Neither are they historical, completely factual, a fair representation of reality, a viable hypothesis regarding the discovery of the New World, etc. etc. etc.
So I don't understand why Dymocks thinks that it is.
Ok, so Angus & Roberston consider him to be a "non-fiction" writer.
I don't like seeing such drivel sharing the same section as other history books.
There is a whole section of criticism just on his 1421 "hypothesis" (gotta love Wikipedia citing sources). And now he claims that China started the Renaissance.
Honestly, from what I understand of his stuff, it's just another form of "the Ancient Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids".
Dymocks, either create a "pseudohistory" section, or put them into the "fiction" section where they belong. Or maybe into the "New Age" section (Why couldn't the History sction be next to the New Age rather then Spirituality?).
Just as long as I don't have to start guessing the accuracy of the other history books in the section.