正文翻譯
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯：后羿A射日 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

Which ''evidence'' is there for a claim that ''Chinese discovered America in 636''?

有什么證據(jù)證明：中國人早在636年就發(fā)現(xiàn)了美洲??

評論翻譯
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯：后羿A射日 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

Semaphore
The Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics is a branch of the Ministry of Planning, Budget, and Management. On its own website it has a history timeline with a few curious dates:

巴西地理和統(tǒng)計研究所是巴西計劃、預(yù)算和管理部的分支機(jī)構(gòu)。改研究所的網(wǎng)站上有歷史時間表，上面的日期有些奇怪:

History
There is historical evidence of the discovery of America before Columbus by the inhabitants of the Pacific Islands, by Hindus, as well as by the Japanese and Koreans.

歷史
歷史證據(jù)表明，在哥倫布之前，太平洋島嶼上的居民、印度教徒、日本人和韓國人都發(fā)現(xiàn)過美洲。?

636 – Chinese discover America.

636年——中國人發(fā)現(xiàn)了美洲。?

986 – The navigator Bjarni Herjolsson traveling from Iceland to Greenland was diverted from his route by a storm that led him south, taking him to new and unknown places. In 1001, back in Greenland, he told Leif Ericson, who years later followed with an expedition arriving in Helluland (land of rocks), Markland (land of wood) and Vinland (land of vines) in North America.

986年——一場風(fēng)暴改變了原本從冰島到格陵蘭島航海家比雅尼·何爾約夫森的航線，風(fēng)暴將他吹向南方，一個未知的新地方。1001年，比雅尼回到格陵蘭后，把這件事告訴了列弗·埃里克森。幾年后列弗·埃里克森跟隨探險隊到達(dá)了北美的赫爾陸蘭(巖石之地)、馬克蘭(森林之地)和溫蘭德(葡萄藤之地)。?

1474 – The most famous cartographer of the time, Paolo Toscanelli, wrote to a Portuguese friend in 1474, talking about the "Island of Antília".

1474年——當(dāng)時最著名的制圖師保羅·托斯卡內(nèi)利在1474年寫信給一位葡萄牙朋友，談到了“安提利亞島”。?

1479 – Treaty of Alcá?ovas - Portugal gives up the Canary Islands but now has rights over any discovery to the south of this archipelago.

1479年——根據(jù)《阿爾卡索瓦斯條約》，葡萄牙放棄加那利群島，但該群島以南發(fā)現(xiàn)的任何島嶼和陸地都?xì)w葡萄牙所有。?

1493 – The Order of Christ already knew the Isola de Bra?ill according to the map of 1482, made by the cartographer Gracioso Benincasa, in Ancona, Italy, the map indicates: the Portuguese coast, the African coast, the Brazilian coast and the Antílias. They maintained a policy of secrecy that condemned to death those who commented on the matter.

1493年——根據(jù)意大利安科納的制圖師格拉西奧·貝尼卡薩在1482年繪制的地圖，基督騎士團(tuán)已經(jīng)知道了布拉希爾島，地圖顯示內(nèi)容有：葡萄牙海岸、非洲海岸、巴西海岸和安提利亞群島。當(dāng)時實行保密政策，凡是對此事發(fā)表意見的人都要被處死。?

This is an extraordinary claim on an official government website.
There are of course numerous pre-Columbian contact hypothesis. Some with a bit more, some with a large degree of less confidence for what they present.?

以上是政府官方網(wǎng)站的特別聲明。?
當(dāng)然，哥倫布發(fā)現(xiàn)美洲大陸之前，也有很多發(fā)現(xiàn)美洲大陸的假說。不過有些假說的內(nèi)容稍微多一點(diǎn)，有些假說則對自己的內(nèi)容缺乏信心。?

The very specific year 636 does also appear on Wikipedia Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories – Claims of Chinese contact.

而且中國人發(fā)現(xiàn)美洲大陸的636年也出現(xiàn)在維基百科的記錄中——維基百科顯示這一年中國與美洲發(fā)生接觸。?

In all probability this is far from most official narratives. And not well supported. Not even in conspiracy-theory-friendly corners of the net.

這很可能與大多數(shù)官方說法大相徑庭。而且沒有證據(jù)支持。即使網(wǎng)絡(luò)陰謀論也沒有多大的說服力。?

Usually such claims give dates to a few decades before Columbus and the more outlandish ones go back 40000 years.

通常這種發(fā)現(xiàn)新大陸的說法一般都是追溯到哥倫布發(fā)現(xiàn)新大陸之前的幾十年，更離奇的說法竟然追溯到了40000年前。

But this specific theory, for which the Brazilian institute claims there would be "evidence", seems also absent entirely from what ''theories'' I could locate elsewhere.

但巴西研究所聲稱有“證據(jù)”支持的這一特定理論，似乎在其他地方找不到相關(guān)的理論依據(jù)。

The page seems to give credit to authors "Omar Fedato Aleksiejuk; Zido Raddatz", but all searches so far for these claims return empty and for authors back to the same.

維基百科這個頁面的作者好像是奧馬爾·費(fèi)達(dá)托·阿列克謝約克；但到目前為止，所有聲明的搜索結(jié)果都是空的，作者也搜不到。

Which theories posit that "there were Chinese discoverers of the Americas in 636"? Or which "evidence" might this institute''s chronology might allude to?

那么有哪些理論認(rèn)為636年中國人發(fā)現(xiàn)了美洲?或者，該研究所的年表可能提到了哪些“證據(jù)”?

Semaphore
Ironically enough, this is likely a case of Chinese whispers.
There is a relatively established crackpot "theory" that the Chinese discovered America in the 5th century or so, and called the new land "Fusang." This claim has been around for a while, and also features in the Wikipedia article lixed in the question:

諷刺地是，這很可能是以訛傳訛。?
一種比較成熟的荒誕“理論”認(rèn)為，中國人5世紀(jì)左右就發(fā)現(xiàn)了美洲，并把這塊新大陸稱為“扶?！?。這個說法流傳甚廣，維基百科的文章也鏈接了這個問題:?

A group of Chinese Buddhist missionaries led by Hui Shen before 500 CE claimed to have visited a location called Fusang. Although Chinese mapmakers placed this territory on the Asian coast, others have suggested as early as the 1800s that Fusang might have been in North America.

公元500年以前，慧深和尚聲稱率領(lǐng)一群佛教僧侶去過一個叫扶桑的地方。盡管中國的地圖繪制者將這片區(qū)域畫在了亞洲，但在19世紀(jì)就有人認(rèn)為扶?？赡芪挥诒泵?。?

As Wikipedia alluded to, Fusang is traditionally identified to be Japan by the Chinese.

正如維基百科所提到的，傳統(tǒng)上，中國人認(rèn)為扶桑就是日本。?

As you can see, the Wikipedia version of the claim has already significantly diverged from the alleged source material: Hui Shen is not Chinese; he did not go to Fusang but rather came from there; and the group of monks who did came from a third country altogether.

可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，維基百科上關(guān)惠深的說法已經(jīng)與所謂的原始材料有了明顯的不同:惠深不是中國人;他沒有去扶桑而是來自扶桑;而這群和尚來自第三個國家。?

Such errors seemed to have emerged as partial, broken, or misunderstood translations of the original text were circulated in crackpot circles. A 1892 version of the claim, for instance, got the dates and movement right, but also mistook the monks to be Chinese:

可能是原文在流傳的過程中有殘缺破損，或者翻譯錯誤導(dǎo)致了這些問題。例如，1892年版本的日期和運(yùn)動描述是正確的，但卻把這個和尚錯當(dāng)成了中國人:?

Certain ancient records of the Chinese, which briefly record the visit of Chinese Buddhist monks to the land of Fusang in the year 458 of our era, and the return of a single Buddhist monk from this land in 499.
Corliss, William R. Ancient Man: A Handbook of Puzzling Artifacts. Sourcebook Project, 1978.

中國古代記錄，簡要地記錄了458年中國佛教僧侶從中國出發(fā)去拜訪扶桑，499年從扶桑返回中國。
考利斯·威廉·R：《古人類:撲朔迷離的古器物手冊：原始資料工程，1978》?

That is to say, people make a lot of mistakes on this story, so it shouldn''t be surprising if they get the year mixed up too. Because you see, the Book of Liang was completed in AD 636.

也就是說，人們在這個故事上犯了很多錯誤，所以如果他們把年份弄混了也不奇怪。因為《梁書》的成書時間是公元636年。

Danny
There are two potential points of evidence that I am aware of.

我發(fā)現(xiàn)了兩個潛在的證據(jù)。

1) A Mr. Moriarity and Mr. Pearson first published a paper detailing the findings of circular stone anchors similar to a type of anchor found in china that were found off the coast of California,

莫里亞里亞先生和皮爾森先生發(fā)表過一篇論文，詳細(xì)介紹了如何發(fā)現(xiàn)圓形石錨，這種錨與在中國發(fā)現(xiàn)的一種錨十分相似，而這種圓形石錨是在加利福尼亞海岸發(fā)現(xiàn)的。

2) a map was published by Gavin Menzies that seemed to be a Chinese map from the 1400''s showing both the old and new worlds.

加文·孟席斯)出版了一幅地圖，看起來像是1400年的中國地圖，地圖上既有舊世界，也有新世界。

However, (and to my surprise) the first claim about stone anchors is actually a disputed claim. Dr. Frank J. Frost a professor at the University of California has done a study in which he concludes that the stone anchros are made from stone common to California. He claims the anchors actually from Chinese settlers to California who became fishermen only 100 or so years ago.

然而，(令我驚訝的是)關(guān)于石錨的第一個主張實際上是有爭議的。加利福尼亞大學(xué)教授弗蘭克·弗羅斯特博士做了一項研究，研究結(jié)論是，這些石質(zhì)鐵砧是用加利福尼亞常見的石頭制成的。他說這些錨實際上是中國移民傳到加州的，大約100多年前這些中國移民成為了漁民。

The map has been confirmed to be a forgery.

而這張地圖已被證實是偽造的。

Danny?
There is a book called They All Discovered America, by Charles Michael Boland, 1961, which listed and discussed all the claims of pre Columbian discoveries of America that the author could find.

查爾斯·邁克爾·博蘭1961年出版了一本名為《他們都發(fā)現(xiàn)了美洲》的書，書中列出并討論了作者找到的所有哥倫布之前發(fā)現(xiàn)美洲大陸的主張。

It may even be old Hoei-Shin himself.

甚至可能是惠深心本人。

——《他們都發(fā)現(xiàn)了美洲》

Of course there has been a lot of discussion of various possible pre Columbian contacts with the Americans since then.

當(dāng)然，自那以后，還有很多關(guān)于哥倫布之前，其他人已經(jīng)接觸過美洲大陸的討論。

For example, there is the story of how Mansa Musa became the ruler of Mali. My answer here:?

例如，有一個關(guān)于曼薩·穆薩如何成為馬里統(tǒng)治者的故事。我的答案:?

quotes Mansa Musa on how his predecessor''s sea expedition vanished. And I don''t remember whether Boland''s book mentioned this and speculated that the Malian expedition may have reached the Americas and settled there. I do know that is a present day speculation.

引用曼薩·穆薩關(guān)于他前任如何在遠(yuǎn)征的時候從海上消失的。我不記得博蘭的書中是否提到過這一點(diǎn)，我推測馬里探險隊可能已經(jīng)到達(dá)美洲并定居。我知道現(xiàn)在只是猜測。?

And I have heard of a theory that the similarity between Japanese and Peruvian pottery styles about 4000 BC could be explained by Japanese fishermen being blown across the Pacific by a storm. I think that theory is younger than Boland''s book.

我還聽說過一種理論，認(rèn)為公元前4000年左右日本和秘魯?shù)奶掌黠L(fēng)格相似，不過也許是日本漁民被風(fēng)暴吹過太平洋，然后在這里定居，這解釋得通。我認(rèn)為這個理論比博蘭的書更新。?