized man", so Norsemen mustn't count.
Essentially, to discover a continent you apparently need:
1 - To be white.
2 - A cup of tea. (ideally, with biscuits)
3 - A towel.
To discover a continent you need to find a continent your culture wasn't previously aware of.
So early Native Americans discovered the Americas while coming over from Siberia.
A long time later the Thule (ancestors of the Inuit) also came from Siberia and discovered North America.
Then the Norse discovered the Americas from Europe, but that knowledge wasn't really preserved even among Norse culture.
Meaning the Americas were still available to be discovered by Columbus when he sailed over.
The reason we generall
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If we are going to continue to insist on not counting the native Americans, that is).
Since I'm not a native American descendant (my grandfathers are all Italian and Spanish - all but a gran-gran-grandfather from Portugal), from my point of view, yep - Columbus, the Norwegians and perhaps Marco Polo are the ones to give the trophy.
We are the prevalent civilization. It's harsh, it's rude, it's politically incorrect, but it's true nevertheless.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, I'm pretty sure that trophy is a permanent statue in Siberia.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the reason the "Native Americans" don't count is because they didn't return to their point of origin to share their discovery....
So, since Marco Polo failed to tell anybody about the Alaskan coast in any way that the world understood for many hundreds of years, can he really get any more credit than the Vikings?
Re: So the Italians win the latest round ... (Score:2, Insightful)
It takes a special kind of racism to imply that honesty and resilience are purely English traits.
Re: (Score:3)
It reads more like the rambling of someone embarking on an impressive psychotic episode.
Re: (Score:2)
I must say though, individually I do hate some more than others, but that is based upon personal experience so go get yourself a dictionary.
Re:So the Italians win the latest round ... (Score:5, Informative)
The first English monarch postdates Jesus by about 9 centuries. There was no "English King of that era".
The Knights Templar started about 11 centuries after Jesus, and they were French.
Re: (Score:2)
Why give credit to a guy who's obviously abused the bottle all weekend and just hasn't come back down yet? ;-)
Re:So the Italians win the latest round ... (Score:4, Funny)
Oh yeah? Then explain why the first bible is in King's English, why don'tcha?
Re: (Score:2)
Nice hypothesis.
Too bad there were no "English" people at around 30 AD as the Angles and Saxons only invaded about 400 years after that followed by the Norman (some Norse blood in there too) invasion in 1066.
So are you saying they had a time machine too?
Re: (Score:2)
So are you saying they had a time machine too?
Even better, they had a TARDIS.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the trophy still is property of the local indigenous population.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They explained this on the "History" channel.
It was aliens.
(you know, I think I prefered it when they were the Hitler Channel, and 95% of their shows were WW2-related)