Pseudoscience: Paul Chiasson and the Island of Seven Cities

It seems that Gavin Menzies is not the only person who claims that the Chinese discovered the Americas before Columbus.Paul Chiasson, a Toronto architect and amateur archeologist, claims that some ruins at Cape Breton are indeed due to Chinese navigators who circumnavigated around Africa and came to Cape Breton and settled there. He claims that Mi'kmaq natives were culturally influenced by those alleged Chinese navigators too.He published a book called The Island of the Seven Cities: Where the Chinese settled when they discovered America furthering his claim. Here is the Amazon summary and reviews.A web site for the book is here. What is ironic is that Chiasson has contacted Gavin Menzies and worries that his work is lumped with Menzies and both being described as fiction, just like Geoff Wade did for both. More rebuttal of the book can be found in the 1421 Exposed web site by various experts. Five provincial archeologists have refuted Chiasson's claims in this CBC article agreeing that there is no evidence of human settlement in the area, Chinese or otherwise.

Contents: 

Comments

Such a pity...

I think the tragedy of this book is that honest well meaning people will read it and believe that this person, because he is educated and can write, has any notion of what he is talking about. It is the same thing that makes amateurs see a show from Von Daniken and mistakenly start to wonder if there actually were extra-terrestrails influencing ancient man. His prime evidence is the all too pervaisve 'it looks like this therefore it must be'. The reason no one has done any archaeological excavations is because any credible archaeologist takes one look at the location, or even the mapping, and sees clearly that it is not a site. This is of course leaving out the ludicrous notion that it was the Chinese. This is a lovely fantasy from a very imaginative but woefully misinformed and completely inexperienced amateur archaeological enthusiast. It is unfortuneate that a reputable publishing company would not have at least had this peer reviewed (and by peer i mean actual experts , not other people who realy just want it to be a site) before putting it in front of a public that all too often thinks that just becasue it is printed it may have some flimsy attachment to reality. It doesn't.

As someone who has seen the

As someone who has seen the unreleased documentary I think that some claim (not all) resist the thought of history being changed. I myself think that there is not enough evidence to state the the Chinese were there before Christopher Columbus, but i do believe that the rocks and settlement do not look at all natural. In the documentary the pictures of the settlement shot bare space the forest all around. It look unnatural like human hands have some how touched it.

Just another side of the story.

Kelly Mountain re Paul Chaisson

Wow. What a revelation that would be if Chinese were the first to visit Cape Breton. But let's be realistic. Let's assume Paul is completely correct in his beliefs. I think that everyone who might help him will ultimately end of condemning him and discrediting him. Why? Answer is simple. Imagine the task involved in rewriting what believe is our true history accounts. Paul would definitely "upset the apple cart". Then it brings to question of how many other parts of our history, which we believe to be right, are actually wrong. I watched the documentary of members of several universities going to Cape Breton with Paul and made him to look like little more than a joke. The Professor from Acadia, in particular, seems to scoff at Paul when talking about him, as though he knows everything and his decision should be looked at as gospel. So the had a detector that would go down 72cm and detect annomalies in the earth. What if items are at 80cm. Paul needs to roll up his sleeves, get dirty, and find some Chinese artifacts in the area. He only needs to find one. I have been a prospector since 1999 and seen strange formations that have occurred naturally but why would anyone close their minds to other alternatives. An example would be the "rock rustles around Lake Rossignol in Nova Scotia. They are strings of large rocks located in a mining district but were actually caused by glacial movement. Anyway, I am very interested In Pauls theory.

Gullibility, credulity, and most of you

There's a classic saying among skeptics. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Each of his claims has been debunked, and his thesis is silly on the face of it. Could the mediaeval Chinese have made it to Cape Breton? Of course they could have. Is there any proof that they did? Not at all. There's nothing here but wishful thinking. This is "Chariots of the Gods" thinking. Velikovsky logic. Indus Valley and Easter Island reasoning. Look them up.

Keep an open mind, by all means, but open like a filing cabinet, organized and sensible, not open like a garbage can, that takes anything that gets thrown into it.

Seriously, some of you need to be ashamed of yourselves for your gullibility.

Ugh!

This book was comical and its theories absurd.

RESEARCH PEOPLE. RESEARCH.

If you all claim to be such devout researchers and you value the truth and you distrust ivory tower academia (and god forbid you believe in absurd government conspiracies) than you really need to do your own research. This entire claim, put forward in a horribly researched farce by Chaisson, was completely debunked in a 2010 publication entitled Underground Nova Scotia: Stories of Archaeology. Here author Rob Ferguson shows us why Chaisson was wrong and he actually provides his evidence so that you too can go find it and see for yourself.

And those of you who say professional archaeologists are covering something up and those stones don't look natural - shame on you, your gullibility, and your disrespect for the past. What a double standard you create when you claim that professional archaeologists don't know what they're talking about and then give your uneducated and uniformed opinion about some rocks. Are you a geologist? Have you excavated a Chinese site and have the expertise and experience to tell the difference? No you do not. And your gut feelings are not the things science, evidence, and truth are made up of. A series of racist, disrespectful, and misinformed coincidences do not create new histories or change our perceptions of the past. They make those of you who believe them racist, disrespectful, and misinformed.

I've excavated sites all over Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and Europe and I can tell you that this is not an archaeological site. The recent documentary proved that. Robs chapter proved that. I am a professional and I have researched this topic. I have read chaisson's book three times, the first time with an open mind, the second time to gather his "evidence" and a third time to refute his outrageous claims. You should become more interested in real history and archaeology than subscribing to this mans absurd claims made with no evidence at all. You'd be surprised how much you'd learn and how much more respect you'd have for the past and those people, long gone, who shaped the world we live in.

Volunteer on an archaeological site and don't be an armchair critic. The Nova Scotia Archaeology Society has free public digs and runs a lecture series and all are welcome. However if you're still not convinced and you'd rather agree with this nonsense then you are unfortunately contributing to a mutation of the truth that future generations will look back on and shake their heads over.

Research, People, Researc

OK, YOU READ THE BOOK. YOU MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT YOU HAVE PERSONALLY WORKED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ALL OVER THE ATLANTIC PROVINCES AND EUROPE. HAVE YOU PERSONALLY SEEN THIS SITE? IF NOT, I SUGGEST YOU STOP BEING AN ARMCHAIR CRITIC AND GO HAVE A LOOK BEFORE YOU DISCREDIT THESE "ABSURD CLAIMS".

MOST IMPORTANTLY,THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE NEW DISCOVERIES THAT CHANGE THE WAY WE HAVE VIEWED HISTORY.

Halifax can't be trusted.

No one is realizing the internal political conflict in Nova Scotia that has existed since the 1850's when Cape Breton was illegally claimed by the territory of Nova Scotia.

If Paul's theory is true, the spin off would shift the political power in the province against the great bureaucracy of Halifax. Of course the employees of the great bureaucracy do not want this to happen and will do anything to debunk Paul's theory.

Cape Breton should be it's own territory, under which country or if it should be independent should be decided by a British Court as it never was and should have been.

Are you suggesting that

Are you suggesting that archaeologists in Nova Scotia are so determmined to oppress the idea of an independant Cape Breton that they would give up thhe chance to make a ground breaking discovery of and ancient Chinese city on North American soil? Dude you are a special sort of crazy. I am an archaeologist i've looked at the evidennce there is nothing there, oh and i have never been approached about joining any insane conspiracies either in case you are interested...

pseudoscience Paul Chaisson

If Paul Chaisson is wrong, then prove it. Just saying he is wrong does not make it so. As Gavin Menzies states in his books, that you have mentioned, "do your own research." It is very easy to make a claim and a counter claim but, if the researcher is wrong then it must be provable. What it is looking like is that there are some people who still have an arrogant or prejudicial mind set toward anyone suggesting something outside of what has been taught. Just as no one ever mentions the real reason why Columbus went to the Americas and why he slaughtered so many people, our religionists, historians, governments and even scientists, have lied to us on numerous occasions. Why should we believe the stories we were told in elementary school? There is plenty of published science to prove that things just did not happen the way we were taught. So, where is the proof? Unless there is actual proof to the contrary, it just might be wise to not say anything, weather it is an archeologist or any other scientist.

Pages