Hey guys, I was reading Mark Kurlansky's Salt earlier today, and he briefly goes into the topic of the Polos' journeys into China, and mentions that, while Marco Polo (at least, in the version of his journeys that was known) talked about several things unique to China at the time (such as salt cakes being used as money), he neglected to mention things like the Great Wall, foot-binding or the printing press, thus making parts of his story likely to be made up (at least in 1300s genoese opinion).
What exactly is the current consensus on that subject? Is there any particular work that goes in depth into that area that I don't need to be an expert in the subject to read?
It is clear that polo was indeed in China, and was received at the Mongol court. We know this from Chinese records. But it is also clear that he was not considered terribly important.
Part of the confusion on the Chinese side concerns a Persian who had a similar name and did have an important role in Chinese politics. Some historians have conflated the two, giving Marco more importance than he deserves.
As far as the omissions you cited. It is not a foregone conclusion that a low level trading emissary would have been given a tour of the wall at any point. In fact, such a tour would likely be considered unwise, for obvious reasons. In addition, the wall was in terrible shape in the early 13th century. It was not repaired and effective in the capital region until the early Ming.
Ditto for the printing press. Why show some yahoo from the west the secret to your superior documentation system?
Lastly, foot binding was not common in polo's time. It did not become widespread practice until the Ming and Qing periods.