Pale Ink, by Henriette Mertz, [1953], at sacred-texts.com
These two written records, that of Hwui Shan, fifth century Buddhist priest, and that of Yu, Minister of Public Works under Shun, both carefully safeguarded for centuries by the Chinese, have now been examined in the one case and re-examined in the other. Artifacts and other relevant material with which we compared these ancient writings, for the most part, has been of recent date—some of it authenticated by the carbon-14 process.
The earliest of the two records survived the burning of books, in 213 B.C., two condensations and many editings; the fifth century account went through at least one condensation and various editings Both records are fragmentary. No two translations from Chinese into English agree in phraseology—and some editions of the early record do not agree with each other. History of both documents has been fraught with doubt and dissention. Errors of various kinds, in my writing, are bound to be present—they could not help but be.
When the story of Fu-sang was so ably discussed in the early nineteenth century, the great expanse of territory comprising southwestern 'United States, was completely unknown—the pony express covered the ground west of Kansas City; the Louisiana Purchase took place forty years after de Guignes’ first identification of Fu-sang; New Mexico, Arizona and California were then a part of Mexico; and ’49ers travelled the long route around the Horn to California. It is not surprising, therefore, that after Klaproth's dissent, more positive proof from our southwest was not produced—we had none.
Even now, we are only in our infancy. The Mississippi basin, the highway over which the shell necklace worn by the "Minnesota Girl" of 15,000 B.C., passed, has not yet been scratched. One of the books of the Shan Hai King, by title, appears to use the Mississippi Valley and the Great Lakes basin as its locale. There are many things that remain in our vast country of which we know little or nothing—and of which the Chinese apparently
knew a great deal. The story of Fu-sang and the reports within the Shan Hai King have told us about a few.
Many of the details given in Books Nine and Fourteen, have been passed over here without mention—but it is hoped that they will prove helpful to scholars in clarifying knowledge of our own pre-history of this fantastic area.
It is my belief, that from these ancient Chinese documents, we have the answers to problems that have perplexed us for years and for which we have had no solution. These two records have taught us:
That Fu-sang was no "geographical myth, figment of Buddhist imagination"—that the plant "Fu-sang" was "corn," and the country "Fu-sang" was Mexico;
That the legendary "bearded white man" was more than legend, he was real—and it was he who was indirectly responsible for the Conquest of Mexico a thousand years after he had died;
That the source of the "Flood" stories and the Biblical legends told to the Conquistadores by the Indians, came from Buddhist teaching;
That the source of the Zapoteca, Maya and Azteca calendar was Asiatic;
That the source of early Mexican writing was Chinese;
That the source of the high cultures in both Peru and Mexico of the fourth and fifth centuries—as well as the "mongolian spot" and the epicanthic eye-fold, can be attributed to Chinese explorers;
That the basis for the story of Naymlap, in the Province of Lambayeque, Peru, is true and derives from these same sources;
That the source of knowledge of weaving, ceramics, feather-work and metallurgy, together with an understanding of astronomy and mathematics came with the Buddhist priest;
That the root of the earliest Mexican religious philosophy, the dual principle, stems from the Chinese Yin and Yang, the positive and negative theory, and came with the earliest Chinese explorers, more than 4,000 years ago;
That the Folsom Point and cochineal constituted a "reverse borrowing" by the Chinese from the American continent;
That the magnetic personality who dominated the scene and furnished the incentive as well as the motive power that stimulated this aboriginal people into rising to such unprecedented heights, the like of which has rarely been duplicated, was Hwui Shan, fifth century Buddhist priest.
And, from the Asiatic side, it is my belief:
That the "great luminous canyon" of Chinese literature actually was the Grand Canyon of the Colorado, in Arizona;
That the Chinese "archer" legend originated in our Grand Canyon;
That the descriptions given here from the Shan Hai King, fit actual geographical locations in the United States, Canada and Mexico and can be identified and mapped;
That the Chinese were in America in a period at least as early as 2200 B.C., and came periodically up to a date as late as 500 A.D., preceding Leif Ericson by more than 3,000 years;
That the two stones inscribed with undecipherable hieroglyphics, one in Alberta and one in North Dakota, if studied, may be found to be actual inscriptions, in archaic Chinese, put there by the ancient Chinese sent out by Yu;
That the Chinese "Classic of Mountains and Seas," which for the past 2,000 years has been accepted by the Chinese only as myth, is no myth but is actually true;
That these two documents, faithfully preserved within the archives of China, furnish sufficient written proof, that up to now has been lacking, of Chinese exploration in America, at a date as early as 2200 B.C.
That the remaining untranslated books of the Shan Hai King contain identifiable geographic locations on the face of the earth, outside of China.