See Duncan's post above yours. A declaration of a new theory does not make it valid. It can establish a new line of research and dire3ction. In that case it is far better than instant dismissal because of a perceived underlying possibility.

Duncan over the years has consistently suggested that Asian (Chinese) contact with the Americas in the 5th century did happen. And reading his new book the quotes etc. offered are new and accurate. The legendary monks are real people. it is just that the quotes are primary sources from China and not the peabody museum finds.

I am a little disappointed with his reference to gavin menzies. When menzies book about Cinese contact in the 15th century appeared I was the first to point out it was disappointing to the extreme. I said at the time the theory about contact was a possibility but Menzies story was built on a house of cards alternative explanation added on top of an alternative explanation. THAT is no more valid that mainstream dismissal out of hand.

Over the years I have offerd the experience I had in Guatemala at Ceibal. The large round stelae clearly showing a mayan chieftan with had outstretch greeting what looked like a Chinese monk. The mayan guide indicated the glyph date was in the 5th century. I took a picture but over the years I lost it. That reduces my experience to a he said/she said.

I keep metioning this and the Costa Rica museum experience of the stone statuettes of a woman with corn rows in the hope that others isiting the same places may be able to view and photo the above.

With this post of yours do you live down the street from Roxana? :