Frisland – not mythical but submarine?

[Riaan]

Mercator’s 1569 map shows several ‘imaginary’ islands in the northern Atlantic Ocean. A study of the ocean floor reveals that several of these can be indentified as ‘islands’ now covered by the sea. This suggests that an ancient map-making civilization existed 12 000 years ago – some of the figures are shown below. Details here: http://www.riaanbooysen.com/terra-aus/87-terraproof1?start=7

Mercator’s 1569 map with islands to be identified, including Frisland (D).

Islands on NASA maps

Islands on topographical sea-bed map

Frisland and surrounding islands

Some other anomalies. Hudson discovered and began mapping Hudson Bay in 1610, yet it is shown in great detail on Mercator’s 1569 map. Where did he get this information from http://www.riaanbooysen.com/terra-aus/87-terraproof1?start=8?

Hudson Bay – mapped before its discovery?

Likewise – who mapped the Great Bear and Great Slave Lakes (note the continuous northern boundary of the continent)?

Great Bear and Great Slave Lakes on Mercator and modern maps

Any comments?

[Abramelin]

It doesn't prove ****. It only proves certain areas were above sealevel during and right after the last ice age and that ancient map makers loved to make up things.

Search for "Doggerland" here, then you got something... well, an extensive ice age area above sealevel that is

And why do you use "Friesland" in the title of your OP? Don't tell me because of the "Oera Linda Book", ok? It's a know hoax, but you have to be Dutch to know it is.

[The Big Boss]

That area you point out as D on the map corresponding to the old map as a "lost island" is nonsense. The depth at which point D on the map is 50-200 fathoms. Guess what, the entire area surrounding Britain and Ireland is the same depth. If point D was above sealevel, then the entire Britain/Ireland area plus some submerged land would plainly be shown connected to the mainland. It was an interesting suggestion, but even I can see the obvious flaws with it.

[Riaan]

That area you point out as D on the map corresponding to the old map as a "lost island" is nonsense. The depth at which point D on the map is 50-200 fathoms. Guess what, the entire area surrounding Britain and Ireland is the same depth. If point D was above sealevel, then the entire Britain/Ireland area plus some submerged land would plainly be shown connected to the mainland. It was an interesting suggestion, but even I can see the obvious flaws with it.

Please read the full text. What you have stated above did not escape me - I am convinced that cartographers like Mercator mapped known areas true to form, but used older sources to map uncharted areas. Can you offer any reason why else islands like Frisland would have been drawn on the maps or Mercator and others? Did they wake up one morning with the urge to draw a mythical island?

[jaylemurph]

Just from a brief look, it's pretty clear that whoever was using those maps are unaware they suffer from distortion and that the true size and shape of Greenland is significantly distorted. Seems to me an incredibly important thing not to be aware of in creating geophysical "theories". It's bit like when people talk about constellations tens of thousands of years ago and assume modern ones were in existence...

--Jaylemurph

[The Big Boss]

Please read the full text. What you have stated above did not escape me - I am convinced that cartographers like Mercator mapped known areas true to form, but used older sources to map uncharted areas. Can you offer any reason why else islands like Frisland would have been drawn on the maps or Mercator and others? Did they wake up one morning with the urge to draw a mythical island?

Well, these were unknown areas to people like Mercator, but if he used several different older maps to draw this one together then I would say it is even more unreliable. Each of those maps probably had radically different locations for unknown landmasses and none of them could truly add up with each other. Just look at the locations of the known landmasses on that map. They are very inaccurate in proportion and location. With the many interpretations he made from his sources, Mercator could have easily copied down Iceland twice and that's how you got your Frisland. In the end, I think Mercator just made a bunch of guesses and this map of his(havn't seen any other of his maps) is not any solid proof that these islands were there at one time. It would greatly help if we had the maps that Mercator used to make this map, but I know that is next to impossible to come up with. I'm not trying to say your idea is impossible, its an interesting one at that, but it is highly unlikely. It reminds me a lot of the argument with the Piri Reis map.

[TheSearcher]

Well the Frisland myth and it's subsequent appearance on the maps of 1558 and after, is due to the story the Zeno brothers told and which is generally considered a fabrication. For further explanation about them, follow this link..

The rest of the story goes as follows : The island of Frisland is shown first on the Zeno map, which is a map of the North Atlantic, first published in 1558 in Venice by Nicolo Zeno (descendend of the infamous Zeno brothers).

The younger Zeno published the map and a series of letters, saying he had discovered them in his family's home in Venice. Most historians regard the map and accompanying letters as a fabrication, perpetrated by the younger Zeno to make a retroactive claim for Venice as having discovered the New World before Christopher Columbus.

[Abramelin]

Just an addition to Searcher's post:

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/01/12/62-frisland-an-italian-fabrication-in-the-north-atlantic/

62 – Frisland, an Italian Fabrication in the North Atlantic

The discovery of America was an Italian enterprise, but not to the credit of a Genoan named Columbus. In the 14th century, Venetian brothers Nicolo and Antonio Zeno sailed west on the Northern Atlantic, discovering places they called Frisland and Icaria (two islands near Greenland), Estotiland (on the North American mainland) and Drogio (an island close to the mainland, possibly Nova Scotia).

Or so it says in De I Commentarii del Viaggio, a 16th century account of their travels by Nicolo Zeno, one of their descendants. This latter-day Zeno claimed to have found a manuscript and a map, both made by his ancestors, in his proverbial attic. Nicolo the Younger had it published in 1558. At the time, it was generally believed to be a true account. A second version of the map was issued by fellow Venetian Giordano Ruscelli in 1561.

In 1569, Gerhard Mercator copied the Zeno map into his influential World Map. Abraham Ortelius did the same for his renowned map of the Northern Atlantic in 1573. In 1595, Mercator included Frisland (not to be confused with Friesland, which does exist on the North Sea coast of the Netherlands and Germany) in a separate inset on his 1595 map of the North Pole. Thus Frisland, and the other fanciful lands fabricated by the 16th century Zeno (most likely), came to be known as ‘fact’, and were copied by other cartographers, often with variations on the name such as Fixland, Freezeland or Frischlant. Only much later did it become clear they were imaginary.

But not before causing some real-world confusion for discoverers such as Martin Frobisher, who in 1576 reported seeing a ‘high and rugged land’, which according to Mercator’s map ought to be Frisland. Frobisher claimed Frisland for England, not realizing he probably saw the coast of Greenland. The confusion continued when he explored Baffin Island – which Frobisher thought was Greenland. Accordingly, Frobisher’s Strait (which in fact is a bay) for many years was situated at the tip of Greenland instead of Baffin Island. Cartographers continued to include Frisland on maps of the North Atlantic as late as the 18th century. As imaginary places go, Frisland had quite some staying power – probably because it was confused with Greenland and/or the Faroer Islands.The question remains: who did the confusing? The older Zenos, their descendant, later cartographers and explorers? Or some of them? Or all of them?

[Riaan]

Just an addition to Searcher's post:

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/01/12/62-frisland-an-italian-fabrication-in-the-north-atlantic/

62 – Frisland, an Italian Fabrication in the North Atlantic

The discovery of America was an Italian enterprise, but not to the credit of a Genoan named Columbus. In the 14th century, Venetian brothers Nicolo and Antonio Zeno sailed west on the Northern Atlantic, discovering places they called Frisland and Icaria (two islands near Greenland), Estotiland (on the North American mainland) and Drogio (an island close to the mainland, possibly Nova Scotia).

Or so it says in De I Commentarii del Viaggio, a 16th century account of their travels by Nicolo Zeno, one of their descendants. This latter-day Zeno claimed to have found a manuscript and a map, both made by his ancestors, in his proverbial attic. Nicolo the Younger had it published in 1558. At the time, it was generally believed to be a true account. A second version of the map was issued by fellow Venetian Giordano Ruscelli in 1561.

In 1569, Gerhard Mercator copied the Zeno map into his influential World Map. Abraham Ortelius did the same for his renowned map of the Northern Atlantic in 1573. In 1595, Mercator included Frisland (not to be confused with Friesland, which does exist on the North Sea coast of the Netherlands and Germany) in a separate inset on his 1595 map of the North Pole. Thus Frisland, and the other fanciful lands fabricated by the 16th century Zeno (most likely), came to be known as ‘fact’, and were copied by other cartographers, often with variations on the name such as Fixland, Freezeland or Frischlant. Only much later did it become clear they were imaginary.

But not before causing some real-world confusion for discoverers such as Martin Frobisher, who in 1576 reported seeing a ‘high and rugged land’, which according to Mercator’s map ought to be Frisland. Frobisher claimed Frisland for England, not realizing he probably saw the coast of Greenland. The confusion continued when he explored Baffin Island – which Frobisher thought was Greenland. Accordingly, Frobisher’s Strait (which in fact is a bay) for many years was situated at the tip of Greenland instead of Baffin Island. Cartographers continued to include Frisland on maps of the North Atlantic as late as the 18th century. As imaginary places go, Frisland had quite some staying power – probably because it was confused with Greenland and/or the Faroer Islands.The question remains: who did the confusing? The older Zenos, their descendant, later cartographers and explorers? Or some of them? Or all of them?

I am aware of the criticism of the Zeno map - what if they were right?

Who do you think mapped Hudson Bay before it was discovered by Hudson? Where did Mercator get this information from?

[Abramelin]

Maybe the French discovered it first, and Mercator used their accounts to create his map?

http://www.telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau/french2.htm

[Qoais]

Here is the map that goes with Aberemelin's post:

Maybe the Zeno family were Freemasons or Rosicrucians - groups who had a lot of information they didn't exactly share.

SCOTS IN AMERICA - NINETY FOUR YEARS BEFORE COLUMBUS.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1398 Prince Henry Sinclair, his Venetian navigators Antonio and Nicola Zeno, and "three hundred Knights Templar," left Orkney in twelve ships.

They sailed to the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland then on to Nova Scotia and New England.

This is the story of the "Zeno Narrative," a document that records and maps the travels and explorations of Prince Henry Sinclair with his companions to the New World, ninety four years before Christopher Columbus made his epic voyage. Prince Henry Sinclair was born in 1345, at Rosslyn Castle, and was the descendant of the Saint Clair / Gisors a Norman family that was granted the Barony of Rosslyn, Midlothian, Scotland in the 12th century.

Prince Henry in 1379 also gained the Earldom of Orkney. This Earldom included Shetland, the Faroe islands and possibly Iceland. Altogether some two hundred islands in the North Atlantic.

During the period of rapid decline of the Knights Templars' influence in Europe, many Templars travelled to Scotland where they received protection from the "Suppression

Order," that had been issued by the French king Philip "le Bel," and supported by Pope Clement V.

The "Suppression Order," resulted in the Knights Templar either organising new orders e.g. the "Hospitaliers," and the Knights of Santiago," or to seek refuge in other lands.

Protection was granted in Scotland as Robert the Bruce refused to obey the Suppression Order," for he had earlier been excommunicated by the church for the murder of John "the Red," Comyn. The Sinclair family had been Templars since 1118 and while Bruce was the Sovereign Grand Master of all Crafts and Guilds, Sir William Sinclair (Henry's father) was the Hereditary Grand Master.

Sir William perished in Spain while attempting to transport Bruce's heart to the Holy Land.

Prince Henry joined the "King Peter," crusade of 1365 and while in Venice he met the famous Zeno family. The Venetians were the victors in this campaign, however, the ports of the region were closed to them by their enemies. This could have been the reason that Antonio and Nicola joined Prince Henry. The citizens of Venice were traders, and with their ports blocked, new trade routes were eagerly sought. In 1391, Nicola sailed to Orkney, and shortly thereafter, sent word for his brother Antonio to join him.

At the age of fifty-three, Prince Henry sailed west from Orkney to Iceland, but while there was unable to take on provisions. The "Zeno Narrative," explains,

"..They all came running down to the seaside and attacked our men, with bows and arrows, so many were slain and several were wounded. Although we made signs of peace to them, it was no use.." "..When Zichmni (Sinclair) saw that he could do nothing, he realised the fleet would fall short of provisions if he were to persevere in his attempt. So he took a fair wind and sailed six days to the west, but when the wind shifted to the south-west and the sea became rough, we sailed four days with the wind aft. Then at last we discovered land. As the sea ran high and we did not know what country it was, we were afraid at first to approach it. But by God's blessing, the wind lulled, and then a great calm came on. Some of the crew then pulled ashore and soon returned with the joyful news that they had found an excellent country and a still better harbour, and we saw in the distance a great mountain that poured out smoke.."

This land is now recognised to be Nova Scotia. The Narrative continues,

"..After eight days the hundred soldiers returned and told us that they had been through the island and up the mountain. The smoke came naturally from a great fire at the bottom of a hill and there was a spring giving out a certain matter like pitch which ran into the sea, and there were great multitudes of people.."

The narrative describes a "..spring of burning pitch at the bottom of a hill.." This has been identified as Mt. Adams, which is near Stellerton.

Prince Henry and his companions befriended the peoples of the local Micmac nation and, for at least a year, explored much of the north- east coast of North America. There is evidence of this in a stone- carved effigy of a Sir James Gunn that has been dated by archaeologists as the late 14th century. This carving is located at Westford, Massachusetts.

Soon after Prince Henry returned to Orkney he was assassinated (1404). This was carried out by members of the Hanseanic League of Northern Germany, rivals for the trading areas. The travels and accomplishments were therefore temporarily concealed as Prince Henry's son (also named Henry) was arrested and held captive in England. However, Henry's daughter, Elizabeth, recounted the tale to her son John, who in turn told his in-laws. One of these in-laws was the wife of Christopher Columbus. It was not until 1558 before the "Zeno Narrative," was finally published.

The "Zeno Narrative," also included the "Zeno Map," of the North Atlantic. The eastern part of the map shows the outlines of Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Greenland (called Engronelant) is shown with permanent mountain ranges. Iceland (called Islanda) is shown between Norway and Greenland. The northern tip of Scotland is shown on the bottom right-hand corner. The diamond shaped area in the middle is thought to be floating pumice from a volcanic eruption on Iceland. At the bottom left-hand corner is the area thought to be Nova Scotia.

Several islands are also shown, they include Estland, Podalida, Estotialand, Icaria and the most famous Frisland. Why any of these islands were mistakenly drawn remains a mystery. The :Zeno Map," was first published in the first edition of Girolamo Ruscelli's "Geographia," in Venice in 1561.

Compliments of "THREE PILLARS MAPS.".

http://mastermason.com/WallerLodge/zeno.htm

Edited September 9, 2009 by Qoais

[DieChecker]

Since people really only had the sun and stars to judge position by, islands and coastlines were confused all the time. People thought they were in one place and actually were hundreds of miles away. Clouds along probably caused enough confusion to put some real islands into unreal positions. Not to mention multiple discoverys by different explorers. Or, failed explorers who made stuff up.

[Qoais]

Beyond the shadow of a doubt

by Niven Sinclair

Introduction

I would like to turn to the "proofs" of the Sinclair voyage of 1398 to North America. Fourteen points will be offered, each based upon fact which I have carefully researched.

Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contingency plans

Before Henry Sinclair left on his voyage, he made certain dispositions of his lands to his brothers, John and David. He assigned the lands of Pentland to his brother John, whilst transferring the lands of Auchdale and Newburgh in Aberdeenshire to David.

To his eldest daughter, Elizabeth, who married Sir John Drummond of Cargill, he left his lands in Norway, provided he died without a male heir. This would suggest that he took his three sons with him on the voyage, as they were alive at the time and of an age when they would have been considered able to accompany a military or naval force.

Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Zeno Map

A map of the North Atlantic was drawn up by the Zeno brothers. In 1393, Henry Sinclair sent Nicolo Zeno to carry out a survey of Greenland. Nicolo returned to Orkney in 1395, where he died from prolonged exposure to the Arctic weather. He was succeeded as Henry's admiral by his brother, Antonio Zeno.

Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accuracy attested & confirmed

For the next several centuries, the Zeno Map was used by such well-known cartographers as Ruscelli (1561), Mercator (1569) and Ortelius (1574). And even subsequent maps made by Hondius (1597), Danckwertz, Corneille, and Tevernier (1628), and Bellini (1765) were, save for the orientation, inferior to the Zeno map. The authority for this statement is from Professor Hobbs of Michigan University.

The so-called Zeno Map had been compared by Professor Hapgood to an aerial survey of Greenland, carried out recently by the United States Air Force. Professor Hapgood found 37 points of identity with the Zeno Map. This is an incredible degree of accuracy.

Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Zeno Narrative

In the Words of Professor Taylor of London University, "The authenticity of the Zeno account has been challenged, but on very flimsy grounds. It appears to the present writer (Prof. Taylor) that it would be quite out of the question for any author to invent a story which in every detail reflects fact about which it would be quite impossible for him to have been aware. Such is the story of Markland, which Antonio Zeno, then in the Faeroes, sent back to his brother Carlo in Venice and which a descendant edited and published in 1558. The later Zeno was personally known to Ramusio, the great authority of his day on voyages and discoveries, whom he could have hardly have deceived."

Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zeno had never been to Rosslyn

The Zeno Narrative speaks of the "spring of pitch" which the reconnaissance party of 100 soldiers found at Stellarton and which they reported back to Prince Henry at Guysborough, both places in Nova Scotia. On hearing this, Prince Henry considered it was "good omen" because there was a similar "spring of pitch" at his home at Rosslyn in Scotland. The "pitch" had been used as medicine against the Black Death. It is reputed to have saved the Sinclairs from the scourges of that particular plague, so much so that they erected a shrine over its site.

Now this story is faithfully recounted in the Zeno Narrative, although Antonio Zeno had never been to Rosslyn. In other words, he could only have heard of the "spring of pitch" of Rosslyn from Henry as they both stood listening to the report of the returning soldiers in Nova Scotia.

Incidentally, the number of men Henry sent out was 100. Those of us who have been in the army will know that if you can afford to send out a reconnaissance party of this size, the base camp must have comprised many times that number.

Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My personal inspection

I have visited all these places where Prince Henry is understood to have visited. You could too. If I had to describe the places visited, my description would have been almost identical to the words used in the Zeno Narrative.

There's a lot more to the story at:

http://www.clansinclaircanada.ca/articles/beyond.htm#map

Edited September 9, 2009 by Qoais

[Riaan]

Here is the map that goes with Aberemelin's post: ....

....

Compliments of "THREE PILLARS MAPS.".

Thanks - fascinating information. It still does not explain where the idea of Frisland originated from, so you have not convinced me that I am on the wrong track. Mercator's Frisland has three nearby islands which I marked a,b and c. The 'underwater' Frisland likewise has three possible 'islands' in the correct relative position. Coincidence? Other 'submerged' islands seem to be shown on other maps as well:

Frisland island is also shown on the 1548 map of Pierre Descelliers (will post the image later), well before the first publication of the Zeno map in 1558.

[Riaan]

Maybe the French discovered it first, and Mercator used their accounts to create his map?

http://www.telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau/french2.htm

Mapping of Hudson Bay:

"The bay is named for Henry Hudson, who, in 1610, on board the aptly named Discovery, was seeking a Northwest Passage to Asia. The east coast of Hudson Bay proper was mapped two years later, the south coast was traced in 1631, and the explorer Luke Foxe lent his name to Foxe Channel in the same year. The west coast was not mapped until the early 1820s, and the first bathymetric measurements of the area were made by Canadians during 1929–31. Air reconnaissance superseded naval researches from the second half of the 20th century."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/274697/Hudson-Bay

[Qoais]

Since people really only had the sun and stars to judge position by, islands and coastlines were confused all the time. People thought they were in one place and actually were hundreds of miles away. Clouds along probably caused enough confusion to put some real islands into unreal positions. Not to mention multiple discoverys by different explorers. Or, failed explorers who made stuff up.

Mariners also had the Celtic Cross, which it seems, was in existance even before the pyramids, and was likely used to help build the pyramids.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_5.htm

[Abramelin]

Mapping of Hudson Bay:

"The bay is named for Henry Hudson, who, in 1610, on board the aptly named Discovery, was seeking a Northwest Passage to Asia. The east coast of Hudson Bay proper was mapped two years later, the south coast was traced in 1631, and the explorer Luke Foxe lent his name to Foxe Channel in the same year. The west coast was not mapped until the early 1820s, and the first bathymetric measurements of the area were made by Canadians during 1929–31. Air reconnaissance superseded naval researches from the second half of the 20th century."

http://www.britannic...4697/Hudson-Bay

Yes, that is the official and documented discovery of the Hudson Bay as we all know.

Of course the native Amerians knew of Hudson Bay long before Hudson or the French re-discovered it, and no doubt the French fur traders must have heard of a large body of water long before Hudson officially explored it :

For many years after Cartier's voyages, the disturbed state of Europe prevented further exploration of the seaboard of north-eastern America ; and when exploration was resumed, it was by the English, who attempted to discover a "north-west passage" by way of Hudson strait and Hudson bay . From early in the sixteenth century there had been rumours of a sea lying to the north of Labrador . The entrance to such a sea is clearly marked on a Portuguese map of 1570. In 1576 Martin Frobisher discovered the strait that bears his name; and in 1585 John Davis discovered Davis strait . It was not until 1602, however, that Hudson strait was discovered by George Weymouth, who penetrated one hundred leagues into the strait; and it was not until 1610 that Henry Hudson sailed through Hudson strait into Hudson bay , and explored part of that vast inland sea.

http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/encyclopedia/DiscoveryandexplorationofCanada.htm

[Riaan]

Yes, that is the official and documented discovery of the Hudson Bay as we all know.

Of course the native Amerians knew of Hudson Bay long before Hudson or the French re-discovered it, and no doubt the French fur traders must have heard of a large body of water long before Hudson officially explored it :

Having known about Hudson Bay before its discovery is one thing, but being in possession of a detailed map of the area beforehand is quite something else. Who would have mapped it in such detail?

[Abramelin]

The maps you showed were wrong.

[Qoais]

I think the "New World" was known about for a long time before any maps were made of it. Or possibly there WERE maps, but they were kept secret except for a privileged few. This may sound off the wall, but remember King Arthur and Merlin? And Avalon? Well Merlin was supposedly buried in Avalon but no one knew where that was. Well, for all intents and purposes, it seems Avalon was in Massachusetts. Now I think the story of Arthur was around 5 or 6 AD. Perhaps the Templars had the secret and knew where to take him when he figured his time was almost up. One of my favorite writers, Graham Phillips, who chases down mysteries, wrote a book called Merlin and the Discovery of Avalon in the New World. Although he can't say for absolute positive, that the grave marker he found was Merlin's, it a pretty good chance that it is. In the book, he has to figure out who King Arthur really was, in order to figure out who Merlin really was. There was no King Arthur of England, but it seems there was a great warrior who people looked up to for his military skills called Artur meaning The Bear - and the rulers of the lands decided to get together and have this dude organize them all into a proper fighting force. Anyway, the book's a great read and if Phillips is right, then the Templars (or someone) has known of the New World for a long time.

[TheSearcher]

I think the "New World" was known about for a long time before any maps were made of it. Or possibly there WERE maps, but they were kept secret except for a privileged few. This may sound off the wall, but remember King Arthur and Merlin? And Avalon? Well Merlin was supposedly buried in Avalon but no one knew where that was. Well, for all intents and purposes, it seems Avalon was in Massachusetts. Now I think the story of Arthur was around 5 or 6 AD. Perhaps the Templars had the secret and knew where to take him when he figured his time was almost up. One of my favorite writers, Graham Phillips, who chases down mysteries, wrote a book called Merlin and the Discovery of Avalon in the New World. Although he can't say for absolute positive, that the grave marker he found was Merlin's, it a pretty good chance that it is. In the book, he has to figure out who King Arthur really was, in order to figure out who Merlin really was. There was no King Arthur of England, but it seems there was a great warrior who people looked up to for his military skills called Artur meaning The Bear - and the rulers of the lands decided to get together and have this dude organize them all into a proper fighting force. Anyway, the book's a great read and if Phillips is right, then the Templars (or someone) has known of the New World for a long time.

ARTHUR : The story of Arthur and the grail having been discussed at length in other threads, which Arthur would you be talking about? The details of Arthur's story are mainly composed of folklore and literary invention and his historical existence is debated by modern historians.

The sparse historical background of Arthur is gleaned from various sources, like the Annales Cambriae, the Historia Brittonum, and the writings of Gildas. But Arthur's name also occurs in early poetic sources such as Y Gododdin.

The legendary Arthur developed largely through the popularity of Geoffrey of Monmouth's imaginative 12th-century Historia Regum Britanniae. However, some Welsh and Breton tales and poems relating the story of Arthur date from earlier than this work. Arthur appears either as a great warrior defending Britain from human and supernatural enemies or as a magical figure of folklore, sometimes associated with the Welsh Otherworld, Annwn. How much of Geoffrey's Historia was adapted from such earlier sources, rather than invented by himself, is unsure.

MERLIN : Now Merlin is a legendary figure best known as the wizard featured in the Arthurian legend. The standard depiction of the character first appears in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae and is based on an amalgamation of previous historical and legendary figures. Geoffrey combined existing stories of Myrddin Wyllt (Merlinus Caledonensis), a North British madman with no connection to King Arthur, with tales of the Romano-British war leader Ambrosius Aurelianus to form the composite figure he called Merlin Ambrosius (Welsh: Myrddin Emrys).

Merlin's traditional biography casts him as born of mortal woman, sired by an incubus, the non-human wellspring from whom he inherits his supernatural powers and abilities.Merlin matures to an ascendant sagehood and engineers the birth of Arthur through magic and intrigue.

TEMPLARS : The order was officially created in 1119, but had come from an idea in 1099, during the first crusade. IT was created by two veterans of the First Crusade, the French knight Hugues de Payens and his relative Godfrey de Saint-Omer.

The order was disbanded or rather destroyed, by Phillipe Le Bel, king of France, when started arresting all templars on October 13, 1307.

I can only agree on one thing you say here. The "New World" might have been known about for a lot longer than we realise, and just have been a secret of this or this family / society / land / order / to be determined. There might or might not have been maps, this is unclear at best.

You say, Arthur existed around 5 or 6 AD, this might or might not be correct, as we are not sure Arthur existed, or who Monmouth based his character on. But even if we accept the Arthur idea, it would still clash with the templars having spirited him away to Avalon / America when his time was up. There is at least 300 years between the existance of the two.

Furthermore since either character, Arthur or Merlin are a literary construct, you can't really find their graves.

[cormac mac airt]

ARTHUR : The story of Arthur and the grail having been discussed at length in other threads, which Arthur would you be talking about? The details of Arthur's story are mainly composed of folklore and literary invention and his historical existence is debated by modern historians.

The sparse historical background of Arthur is gleaned from various sources, like the Annales Cambriae, the Historia Brittonum, and the writings of Gildas. But Arthur's name also occurs in early poetic sources such as Y Gododdin.

The legendary Arthur developed largely through the popularity of Geoffrey of Monmouth's imaginative 12th-century Historia Regum Britanniae. However, some Welsh and Breton tales and poems relating the story of Arthur date from earlier than this work. Arthur appears either as a great warrior defending Britain from human and supernatural enemies or as a magical figure of folklore, sometimes associated with the Welsh Otherworld, Annwn. How much of Geoffrey's Historia was adapted from such earlier sources, rather than invented by himself, is unsure.

MERLIN : Now Merlin is a legendary figure best known as the wizard featured in the Arthurian legend. The standard depiction of the character first appears in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae and is based on an amalgamation of previous historical and legendary figures. Geoffrey combined existing stories of Myrddin Wyllt (Merlinus Caledonensis), a North British madman with no connection to King Arthur, with tales of the Romano-British war leader Ambrosius Aurelianus to form the composite figure he called Merlin Ambrosius (Welsh: Myrddin Emrys).

Merlin's traditional biography casts him as born of mortal woman, sired by an incubus, the non-human wellspring from whom he inherits his supernatural powers and abilities.Merlin matures to an ascendant sagehood and engineers the birth of Arthur through magic and intrigue.

TEMPLARS : The order was officially created in 1119, but had come from an idea in 1099, during the first crusade. IT was created by two veterans of the First Crusade, the French knight Hugues de Payens and his relative Godfrey de Saint-Omer.

The order was disbanded or rather destroyed, by Phillipe Le Bel, king of France, when started arresting all templars on October 13, 1307.

I can only agree on one thing you say here. The "New World" might have been known about for a lot longer than we realise, and just have been a secret of this or this family / society / land / order / to be determined. There might or might not have been maps, this is unclear at best.

You say, Arthur existed around 5 or 6 AD, this might or might not be correct, as we are not sure Arthur existed, or who Monmouth based his character on. But even if we accept the Arthur idea, it would still clash with the templars having spirited him away to Avalon / America when his time was up. There is at least 300 years between the existance of the two.

Furthermore since either character, Arthur or Merlin are a literary construct, you can't really find their graves.

And to further add to this, one of the best candidates for at least part of the legends of Arthur, if both figures were not one and the same, would be that of Riothamus, whose last known position was in the vicinity of Aballon/Avallon, France. So no need to suggest Avallon/Avalon was in North America, IMO.

cormac

[TheSearcher]

And to further add to this, one of the best candidates for at least part of the legends of Arthur, if both figures were not one and the same, would be that of Riothamus, whose last known position was in the vicinity of Aballon/Avallon, France. So no need to suggest Avallon/Avalon was in North America, IMO.

cormac

Even then the link between Templars and Arthur is non existant as such.

[cormac mac airt]

Even then the link between Templars and Arthur is non existant as such.

Right! Extremely anachronistic, to say the least.

cormac

[Qoais]

Aren't you supposed to put a link when you copy stuff Searcher?

King Arthur is a legendary British leader who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defence of Britain against the Saxon invaders in the early 6th century. The details of Arthur's story are mainly composed of folklore and literary invention, and his historical existence is debated and disputed by modern historians.[2] The sparse historical background of Arthur is gleaned from various sources, including the Annales Cambriae, the Historia Brittonum, and the writings of Gildas. Arthur's name also occurs in early poetic sources such as Y Gododdin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur

I didn't mean the Templars themselves necessarily, but SOMEONE.

The name Merlin comes from the Welsh name Myrddin, and Merlin could have been a historical figure upon whom later, fanciful legends were based or a wise court advisor who was later credited with magical powers. The name Myrddin was a title, meaning "the Eagle" or "voice of the Eagle" - the Eagle being a bird that was associated with foresight in ancient British tradition. (second sight)

Quoting from Graham Phillips' book:

The story of King Arthur, as we now know it, comes from the work of the English writer Thomas Malory, who wrote in the mid-1400's. This is the Arthur who becomes king by drawing the sword from the stone, founds the fabulous city of Camelot and its Knights of the Round Table, and rules Britain with his beautiful queen Guinevere. This story, in turn, had been taken from older, medieval tales known as the Arthurian romances that wre written in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, in which King Arthur and his knights fight dragons, rescue damsels in distress, and search for the Holy Grail. these were clearly romantic inventions but there was much earlier evidence that this King Arthur figure was based on a real warrior who had lived centuries before.

According to the Arthurian romances, Arthur ruled Britain around 500 AD and the work of a ninth-century British monk named Nennius records a warrior called Arthur fighting in Britain at that time. In Nennius's surviving work, in the British Library in London, Arthur is recorded as one of the last native British leaders to make a successful stand against Anglo-Saxons, who invaded the country from their homeland in Denmark and northern Germany in the late fifth and early sixth centuries AD. This was during the British Dark Ages: an era of feuding and warfare that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire in the fifth century and lasted for some four hundred years, until the Saxon king Athelstan became ruler of all of England in 927.

Unfortuneately, Nennius says little about Arthur, nor does he reveal where he originated, but he does list twelve of his battles, and the last of them, the battle of Badon, is datable from a separate historical source: the work of another British monk, named Gildas, who wrote within living memory of the event. In his On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain, dating from the mid-sixth century, Gildas makes reference to the battle of Badon occurring around 500 AD. There does, therefore, appear to have been a historical British leader named Arthur who lived at the time the king Arthur of the Arthurian romances is said to have lived.

However, if Arthur lived in the late fifth or early sixth century as Nennius records, he would not have been a king in shining armor, living in a huge Gothic castle, but instead a Dark Age warlord with Roman-style armor, and his fortifications would have been wooden stockades. The reason that Arthur is now portrayed as a medieval-style king of many centuries later is that writers of the Middle Ages (the period from Athelstan in the ninth century until the Renaissance in the fifteenth century) tended to set ancient stories, such as the legneds of Greece and Rome, in their own historical context - a context of knighthood and chivalry.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Qoais