龙腾网发现了什么（有什么证据证明）

龙腾网发现了什么（有什么证据证明）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，(令我惊讶的是)关于石锚的第一个主张实际上

正文翻译
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：后羿A射日 转载请注明出处
Which ''evidence'' is there for a claim that ''Chinese discovered America in 636''?
有什么证据证明：中国人早在636年就发现了美洲?

评论翻译
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：后羿A射日 转载请注明出处
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:
巴西地理和统计研究所是巴西计划、预算和管理部的分支机构。改研究所的网站上有历史时间表，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.
历史
历史证据表明，在哥伦布之前，太平洋岛屿上的居民、印度教徒、日本人和韩国人都发现过美洲。
636 – Chinese discover America.
636年——中国人发现了美洲。
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——一场风暴改变了原本从冰岛到格陵兰岛航海家比雅尼·何尔约夫森的航线，风暴将他吹向南方，一个未知的新地方。1001年，比雅尼回到格陵兰后，把这件事告诉了列弗·埃里克森。几年后列弗·埃里克森跟随探险队到达了北美的赫尔陆兰(岩石之地)、马克兰(森林之地)和温兰德(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——当时最著名的制图师保罗·托斯卡内利在1474年写信给一位葡萄牙朋友，谈到了“安提利亚岛”。
1479 – Treaty of Alcáçovas - Portugal gives up the Canary Islands but now has rights over any discovery to the south of this archipelago.
1479年——根据《阿尔卡索瓦斯条约》，葡萄牙放弃加那利群岛，但该群岛以南发现的任何岛屿和陆地都归葡萄牙所有。
1493 – The Order of Christ already knew the Isola de Braçill 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——根据意大利安科纳的制图师格拉西奥·贝尼卡萨在1482年绘制的地图，基督骑士团已经知道了布拉希尔岛，地图显示内容有：葡萄牙海岸、非洲海岸、巴西海岸和安提利亚群岛。当时实行保密政策，凡是对此事发表意见的人都要被处死。
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.
以上是政府官方网站的特别声明。
当然，哥伦布发现美洲大陆之前，也有很多发现美洲大陆的假说。不过有些假说的内容稍微多一点，有些假说则对自己的内容缺乏信心。
The very specific year 636 does also appear on Wikipedia Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories – Claims of Chinese contact.
而且中国人发现美洲大陆的636年也出现在维基百科的记录中——维基百科显示这一年中国与美洲发生接触。
In all probability this is far from most official narratives. And not well supported. Not even in conspiracy-theory-friendly corners of the net.
这很可能与大多数官方说法大相径庭。而且没有证据支持。即使网络阴谋论也没有多大的说服力。
Usually such claims give dates to a few decades before Columbus and the more outlandish ones go back 40000 years.
通常这种发现新大陆的说法一般都是追溯到哥伦布发现新大陆之前的几十年，更离奇的说法竟然追溯到了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.
但巴西研究所声称有“证据”支持的这一特定理论，似乎在其他地方找不到相关的理论依据。
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.
维基百科这个页面的作者好像是奥马尔·费达托·阿列克谢约克；但到目前为止，所有声明的搜索结果都是空的，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?
那么有哪些理论认为636年中国人发现了美洲?或者，该研究所的年表可能提到了哪些“证据”?
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:
讽刺地是，这很可能是以讹传讹。
一种比较成熟的荒诞“理论”认为，中国人5世纪左右就发现了美洲，并把这块新大陆称为“扶桑”。这个说法流传甚广，维基百科的文章也链接了这个问题:
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，慧深和尚声称率领一群佛教僧侣去过一个叫扶桑的地方。尽管中国的地图绘制者将这片区域画在了亚洲，但在19世纪就有人认为扶桑可能位于北美。
As Wikipedia alluded to Fusang is traditionally identified to be Japan by the Chinese.
正如维基百科所提到的，传统上，中国人认为扶桑就是日本。

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.
可以发现，维基百科上关惠深的说法已经与所谓的原始材料有了明显的不同:惠深不是中国人;他没有去扶桑而是来自扶桑;而这群和尚来自第三个国家。
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:
可能是原文在流传的过程中有残缺破损，或者翻译错误导致了这些问题。例如，1892年版本的日期和运动描述是正确的，但却把这个和尚错当成了中国人:
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.
中国古代记录，简要地记录了458年中国佛教僧侣从中国出发去拜访扶桑，499年从扶桑返回中国。
考利斯·威廉·R：《古人类:扑朔迷离的古器物手册：原始资料工程，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.
也就是说，人们在这个故事上犯了很多错误，所以如果他们把年份弄混了也不奇怪。因为《梁书》的成书时间是公元636年。
Danny
There are two potential points of evidence that I am aware of.
我发现了两个潜在的证据。
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
莫里亚里亚先生和皮尔森先生发表过一篇论文，详细介绍了如何发现圆形石锚，这种锚与在中国发现的一种锚十分相似，而这种圆形石锚是在加利福尼亚海岸发现的。
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)出版了一幅地图，看起来像是1400年的中国地图，地图上既有旧世界，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，(令我惊讶的是)关于石锚的第一个主张实际上是有争议的。加利福尼亚大学教授弗兰克·弗罗斯特博士做了一项研究，研究结论是，这些石质铁砧是用加利福尼亚常见的石头制成的。他说这些锚实际上是中国移民传到加州的，大约100多年前这些中国移民成为了渔民。
The map has been confirmed to be a forgery.
而这张地图已被证实是伪造的。
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.
查尔斯·迈克尔·博兰1961年出版了一本名为《他们都发现了美洲》的书，书中列出并讨论了作者找到的所有哥伦布之前发现美洲大陆的主张。

It may even be old Hoei-Shin himself.
甚至可能是惠深心本人。

——《他们都发现了美洲》
Of course there has been a lot of discussion of various possible pre Columbian contacts with the Americans since then.
当然，自那以后，还有很多关于哥伦布之前，其他人已经接触过美洲大陆的讨论。
For example there is the story of how Mansa Musa became the ruler of Mali. My answer here:
例如，有一个关于曼萨·穆萨如何成为马里统治者的故事。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.
引用曼萨·穆萨关于他前任如何在远征的时候从海上消失的。我不记得博兰的书中是否提到过这一点，我推测马里探险队可能已经到达美洲并定居。我知道现在只是猜测。
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.
我还听说过一种理论，认为公元前4000年左右日本和秘鲁的陶器风格相似，不过也许是日本渔民被风暴吹过太平洋，然后在这里定居，这解释得通。我认为这个理论比博兰的书更新。