Question

The founder of Body Glove and a professional diver, Bob Meistrell, together with Amateur Historian and Organic Chemist Lee propose a pre-Columbus Chinese discovery of American. Nautical Archaeologist Larry Pierson and Art historian and East Asian Studies professor Jenny Purtle argue that it's not possible and that the most logical explanation for the stone anchors is 19th century Chinese fishing. Both sides bring evidence to the debate. Without knowing more, it is thus impossible for you to know which argument is more probable.

A. True
B. False

Answer 1

The likelihood of a pre-Columbus Chinese discovery of America as opposed to 19th-century Chinese fishing explaining stone anchors cannot be determined with certainty without additional information. Historical evidence and ongoing research present conflicting viewpoints, making it a complex and debated topic in historical studies.

Step-by-step explanation:

The debate over whether there was a pre-Columbus Chinese discovery of America is an ongoing historical discussion with arguments on both sides. The founder of Body Glove and professional diver Bob Meistrell, along with Amateur Historian and Organic Chemist Lee, support the theory of a pre-Columbus Chinese discovery. On the other hand, Nautical Archaeologist Larry Pierson and Art historian and East Asian Studies professor Jenny Purtle suggest that the most plausible explanation is 19th-century Chinese fishing activities. Without additional information, determining which argument is more probable is challenging, if not impossible. The theories of Gavin Menzies about Chinese exploration, as well as archaeological discoveries such as the L'Anse aux Meadows site and contested findings like the Monte Verde site in Chile, all contribute to this complex discussion of early human migration and discovery.