I have been reading two books that deal with pre-Columbian America: 1421 by Gavin Menzies and 1491 by Charles Mann. Both present controvesial but interesting theories of what happened before Columbus in the Americas. I find my self only partly convinced by each book and, in fact, think that the two theories wind up, in their extreme forms, to be mutually exclusive. I want to discuss these two books and hear other people’s views.
My mother was an Anthropologist and as a kid we often went to museums of all sorts. I was exposed to pre-Columbian art and archaeology, but never found it as compelling as European and Asian art and archaeology. Looking back, I felt little connection with pre-Columbian cultures. I had more connection to modern Native American culture than ancient, as if in some ways I bought the olf fallicy that Native Americans didn’t really have a history of their own. I think I first awakened to the pre-Columbian cultures in graduate school when I was lucky enough to see the Treasures of Sipan exhibit at UCLA (the only US museum that got to display the exhibit…it is permanently housed in Peru). This was billed as being as spectacular as the Treasures of King Tut which I had seen and was amazed by as a kid. I scoffed at that, but still went to see it. It was just as spectacular as any ancient art and I was blown away. The Treasures of Sipan showed artifacts from a nearly untouched tomb from the Moche culture in South America. It made me appreciate just what the ancient Andean cultures were really like and was the first time I felt an affinity with a pre-Columbian culture.
But it still has been hard for me to learn as much about pre-Columbian North and South America as I have about European and Asian cultures of comparable age. Even when I read the Chronicles of the Maya Kings and Queens, by Simon Martin and Nikolai Grube. I found it impossible to keep track of the history of the Maya, their city states and their rulers. Yet reading about Roman or Chinese Emperors I had no problems. The real connection still wasn’t there.
So it was somewhat uncharacteristic of me to buy two books on pre-Columbian America. Yet I bought both at about the same time and they both choose a year as their title: 1421 and 1491. The year 1421 is the year when China possibly discovered much of the world. And 1491 is, of course, the year before Columbus sailed.
In 1421, the author tries to recreate the voyages of a series of large Chinese fleets that may have sailed around the world. Long before that year Chinese fleets sailed routinely around the Indian Ocean, including to Africa. That is well established. The Chinese fleets were better, larger and better equipped by far than the European fleets until perhaps the 19th century. Had China been more motivated to do so, they certainly could have pre-empted European exploration and colonization with great ease. This book suggests that they almost did. A great fleet did sail in that year and it is clear that it was ambitious in its goals and may well have explored outside the Indian Ocean that was the main focus of earlier Chinese fleets. The book outlines extensive routes that the Chinese fleets MIGHT have taken based on the authors experiences with ocean currents while serving in the Royal Navy on a submarine. It outlines possible exploreation of Africa, the Americas, Antarctica, Australia, and the Arctic north of Siberia. The book is plausible, but it winds up being so convinced that it is right that it makes claims way beyond the evidence. Much of the evidence provided is dubious, though some is compelling. Evidence of possible Chinese shipwrecks across the globe from that period are perhaps the best evidence given if they turn out to be what the author claims they are. So far none have been adequately expored partly because the exploration of shipwrecks is an expensive and dangerous endeavor. Other evidence is highly intriguing, but not anywhere near adequately explored. Monuments around the world are presented as being the works of Chinese, yet again it seems to me they have not been properly studied to make that determination. By the end of the book I felt that a great deal of evidence does need to be extensively examined with this hypothesis in mind, but I also was left with the impression that the author’s claims had far exceeded the current evidence. He MAY be right. But I suspect only partly right.
The author of 1421 has a website where he presents his evidence, and there is also a rival website claiming they debunk his theories. I suggest taking BOTH with a large grain of salt. And here is the wiki article on the 1421 hypothesis.
The fact that the Chinese may have discovered the Americas should come as no surprise. In fact it could be more surprising if they hadn’t! We know the Vikings came to America. There is evidence that Basque and possible Irish fishermen made it to the Americas long before Columbus. Certainly the far more advanced Chinese could have done so as well. But the extend of exploration and colonization suggested by 1421 seems unlikely and, in fact, evidence presented in 1491 seems to suggest that whatever pre-Columbian contact the Basques, Irish and Chinese made was minor and had almost no impact on the Americas, contrary to the hypothesis of 1421.
In 1491 the scope of discussion is far larger, covering from the origins of Native Americans to the aftermath of contact with European explorers and colonies. In the process it tries to overturn just about every previously established theory about Native Americans. It presents extensive evidence and largely is convincing.
It begins with the very origins of American cultures. The long established dogma was that artifacts called the Clovis culture represent the original migrations into the Americas. The Clovis culture is the earliest WELL-ESTABLISHED culture in the Americas. It appears fairly rapidly over a huge range and really does seem to be the origin of most if not all Native Americans. But there have always been claims of pre-Clovis sites that indicate earlier populations. But most of these sites have been difficult to pin down. So far there is no definitive evidence of a pre-Clovis culture in the Americas. But in 1491 the author tries to make the case for pre-Clovis cultures. Mostly I find it unconvincing, but he does effectively call into question the evidence for Clovis-first theories as well. To me the most important evidence is from molecular biology. Using effectively similar techniques used to do DNA fingerprinting, one can compare the DNA of different modern populations and make fairly effective estimates of how related they are and how far back you have to go to find a common ancestor. Time and time again DNA evidence from modern populations have led to revisions of time scales for evolution and relationships between modern populations. Time and time again archaeologists and anthropologists fought the theories based on DNA evidence…but eventually, time and time again, the DNA evidence proved correct. Molecular biology suggests that some Native American cultures DO date from before the Clovis culture. In isolation I am not sure this proves pre-Clovis cultures in the Americas…but it is hard to deny that DNA evidence has tended to be right over and over again.
Another well-established theory 1491 challenges is the “overkill” theory. This theory is based on the observation that soon after the Clovis culture came into existence, many of the species of animals found in the Americas died off rapidly. The correlation between arrival of the Clovis culture (and possibly humans in general) to the Americas and this mass extinction seems suggestive of a cause and effect. Simply put the “overkill” hypothesis suggests that it was humans who hunted those species to extinction.
On almost every isolated island or location in the world, the arrival of the first modern humans always seems to correlate with such a die off. And this shouldn’t be surprising. The arrival of a new species to a location where there are no natural limitations (diseases and predetors) leads to that new species pushing out other species. Humans are no different. We evolved in Africa and it is still only in Africa where dieseases and predetors, those we co-evolved with, still keep human population severely in check. We spread through the world into new territories and population growth on every other continent was much more rapid than it ever was in Africa because simply put, we went beyond the natural checks on our population. It shouldn’t be surprising that we pushed out lots of other species.
The overkill theory is largely being abandoned today. But I think that is premature. The extent of the correlation between arrival of modern humans and die offs and the fact that similar things happen when other successful species have spread to new habitats make the overkill hypothesis quite likely to be true in my mind. Not proven, mind you, and the skepticism that 1491 projects is valid. But I think rejection of the overkill hypothesis is an overreaction. In fact, 1491 presents a hint that overkill IS likely. It describes how the massive herds of buffalo and massive populations of pigeons and similar teeming multitudes of animals found by colonists in the Americas was the result of a massive die off of the Native American population (see below). The destruction of the native population by Eurasian diseases allowed a massive increase in the populations of many species of animals. This strikes me as the flip side of the overkill hypothesis. If there is such a huge increase in animal populations with the crash of the Native American population, doesn’t it seem likely that the growth of that large Native American population had a large consequence on the animal population?
From origins, 1491 discusses the liklihood that Native American cultures were far more complex, advanced and populous than once believed. New evidence suggests that complex cultures could be found all over the Americas and the population of the Americas was far higher than ever believed. From New England to the Ohio Valley to Mexico and the Andes, great cities and civilizations abounded. Their methods of agriculture were definitely far more advanced than once thought and possibly far more successful than agriculture developed in Eurasia. The theory goes so far as to hypothesize that much of the American landscape, from New England to the Amazon, was CREATED by the efforts of Native Americans. North American forests and the Amazon may have been the result of Native American agricultural practices. I fully accept that Native American agriculture was superior to what was once thought and I fully accept that populations were higher than was previously appreciated. I am not sure the case is adequately made that huge swaths of the Amazon are human created ecosystems. But the book makes a good case for re-examining the agricultural techniques used in Mesoamerica, the Andes and the Amazon in pre-Columbian days because they could give excellent lessons for modern times. The milpas system in Mexico is an example I have known of since the 1980’s as one that is a viable and successful alternative to Western methods. And 1491 gives good evidence that techniques used within the Amazon could blow away modern fertilizers for raising agricultural outputs. Well worth considering these techniques and their usefulness for modern times. There is no reason to scorn lessons learned from the Americas. After all, from corn to tomatoes to potatoes to peppers, modern food around the world owes a strong debt to the Americas. The most commonly eaten Italian, Irish, Indian and German meals, to name a few examples, would not exist without pre-Columbian American agriculture.
The case made for a far more populous Americas is convincing, though the actual numbers cited are highly controversial. Based on these controversial numbers, though, there is strong evidence that once Europeans arrived, there was a massive die off of Native American populations. The numbers presented in 1491 suggest that within 100 years of first contact with Europeans some 97% of the entire native population of the Americas died off from diseases they had never encountered and what remains were the remnants of great cultures and civilizations that were left in ruins by this die off. Most epidemic diseases we know, smallpox, flu, etc. evolved from animals we domesticated: cows, pigs, chickens each have given us epidemic diseases. The Native Americans would never have experienced these diseases that had countless times swept across Europe, Asia and Africa. So they died at first exposure in almost unimaginable numbers. The settlement established by the Pilgrims was at a site that had previously been a teeming native town that had been emptied by disease. This was the case in Peru shortly before the arrival of Pissaro. The Incan Empire had just experienced as much as 50% mortailty from a disease that had probably come from Europeans through intervening native people before the Europeans themselves had arrived in Peru. Disease ravaged the Aztecs (really a nation more accurately called the “Triple Alliance,” according to 1491) making them a push over for Cortez. I question the number 97%. When epidemic diseases first strike an area previously unexposed, mortality rates are generally 50-70%. It seems 97% would be unique in human history. But not impossible. A succession of epidemic diseases each having 50-70% mortality, could progressively lead to a 97% die off…but that would assume that they never had any chance to recover. Humans reproduce rapidly particularly under conditions of war and disease. But whatever the actual number, the fact remains that there is solid evidence of a massive die off due to disease after European arrival. You can read about some ideas about Native American population levels and die off after European contact here. And here is one counter arguement at least for the Amazon (take with a grain of salt!).
And therein is evidence that no one before Columbus explored or colonized the Americas to any great degree. The Chinese shared the same epidemic diseases with Europeans. Eurasia is really one continent and diseases spread across the entirety of the continent. Chinese, Basques, Spanish, Irish, Vikings…they all had the same range of diseases. Had the Chinese accomplished what 1421 claims they did in 1421-1422, actually leaving several colonies across the Americas and exploring almost the entire coast of the Americas, a die off similar to the one seen after Columbus, Cortez and Pissaro came to the Americas after 1492 would already have been in full wing by 1491. There is no such evidence of earlier epidemics. That means whatever exploration the Chinese did (and they may well have reached America in 1421-22) little in the way of contact and colonization occurred. This suggests that the large extent of what 1421 postulates is unlikely to be fully true.
As a very good outline of all the controversies, theories and ideas about pre-Columbian America, and as a very good critique of traditional dogma and an outline of what modifications of thos theories are needed, 1491 is an excellent book, far better than 1421.
Ultimately I think both books are onto something, though I do think that both books are examples of going overboard in refuting an old theory that in itself went overboard. That’s how acadmeia works: dogma gets established that is probably partly true but way too overstated, then a rival theory blows away the dogma but goes overboard in throwing out the entirety of the old theory. And, eventually, something in between the two rival theories proves closest to the truth. I have little doubt that the Chinese navies, far more advanced than those of Europe in the 15th century, did far more exploring than they have traditionally been given credit for by Western historians. But the scale of exploration and colonization presented in 1421 seems overstated and poorly supported by the author. Furthermore, had the Chinese had such a presence in the Americas as postulated in 1421, it would have produced the kind of sharp population decline in the Americas that happend after Columbus. No such decline seems to have happened, indicating that it is unlikely that the massive Chinese fleet established any colonies in the Americas or had more than cursory contact with Native Americans. I also have little doubt that, as outlined in 1491, we still have a lot to learn about the complexity and size of Native American civilizations and that at least some of what 1491 describes is closer to the truth than older theories. But it still seems like the Clovis culture represented, if not the first Americans, certainly a major and lasting component of Native American origins that overshadowed what came before at least in many areas. I also feel the scale of population decline described in 1491 is unsupported, but yet the general pattern is almost certainly true. Based on what I know about epidemic diseases through history, certainly a 50-75% decline is likely to have occurred. Devasating enough, even if the postulated 97% decline is an overestimate. I also think the abandonment of the “overkill” hypothesis might be premature, particularly given the evidence that many animal species saw a huge and rapid increase in population as the Native American population crashed. The rapid rise of the Clovis culture correlates well with the rapid decline in animal species, and the two are likely to be connected. Still, cause and effect is likely to be more complex than the original overkill hypothesis assumed. I also do not buy the claims that the entire ecosystems of the Americas were human-created, artificial environments. I am sure, particularly if population densities were higher than previously thought, the interaction between Native American populations and their environment was more complex than once thought and systems like the milpas system of agriculture had a huge effect on the American environment. But again, the case seems overstated in 1491.
With 1421 I feel there is a core of truth but overall the scholarship is mediocre and too convinced of its own insights. By contrast, though I am not ready to accept large chunks of what is in 1491, the scholarship is excellent and its hypotheses well worth considering.
