Jammer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Duncan,
>
> OK, I'll bite (says the bass);
>
> Rainwater recapture requires a dependable
> prediction of the weather. Near land masses, such
> as island hopping in the Indonesia/Burmese
> coastal/Indian subcontinent this would work as
> cloud formation led to predictable shower
> activity. Cast off into the deep mid-Pacific where
> long becalming and potentially long dry spells are
> far more common would be a far riskier business.

Yes, but the fleet was highly organized and consisted of specialized tender ships. Even out beyond the relative easy stepping stone isles of the Malay archipelago there are water sources. There are sea mammal sources of drinking water.

>
>
> Desalination requires reverse osmosis
> (high-pressure passage through fine membrane) or
> distilling (boiling & recapture). Please point
> me to any source anywhere that documents either of
> these technologies in China...

Needham in his volume on Nautical Technology speculates on several methods that were known, at least in general principles, to the Chinese. The Taoist eco-technics were rooted in a long alchemical tradition (as per Allans post) that was familiar with distillation and condensation. Their terms and methods seem alien at times, but they were effective.
For instance, they practiced a type of hormonal replacement therapy as early as the Qin dynasty by distilling the urine of young men and using the testesterone-rich residue in 'winter powder' for old men. So this proto-chemistry was in evidence at a very early date.
>
> I am of the crowd that feels what was expunged was
> his description of different political systems,
> such as the caste, tribal/clan, warlord,
> religious, and guild political hierarchies. The
> Emperor’s court had a vested interest in not
> wanting even lower officials to comprehend there
> were other alternatives than the Son of Heaven.
> Would you mind stating a few of what you feel the
> strongest proofs are he landed in America?

Well, this is the central and glaring flaw in Menzies work, and Zheng He isa red herring that is an arbitrary distraction from the fundamental question of whether there was a Chinese influence in the Americas. The Admiral was a monumental figure by any measure,but he and the 1421 date have very little to do with the matter. The fact is that the many Asian qualities in Mesoamerica preceded Zheng He by over two thousand years. It is a reoccurring theme among those who discuss the pros and cons of pre-Columbian contact,that if such contact took place, it was at the very inception of the Olmec. This is because the most prominent hints of confluence between the cultures are in the close parallels of cosmology, calendrics, art motifs, shamanic practices and traits like pulque distilling, methods of paper bark manufacturing, laquer techniques, iconic and architectural similarities, commonalities in pagentry and ritual. You are right when you suggest that political exigencies may have influenced the historical record (if that is what you were suggesting), for the Dragon court was no less filled with secrecy than the Medici dynasty. For instance, there was an astronomer assigned to each visible heavenly body and each astronomer was not allowed to discuss his assignment with another astronomer upon pain of death. But to get back to your question about proofs of Zheng Hes landing,...I don't think he would have 'landed' as such. There seems to be an opportunity in the timing of his voyages and a particular occurance in the Maya lowlands called the Feast of Kawil. According to Coe, this happened every 819 days and was characterized by royal processions down the causeways to Tulum. Kawil is translated by Schele as 'alms to the gods'.

>
> As to the zoological collection, I never claimed
> he collected two of everything in Africa. But
> America would have been his longest reach... to
> not bring back anything unique with so much to
> choose from seems an obvious omission. Even a seal
> pair from the shoreline would be a fine souvenir.
> What would be your assumption why this was so?

There is a fine book by Schaefer called the 'Golden Peaches of Samarkand' that is all about the explosion of exotic imports into China during the T'ang dynasty. I think that it would give you a perspective on that.

>
> As to 800 man crews, that doesn't tie in with the
> official records of total manpower/total fleet.
> I'm sure one of his bigger junks could have loaded
> the Chinese equivalent of a regiment (700-1,000)
> for a short island hop (say to land in Ceylon from
> a nearby temporary base). But long distances with
> a small "square foot per man" ratio would be
> highly risky at best. Either disease or bad
> weather could cause a disaster. There is no record
> of center-line rudder technology at this time, and
> exterior mounted oar-rudders have a maximum size
> of hull limitation. What is the largest ship you
> feel is proovable sailed with the Admiral?

There are references to the 'Starry Raft' which was his flagship and was 444 chang in length, which is about four hundred feet. Wooden ships of that size were dismissed as fairy tales until a Song dynasty rudder was found in Hangzhou harbor. It weighed twenty five tons. Needham dispelled some skepticism with his volume on nautical technology, because he related the building methods (like transverse hull beams, compartmentalized bulkheads) and literary references that supported the contention of ships of that size with nine hundred man crews. It is a matter of historical record that from the same shipyards, and with Chinese shipwrights, Kublai Khan built a huge fleet and sailed to Borneo.
>
> Being aware of the benefits of frit and Vitamin-C
> diets is one thing, in the years before
> refrigerated technology fruits and grasses had a
> short shelf life at best. England was well aware
> of the causes of scurvy, etc. They just had no
> technology to avoid it. Heavily salted pork,
> hard-tack biscuits, and rotten water weren’t the
> result of ignorance, it was the result of lack of
> technology to sail with anything better. Again,
> island hopping with frequent replenishment works,
> long voyages at sea would not. How would you
> explain the absence of any reported losses from
> such long voyages?
>
> Jammer
>
My lack of knowing the Chinese language. I'm off to bait my hook.