|
Dear Lauel and our Sinclair academic
community;
RE: Your list reference of "Beyond a Reasonable
Doubt" Jan 6th/00 in response to Niven Sinclairs Voyage of Prince Henry of
same date (both reproduced below in full)
My list reference" Prince Henry Neither first nor
last but significant"
When two such superior historians as you and Niven on our list writes, one always takes pleasure in reading their words and replying. I am very interested in your comments on the Zeno narrative and it seems that Niven and company have moved the marbles on the zeno/henry voyage forward a couple of notchs from the factual and historical perspective which is greatly to their credit as contributing historians. My hats off to Niven for a number of significant perspectives, one is underling that one should always note the perspective of the historical writer. The other is looking at historical facts in context. I support both observations wholeheartedly. Allow me to share and or add my 2 cents worth again
specifically from the Canadian - Historical perspective. My thesis is not
from the archelogical perspective nor from the ability to authenticate any
records. My thesis and approach is from what we know and understand about a
known historical context that would surround the voyage of Prince Henry to North
America in 1398.
I am cautious as to any debate that goes on the
pendulum swing between "beyond any shadow of a doubt or a yea or nay"
I leave this more focused effort to the documentary historians and the field
archelogists. There are many aspects of history that await authenticating
documentation such as some if not most biblical histories. Yet much of the
biblical verbal and oral traditional source is and remain good history and we
rely upon it until a better truth is established. So it is with the Prince Henry
Voyage. I applaud the new historical research and approaches that are not
entirely part of the "western historical
tradition."
As I shared with Peter Cummings an age ago, it was my
conjecture that what is already known and scientifically accepted history makes
the voyage of Prince Henry both logical and perhaps not even really outstanding
or even surprising that it occured. I did correspond with Pete on this topic but
was not able to attend the Prince Henry Symposium in 1998.
However again, the perspective of history from Canada
is a bit different from that taught and read by our neighbours to the south and
may speak to your comments and illuminate the discussion a bit.
I would think that you agree with your perspective of
history, that some things that are provable and acceptable as given factual
knowledge. One is that the vikings did come and settle in Canada before 1300.
This is supported by both archelogical evidence and to a lesser extent
documentary evidence. They also occupied Greenland and were familiar with the
Labrador coast before 1000. They created communities in Newfoundland, one
of which is now well excavated and a tourist site. This information we now
appreciate is scientific but even a scant 30 years ago was not nearly as
supported by archeology as we appreciate exists today.
We also know navagation of the time 1000-1400 was not
as primative as one would suspect, ie. measurement of latitude was possible. The
ocean currents and wind patterns were and still are condusive for traffic
between Norway and North America through the viking routes. The return
routes from the West back to the east were and still are favourable to round
trips from what is now Canadian geography. Then lets mix a bit of Mediteranian
history in. We learn in Canadian teaching that the Basques have been fishing off
the Grand Banks from before 1200. Hardly surprising again given the shipping
patterns of the period and where the fish were to be found.
The vikings of course were excellent travellers and
history taught in Norway and Sweden includes stories of travels and voyages to
Africa to Russia and yes North America. The ship building technology was fully
capable of designing long ocean voyages. But they were not alone, the Picts and
Celts were also capable of such technology and may also have been interfacing
with the natives in North America. This is a new speculation which is being
currently debated in Canada with the conjecture that the Vikings may have
actually followed another society. In any event we are looking at a period of
history well prior to 1400.
Now knowlede and information is not the proprietary
stuff of formal schools. In navigation the "how to's" and "where
to go" are well communicated today among the maritime community and I would
suggest that the same patterns existed in the year 1000. We have this myth in
teaching history that individuals living in year 1000 were uneducated and
largely ignorant of maritime experiences. Not so. Navigation was a science even
then and I would suggest that the world not being flat was known and the debate
as to the world being round had more to do with theological assertions and
beliefs at the time. It may be of interest to appreciate that the North American
Indians also had transportation capable of ocean travel on a coastal basis.
Certainly the Micmaks did. My conclusion from what is known and provable is that
settlements and transportation routes to the "new world" existed
before 1400.
The difficulty for modern historical readers lies in the appreciation of history as taught in the context of the last hundred years. This westernized and american approach revolves to this day around dates, personages and how western society sees the opening of the "New World 1000 to 2000 ad. I have frequently commented on the list regarding aspect of the voyage of Columbus, but now I want to share a new perspective that comes from an appreciation of Scandinavian history and how societies in the Northern hemisphere in Iceland, Scotland, the Orkneys, and Norway Denmark etc may have viewed the world. For this approach an appreciation of economic history
is needed. Nation states existing from 1000 to 1400 were not important and did
not exist as they are understood today. Resources and alligences, not
territory were deemed important and trade was developed around such resources as
could be tapped from the geography. Hence fish were important for food and
lumber for ship building, but territory and land per se were not of value until
centuries later during the colonial era. Ownership of land, was a concept yet to
come in the northern societies, a grant of fiefdom was more a grant of control,
and control over societies and settlements and resources was important and
the concept of title was less developed until later. Now with due respect to any
cousins in Greenland, Labrador and Newfoundland the resources in this local
region were rare. Fish were in the ocean and were not actively and
commercially harvested until 1700. Minerals were not sought but lumber and trees
were starting to be sought as early as 1400. North America ( in relation to the
geography just identified) was anything but exciting. Resources to create
interest such as gold were not found. So while agrarian and fishing settlements
were created in Newfoundland and Greenland it was hardly exciting as being a
discovery and recording such discovery as being an historical landmark for any
european history.
The best geographical explaination from the economic
motivations for the voyage actually lies in forests. The forests of Norway and
northern Europe were depleted of the trees suitable for building the strong
keels of the ships of the period. A search for new trees is logical and
something the King of Norway would have been interested in.
Now we turn the clock forward to the period
following 1380. Richard the Second is King of that body of chiefs that chose to
be loyal in that nation that was called Scotland. I think history supports the
view that Richard was never highly regarded. In this context Henry was the
Admiral of Scotland and I take it from good references I have read and assume
are suppoorted that he had a fleet of his own. He was also Jarl to Norway and
while he had a relationship with Norway, he was also related to the King of
Denmark. The question I posed to myself was the type of knowledge and
understanding he was privy to in 1380 in light of titles, relationships and
seafaring. Given the the maritime information that any such individual that was
privy to as of 1398 with strong ties to Norway, Scotland, Denmark it is probable
that he would have known about pre existing western settlements. His knowing of
western lands is entirely logical. He went to what he knew existed and perhaps
never saw his voyage as being first in any way but following the footsteps of
others. This is not to detract from any accomplishment which is quite acceptably
unique.
Now we switch to the historical times of the
mediteranian circa 1350 and we see Venice and Genoa; rivals at the time and for
centuries following. But of practical import was the science of seafaring that
was known in the Mediteranian area. Sailors from these ports had gone great
distances beyond the shores of the mediteranian. They too were explorers,
traders and merchants, excellent in ship building and design. Of course they
became map makers, and seafarers. The re-enactment of the voyage to the North
Sea is hardly surprising in that period.
So we combine what we know of history, scientific
knowledge of the time and straight forward logic and we may fairly come to a
consideration of a trip by Prince Henry to North America in 1398 is not a reach
in terms of what we know of history and such consideration neither tests our
logic or belief. (And this is said with greatest respect to any adventurer that
goes across the Atlantic in what is essentially an open
boat).
So from my own reading and appreciation of history and
using my intelligence on what is appreciated what we have supporting Henry's
voyage is i) a known transportation route to North American Geography prior to
his trip ii) knowledge of sea routes from the perspective of winds and current.
iii) settlements having been established at one point in NA from Norway and
regions adjacent to it. iv) seafaring technology that was capable of supporting
such a voyage v) best access to existing maritime knowledge and know how, vi)
the capablilty and capacity to make such an expedition.
Now if I may offer some evidentiary conclusions from
the above facts and this would simply be that while such evidence does not
support a voyage 'beyond all reasonable doubt' the evidence when assessed on its
own makes such a voyage neither surprising nor improbable but to the contrary
highly probable when added to other documentary evidence such as the Zeno
historical aspects or other co-oberating sources.
The legal test might be phrased "More likely than
not" that the voyage occured. There are three key co-oberative sources of
information. The Zeno maps and references, the stone archetecture carvings at
Rosslyn and the Glooscap legends. Now the evidence may point yet to more
knowledge forthcoming from historical research in Italy, Norway or Nova Scotia
or points in between. Certainly more work is needed and should be valued by way
of acquiring knowledge. I am encouraged that Italian study is being added to the
base of knowledge.
But let us also appreciate the fair historical
approach would examine why there is a lack of documentation. First the
traditions in Norway were by balads and verbal traditions. These existed
accurately before we had any artifacts to support the verbal traditions. Now we
have both. Next map making was an irregular science because of the difficulties
of scale. One followed routes to destinations points hence anyone going
from the Faroes to Greenland to Labrador to Newfoundland are going from landfall
to landfall and by in large were following both ocean currents and wind
patterns. Finally unless there was a cultural, or compelling reason to document
something it simply was never called upon to happen. The knowledge Henry had
went on after his time as it had before his time. Others knew the routes to
North America both before and after 1398.
I await with interest, Niven's follow up and further
information as the passage of time unfolds. I think all the arrows remain
pointed in the same direction namely in supporting the authenticating that this
voyage of discovery cooured. I am satisfied that the voyage was probable, likely
and logical in light of the historical clues and evidence that that we have to
date.
I trust this context of history adds to
the understanding.
Yours Aye;
Neil Sinclair BA.,
LL.B.
Toronto/PEI/Forever Argyll
The forgoing was in Response to the discussion item following and supports all academic endeavour that is supported scientifically and logically in the pursuit of knowledge. -----Original Message-----
From: Spirit One Email <laurel@spiritone.com> To: niven@niven.co.uk <niven@niven.co.uk> Cc: jsq@mids.org <jsq@mids.org>; <sinclairclanchief@girnigoetrust.freeserve.co.uk>; <sinclair@mids.org> Date: 6 January, 2000 1:03 PM Subject: Zeno trip Dear Niven, I'm afraid I am at a disadvantage in that I don't have "Beyond Any Shadow of Doubt". I was viewing the subject through the prisim of the Orkney Symposium as summarized by Pete. In Pete's summary he said: "Is It Possible that Prince Henry did not do it?" Brian Smith, Shetland Archivist, offered a flamboyant array of reasons he feels cast a shadow upon the claim that Prince Henry Sinclair crossed the ocean to North America.Among them are a 500-year delay in making claims; the lack of contemporaneous claims by Sinclairs or Templars; numerous errors found in the Zeno Narratives; "Zichmni" referred to in the Zeno Narratives is thought to be really the Duke of Surrand; Nicolo Zeno was a political prisoner in Venice from 1360-1400; and the Zeno Narratives never mentioned Orkney. Since, I think this Symposium occured after you wrote "Beyond Any Shadow of Doubt" and since I got the impression that there was no rebuttal to the questions raised by Brian Smith because he was bringing up some new evidence that questioned the Zeno participation, I thought these areas had not been settled yet. It seems strange to me that he would bring them up, if he knew you could refute them so completely. Were you able at the Symposium to show the emptiness of Brian Smith and other challenges? Within this last year, I did incounter, somewhere, a smirking statement that the Symposium showed that there was real doubt about PHS's voyage. So I carried that feeling with me when I asked about Brian Smith's statement. I really thank you for your comments which I will add to the website to show the rebuttal to people like myself that really aren't informed enough on this subject. Daily these people are added to our group of interested persons. If they come into this discussion by way of the Orkney Symposium or see the statements of other doubting Thomas' they can now be referred to "Beyond Any Shadow of Doubt" and to this summary of yours. And this really gives me good evidence to put in the Scottish Journal article. Thanks, Thanks again. Laurel The following is
from Niven Sinclair to which Laurel was responding:
Jan 6, 2000 The Voyage
of Prince Henry et al
In "Beyond Any Shadow of
Doubt" I give the names of 25 experts from various
disciplines
and from 10 different nations, who add the weight of their authority to the authenticity of the Zeno narrative and the acccuracy of the Zeno map which, as Andrew Sinclair points out in his book and as I re-iterate and re-inforce in "Beyond Any Shadow of Doubt". Against this galaxy of savants, we have Fred Lucas, Cuthbertson and Smith - neither of whom have done any original research. I demolished Lucas. Jim Guthrie demolished Cuthbertson and Brian Smith is now clinging desperately to an untenable situation. The confusion seems to arise over Nicolo Zeno having been in prison. Firstly, I have seen no evidence of this and, in any event, the names Nicolo, Carlo and Antonio cascade down through the generations. Secondly, the evidence which I have seen from the Zeno family tree in the Zeno Palace clearly shows Nicolo as being one of the brothers who explored the lands beneath the "Polo Arctico". This is conformed by Torfaeus, the Royal Danish Historian in his "Lives of the Zeno Brothers". Evidence of their voyages is also shown on two enormous globes in the Museo Correr in Venice. The Zeno Narrative was also signed by the Venetian State Secretary, Ramusio, which effectively gave it the seal of approval of the Doge and the Council of Ten who governed Venetian affairs. They would not have willingly, knowingly or deliberately have debased the accurate historical records of the Venetian State by endorsing a forgery. Venetian records are renowned for their accuracy. Venice was a maritime power which, over the centuries, withstood the power of Rome, the threat of the Austria-Hungarian Empire and the ambitions of Napoleon. Indeed, it is difficult for us to begin to appreciate the influence which Venice exerted in the Mediterranean. Cyprus, Corfu and Dalmatia were Venetian possessions - not merely enclaves. She dominated trade with the Levant. The Zeno family alone could have provided Henry Sinclair with his entire fleet. In the 14th Century (even after the scourge of the Black Death) Venice was still producing one ship a day. Over 400 ships left the Arsenale carrying troops in support of King Peter of Cyprus's Crusade against Alexandria in 1365. These were Venetian ships. (The Venetian coat-of- arms bears the croix pattee of the Knights Templar. And, as our film shows, the well in the Courtyard of the Zeno Palace carries the Zeno coat-of-arms on one side and the croix pattee of the Knights Templar on the other side. As you are aware, I have spent many years studying the Prince Henry Sinclair saga. I have travelled where he travelled and with, each passing year, the authenticity of his voyage is less and less in doubt. My recent visit to Venice simply reinforces earlier certainties. I am not a person who chases will o' the wisps or who is given to support lost causes. I am, however, a person who is determined to ensure that history is corrected and that Henry Sinclair and the illustrious Zeno Brothers are given their proper place in history. It is to be hoped that Laura Zola's voyage to re-trace the steps of the Zeno brothers will do a great deal to publicise a little known but significant episode in the 'discovery of the New World'. Significant because of the involvement of the Venetians and the Knights Templar. It wasn't significant in any other sense as such voyages had been made for centuries We read a lot about John Cabot (an Italian) sailing from Bristol in 1497 to claim the New World on behalf of the Hanovarians although beaver pelts rolled and wrapped in the manner of the Iroquois had been landed in Bristol since the beginning of the 15th Century. There is no evidence that he ever landed in the New World. His voyage was exaggerated for English national and political reasons just, as earlier, the voyage of Columbus had been used by the Church of Rome to extend its tentacles into the New World. In our study of history we should always be looking for "The Hidden hand of History" What was really taking place behind the scenes?. Who was pulling the strings? Who was writing history and for what purpose? By the Treaty of Tordesillas, for example, Rome carved the World up between Spanish and Portuguese spheres of influence. In this carve up there was no place for the Norse/Norman. There was no place for the Anglo-Saxon. There was no place for the indigenous people of the World and, of course, there was no place for Henry Sinclair who was a Knight Templar and Knights Templar were anathema to Rome. Her clerics wrote their own version of history which took on the sanctity of the gospel. It is only now that people are beginning to look beyond this sanitized version of history. The Norse sagas, for example, are now being seen as some of the most accurate accounts of history whereas, previously, they had been seen in the same light as Homer's Iliad or Odyssey i.e. to be taken with a pinch of salt. Wonderful reading but wildly exaggerated. Well, there is nothing exaggerated about Henry's voyage. Such voyages had been made for centuries and, when we keep that in mind, the incessant querying and questioning might cease. Even the size of his fleet (12) was small given the size of Leif Erikson's fleet of 50 ships and King Peter of Cyprus's armada of 400 ships. I hope this will help to get things into proper perspective. Niven Note in responding to the foregoing please note the text is lengthy and might be deleted in any respose, so that the sheer volume/size of an email to the list may be reduced) |