Chinese explore the "New World" over 4,000 years ago.

The "Shan Hai King" or "Shan Hai Jing" is the title of a series of volumes written in Chinese and compiled around 2250 BC. 18 volumes of the original 30 survive to this day and are considered the oldest known written geography.

These volumes contain written descriptions of geographical regions and landmarks that are easily recognizable. The explorers also describe finding precious metals and gemstones such as Gold, Opal, Green Jade, Fire Agate, Quartz and other minerals. Although the land form descriptions in the texts are mentioned only in a casual way, enough data is present, along with descriptions of flora, fauna and mineral findings to be fairly certain that these texts describe regions in the Americas.

The Shan Hai Jing was compiled from stories and reports of travelers over a long period of time by "Yu", the Minister to the Chinese Emperor Shun, who ruled about 4,000 years ago.

The Chinese classic, the Shan Hai King of about 2250 BC, contains what seems to be an accurate description of the Grand Canyon. Peanuts and maize have been found at ancient Chinese sites dating back to 3000BC. The orthodox view is that neither of these plants left their native America before their export by European colonists in 16th century AD.

Source:The Golden Age Project

The 14th Book of "The Shan Hai King" ("The Classic of Mountains and Seas") a written compilation by "Yu" at the request of the Emperor Shun, around 2250 B.C. which describes a land a distance of 30,000 "le" (10,000 miles) across the "Great Eastern Sea" (east of China). The land (North America 10,000 "le" or about 3,000 miles wide, from the Pacific to the Atlantic) has been referred to as a "Mulberry tree" by some of the ancient peoples of Mexico.

Source:Mysterious Arizona

Another interesting aspect of the theory that Chinese explorers came to the New World more than 4,000 years ago is the possibility of influence upon the native cultures.

Could the Mayan god, Kukulkan the "Bearded White Man" actually be one of those ancient Chinese explorers?

Others have provided more speculation:

That the source of the "Flood" stories and the Biblical legends told to the Conquistadors by the Indians, came from Buddhist teaching;

That the source of the Zapoteca, Maya and Azteca calendar was Asiatic;

That the source of early Mexican writing was Chinese;

That the source of the high cultures in both Peru and Mexico of the fourth and fifth centuries—as well as the "Mongolian spot" and the epicanthic eye-fold, can be attributed to Chinese explorers;

That the basis for the story of Naymlap, in the Province of Lambayeque, Peru, is true and derives from these same sources;

That the source of knowledge of weaving, ceramics, feather-work and metallurgy, together with an understanding of astronomy and mathematics came with the Buddhist priest;

That the root of the earliest Mexican religious philosophy, the dual principle, stems from the Chinese Yin and Yang, the positive and negative theory, and came with the earliest Chinese explorers, more than 4,000 years ago.

Source: Internet Sacred Text Archive

While the evidence for the contention that the Chinese were in the New World over 4,000 years ago remains anecdotal, the prospect is fascinating nonetheless.

There's plenty of information out there, simply search for "Shan Hai King" or "Shan Hai Jing".

~Blarney

This might explain why small stones with Chinese language writings was found buried deep within fields in Ireland.

It would imply that the ancient Chinese made deep ocean ships 3000 years before they actually built them. If they did attempt to navigate across the Pacific they would have likely followed the coast, along the Kuril Islands, cross the Bering Strait and then down the North American Pacific coast with small junks and those waters are treacherous for small vessels. The only Asians capable of crossing deep oceans at that time are the Austronesians and only then did they island hop slowly over the centuries with their outriggers.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
These volumes contain written descriptions of geographical regions and landmarks that are easily recognizable. The explorers also describe finding precious metals and gemstones such as Gold, Opal, Green Jade, Fire Agate, Quartz and other minerals. Although the land form descriptions in the texts are mentioned only in a casual way, enough data is present, along with descriptions of flora, fauna and mineral findings to be fairly certain that these texts describe regions in the Americas.

The general consensus of the Chinese scholars is that these are legends and they mention some common legendary animals.

The Chinese classic, the Shan Hai King of about 2250 BC, contains what seems to be an accurate description of the Grand Canyon. Peanuts and maize have been found at ancient Chinese sites dating back to 3000BC. The orthodox view is that neither of these plants left their native America before their export by European colonists in 16th century AD.

Uhm... no. There's no accurate descriptions of any geography in the books. Peanuts and maize have not been found at ancient Chinese sites.

Could the Mayan god, Kukulkan the "Bearded White Man" actually be one of those ancient Chinese explorers?

A definite "no" on that. He doesn't begin to be associated with the idea of "bearded white man" until about the time Cortez shows up: en.wikipedia.org... Before that, all references are to feathered serpents.

There is some indication that the Spanish came up with the "bearded white man" version. This could have been done through misidentifying the figure of the "vision serpent" (a serpent that carries the head of a man (and sometimes hands) in its mouth) On the Wikipedia page, the picture of the "vision serpent" is not a man in a ceremonial costume with snake legs... it's actually a head and hands emerging from the mouth of a very traditional looking snake. We don't recognize the item as a snake because it's heavily stylized, but if you go look at images of Mayan snakes, you'll soon begin to see the elements.

That the source of the "Flood" stories and the Biblical legends told to the Conquistadors by the Indians, came from Buddhist teaching;

No, that's strictly Christian stuff. Really. Buddhists don't have Flood stories.

That the source of the Zapoteca, Maya and Azteca calendar was Asiatic;

Chinese calendar isn't as complex. Seriously.

That the source of early Mexican writing was Chinese;

That the source of the high cultures in both Peru and Mexico of the fourth and fifth centuries—as well as the "Mongolian spot" and the epicanthic eye-fold, can be attributed to Chinese explorers;

No to the first one, no to the second one, and the epicanthic eye fold means that yes, Native Americans did come from Asia in multiple migrations from 20,000 years ago to 4,000 years ago. They're more similar to the Siberian people.

That the source of knowledge of weaving, ceramics, feather-work and metallurgy, together with an understanding of astronomy and mathematics came with the Buddhist priest;

No, archaeology disproves that. Their knowledge of weaving goes back at least 20,000 years -- far older than Buddha. Metalwork and the others developed at different times.

That the root of the earliest Mexican religious philosophy, the dual principle, stems from the Chinese Yin and Yang, the positive and negative theory, and came with the earliest Chinese explorers, more than 4,000 years ago.

Uhm... "earliest Mexican religious philosophy?" There's no "positive and negative theory" there.

reply to post by Blarneystoner


How could there have been a "Buddhist priest" 4000 years ago? Buddhism itself is only about 2600 years old. Siddhartha Gautama was born ~600BCE.

And the concept of the "yin yang", is only about 2200 years old - the notion of a balance between feminine and masculine energies originated with the Confucian school ~200BCE.

I am not at all opposed to the hypothesis of ancient Chinese exploration of North America, and there may very well be evidence for that, but the narrative that you have presented is very, VERY, inaccurate.

Originally posted by RedBird
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

How could there have been a "Buddhist priest" 4000 years ago? Buddhism itself is only about 2600 years old. Siddhartha Gautama was born ~600BCE.

And the concept of the "yin yang", is only about 2200 years old - the notion of a balance between feminine and masculine energies originated with the Confucian school ~200BCE.

I am not at all opposed to the hypothesis of ancient Chinese exploration of North America, and there may very well be evidence for that, but the narrative that you have presented is very, VERY, inaccurate.

Not that I support or deny this claim, but another member on ATS (IndigoChild) has posted some interesting evidence that Siddhartha Gautama's creation of Buddhism along with many other eras in Indian history are off by about 1,200 years:
Part 1: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Part 2: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Very interesting ideas. I doubt mainstream history would be willing to even re-examine the evidence and see if there is anything of substance in this area, though, much less accept that India has been around for so much longer than currently considered.

reply to post by tetsuo


cool, I'll check that out. Thanks

Originally posted by tetsuo
I doubt mainstream history would be willing to even re-examine the evidence and see if there is anything of substance in this area, though, much less accept that India has been around for so much longer than currently considered.

Sigh. Academic suppression again? Don't you know that the world is full of grad students eager to make their names by shattering paradigms? This statement is simply stupid, and defines the ensuing argument as stupid.

Having to actually prove a notion is not equivalent to suppressing it. Ignoring that simple fact is to promote a scientific idiocracy.

reply to post by Blarneystoner


There could be something to this. One of the earliest Civilizations of central America the Olmecs have some rather interesting art. Many do look very Asian/Chinese to me.

Olmec Central America
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9dc8db2567bb.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f58494dbe650.jpg[/atsimg]

China
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5e5640ef9c49.jpg[/atsimg]

Also now we can take another look at some of the supposed
Out of Place Artifacts. I highly doubt it is millions of years old more like a few thousand and that's pushing it.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/461a2fd32bbc.gif[/atsimg]I think their art is rather unique and very Asian looking take a look at some of these There is so much evidence of cross culture but again unless we find concrete proof. Take these for examples.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0fb6fa0ed224.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e011717c66d4.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7baf56a5f4af.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f8bdd0aad4fd.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f27e2477d02c.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3b2c5307147.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/007699753cbf.jpg[/atsimg]






[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ef75a4084da8.jpg[/atsimg]Another bearded statue so it could be said that he looks Caucasian or very Asian here are some more.

This is a very rare pre columbian wooden sculpture found in Guatemala.


This one here and the one above reminded me of some very famous Chinese Terracotta statues.




Now compare the two Olmec works of art to this from China.

reply to post by SLAYER69


You sound like a smart guy. Now, you can play 'what if' til the cows come home, or you can read this book:

First Peoples in a New World: Colonizing Ice Age America by David J. Meltzer www.ucpress.edu...

Deny Ignorance is the name of the game...but it's your call.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Thanks for the link. I'm always on the lookout for a good read. Now are you saying that the Chinese couldnt have visited the Americas post ice age pre columbian era?

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Thanks for the link. I'm always on the lookout for a good read. Now are you saying that the Chinese couldnt have visited the Americas post ice age pre columbian era?

I'm not saying that anything couldn't have happened. But there is a lot of new information out there, much of it DNA based, that has clues that are a lot more solid than morphological similarity. And please, please...don't bring Gavin Menzies into the scenario.

Find the book and read it...then you'll understand why I shake my head at these threads.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck



I'll look into the book. Thanks again. I believe there is enough circumstantial evidence that the Chinese may have visted. It sounds like the book has convinced you otherwise. I say there was plenty of time for all sorts of visits from many cultures both from the Atlantic as well as the Pacific.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

I'll look into the book. Thanks again. I believe there is enough circumstantial evidence that the Chinese may have visted. It sounds like the book has convinced you otherwise. I say there was plenty of time for all sorts of visits from many cultures both from the Atlantic as well as the Pacific.

Not to take away from that post of yours, you certainly went to a lot of effort and laid out some interesting and thought-provoking juxtapositions. I just cite the Meltzer book because he treats circumstantial evidence in the proper context...interesting in a relative manner, but proof of nothing in and of itself. He does, though, mine the sciences and puts them to work to try and tell the tale as best we know it today. I could cite its pages all over the place, but I'm just going to recommend it and save myself the typing.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by tetsuo
I doubt mainstream history would be willing to even re-examine the evidence and see if there is anything of substance in this area, though, much less accept that India has been around for so much longer than currently considered.

Sigh. Academic suppression again? Don't you know that the world is full of grad students eager to make their names by shattering paradigms? This statement is simply stupid, and defines the ensuing argument as stupid.

Having to actually prove a notion is not equivalent to suppressing it. Ignoring that simple fact is to promote a scientific idiocracy.

Agreed. But that's not to say that some notions and pieces of history aren't suppressed.

reply to post by Byrd

Thanks for spurring me on to further research:

Originally posted by Byrd
"The general consensus of the Chinese scholars is that these are legends and they mention some common legendary animals."

The Chinese scholar, Wang Hong Qi's research seems to indicate that the writings contain more than just the mere mention of "legendary animals". The last line in the quoted texts below definitively states that these records were the direct result of an exploratory campaign.

"After over 20 years researching of >, Chinese Scholar Mr. Wang Hong Qi pointed out, the content of was composed of three books in the four different periods. They are > in “Yu ”Dynasty (About 4200 years ago), > in “Xia” Dynasty (About 4200 ~ 3500 years ago), > in “Shang” Dynasty (About 3500~3000 years ago) and “Zhou” Dynasty (About 3000~2200 years ago).

In the book there were recorded a total 447 mountains in 26 mountain ranges; 258 water systems; all kinds of physiognomy in 348 places; diverse of minerals in 673 different locations, various plants in 525 different locations; all kinds of animals in 473 different places and also the human activity in 95 different places. All these record were based on the results coming from the exploration campaign carried in the “Yu” Dynasty."

Source:

Originally posted by Byrd
"Uhm... no. There's no accurate descriptions of any geography in the books. Peanuts and maize have not been found at ancient Chinese sites."

Again, See above, the research indicates otherwise, and uhm... Yes, Maize and Peanuts HAVE been found at ancient Chinese sites dating back to 3000bce

Source: "History's Timeline, a 40,000 Year Chronology of Civilization by Jean Cooke, Ann Kramer, Theodore Rowland-Entwistle"

Originally posted by Byrd
A definite "no" on that. He doesn't begin to be associated with the idea of "bearded white man" until about the time Cortez shows up: en.wikipedia.org... Before that, all references are to feathered serpents.

Originally posted by Byrd
There is some indication that the Spanish came up with the "bearded white man" version. This could have been done through misidentifying the figure of the "vision serpent" (a serpent that carries the head of a man (and sometimes hands) in its mouth) On the Wikipedia page, the picture of the "vision serpent" is not a man in a ceremonial costume with snake legs... it's actually a head and hands emerging from the mouth of a very traditional looking snake. We don't recognize the item as a snake because it's heavily stylized, but if you go look at images of Mayan snakes, you'll soon begin to see the elements."

Granted, the conjecture that the "bearded White Man" was an ancient Chinese explorer, is some pretty far fetched speculation but consider this:

Quetzalcoatl was described as a white man, with a beard, who wore long robes, and who gave a message of love, forbidding the blood sacrifice, teaching of the One Supreme God, and giving the Toltecs many material things of their culture, such as the calendar. He left the Toltecs because of the enmity and persecution of powerful religious leaders, but promised one day to return, as he had left, from the East, over the ocean.

Source: Source: "Prophetic Dates Given by Toltecs and Mayas" by Olin Karch

The book also refers to bearded ones from the East:

"One goes forth as ambassador. Another awakens Itzamna Kauil (God of the Heavens) in the west."
Also, on the same page, it says:

"The temple receives its guests, the bearded ones from the lands of the Sun (the east). They are bringers of a sign from our Father God: blessings in abundance!"

Bearded white men who wore long robes and came from the East, across the Ocean; more anectodal evidence.

Where do you find this "indication" that the Spanish "came up with" the Bearded White Man? According the research I've found, the legend originates from the Toltecs who were conquered by the Aztecs well before the Spanish arrived.

As far as your "definite No" is concerned, Id like to point out that any one who claims to be definitively certain about events as they occurred in the ancient past must be naive or a time traveler. Are you a time traveler?

Originally posted by Byrd
No, that's strictly Christian stuff. Really.

Really? Seriously? Strictly Christian stuff? You've got to be kidding me right? Last time I checked, the most common story which survives to this day is Jewish. Flood stories are one of the most prevalent themes in ancient mythologies, widespread among many cultures, dating well before the time of Christ. This one has me questioning your credibilty but maybe you just have a thing for shooting down noobs.

Originally posted by Byrd
Buddhists don't have Flood stories

The Chinese do. Please use your Wiki search skills to look up the story of Yu and the Great Flood.

I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your rebutals, at this point I'm a little bit disgusted. Honestly, I expect more from an ATS Super Moderator than just outright dismisal based up limited knowledge of the subject without so much as providing a source or even bothering to look up the inofrmation.

Are you always this rude and dismisive to new members? I stated very clearly in my OP that the evidence presented is anecdotal and that the statements made in the quotes from the Internet Sacred Text Archive are speculative.

But... thanks again your insight (or rather, the lack thereof) which has inspired me to research more and that certainly can't be a bad thing.

~Blarney

reply to post by Blarneystoner


You have a very interesting thread here. Perhaps you might find a different tact works better with Byrd, a true scholar of this subject in her own right, both online and professionally.

But she will certainly not be a safe harbor for alternative theories in anthropology.

Regardless, I too believe there is evidence of ancient Chinese explorers in America. Things like the anchors found off Peru have always made me believe this.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Thank you Sir. Expert or not, some of her responses seem, at the very least, glib and self serving. I'm certainly not trying to pick a fight here and I don't claim to be an expert on the matter. However, being that this forum is a venue for presenting alternative topics and theories I'm at a loss to understand the tone and terse verbage in her responses. The writings of the Shan Hai King have not been discussed here on ATS, to my knowledge. I suppose she's seen enough of this type of thing here to become a little bit more than jaded.

reply to post by Blarneystoner



I think it may be the horrible conveyance of the context of intent and expression that online communication provides. it is why i never correct an employee unless we are face to face.

Regardless, like i said, this is a very interesting thread for me. It is obvious that there is an Asian/American connection, and it seem centered in the Southern continent. In the South you find archaeology and written languages that are far more like you would see in the middle east, however (cuneiform and pyramids).


But the mindset seems very asian. or at least asian influenced. Your references to buddhism, which were erroneous in my estimation in their details, were still on point in the concept. There does seem to be a similarity in the overall mindset, even if the specifics of religion varied.

Then again, there were Catholic priests who saw similarities between their faith, and that of the Aztecs. Despite how bloody the Aztec beliefs were, they made a decent case. Which begs the question: are the similarities because of a tandem effort, or is it a reflection on the human mind?

In any event, most people are here because there are parts of whatever standard model it is they are interested in that just don't seem to match what they have observed. Byrd, i suspect, is no different. Except she is brilliant in the field, and likely has far fewer alternative interests than you and I.

What if the reason Native Americans have Asian DNA is because they're actually the descendants of the Chinese?