|
Greetings;
I wanted to simply add the Sinclair connection to this recent
discussion on Columbus for those that may be more recent subscribers. There is
good evidence from Peter Cummings and others that Christopher Columbus was
related to the Sinclairs through a marriage in his family. Also the prior
discussions on the Sinclair and Templar ties to Portugal will be worthy a a
quick reread on this topic as to possible tie ins to Sinclair cultural history.
Now without adding in detail my comments on the deplorable
teaching we have in all North America as to moist history, I want to add some
factual information to the Columbus discussion.
I bring the following intelligence to bear simply from
the historical perspective and add that the Hollywood versions of the story are
historical fiction and the politicalization of Chritopher Columbus was a rather
recent phenomenon and also has no historical or factuual
basis.
Now the American historical perspective has traditionally been
in error on the conjecture that Columbus ever set foot in the North American
Continent and certainly the United States. His doing so I believe is in error.
He did not or simply there is no evidence of his doing discovering "America"
proper. He is thought to have reached the Panama area but a good portion of
the West Indies claims to have had Columbus landing there at one time or another
and it is mostly speculative as the maps that were drafted were not that
accurate and not detailed.
Now I comment on the issue as to who discovered America first,
and whether Columbus was looking for spices. Again this arrives out of poor
authorship some years ago and confusing biographies on a historical character we
still do not have much knowledge of. .
From the archelogical perspective there is as much evidence
for the Henry Sinclair expedition as there was for Columbus when both
authorities are based on diaries. Again the point was moot, because neither
discovered North America, and the time periods as to their importance for doing
so were different. There is good evidence to suggest that The Basque fisherman
(Spanish) discovered the Grand Banks (Newfoundland) as early as 1200. The
Vikings arrived well before the year 1000. And there is no one that can truely
claim being "first" because all the names we have "Leif" etc., followed the
navigation paths and experiences of others. The Viking history comes from Bards,
and those stories and legends would have been known or available to Prince Henry
before he set sail. The Noregian Greenland Settlements were tithed to Rome and
the Pope before 1000. Columbus I believe visited Iceland before he ventured on
his voyages. And Iceland had been in touch with the mainland well before 1400.
Again this all relates to a period of history when the value
of rocks and trees do not count, and nation states are not expanding and
fisherment and navigators are not literate, then documentation is a bit scarce.
Exploration followed need and economics with some social motivations thrown in.
Now the Columbus myths are many. One that he wanted to prove
the world was not flat. This " world is flat non-science knowledge' was really
tied into Catholic teachings and theology and dogma at the time which was a
little (sic) intollerant to other ideas and beliefs. Navigarors from before
King Solomons time knew accurately about astronomy and the world being round.
Vikings, Phonecians and the Templars (with the biggest merchant navy in the
middle ages) all were familiar with the world being round. In fact
Latitude was a defined science science will before Columbus and the challenge
was measuring distance and Longtitude, which knowledge arrived well after
1500.
Now that he went to find the West Indies. I note with
admiration that some one noticed he may have been Jewish. I have no authority I
have read one way or the other but he was Genoese (sp) not Venitian (Zeno was
Venetian (sp) and this was part of the academic rivalry in the 1600s to
discredit the Zeno diary by the supporters of the view that the Geneoese were
first)
The time period he travelled was a major one for the Jews of
Spain in that they were being exciled or exterminated. I have read some
historical references to the existance of a map on the initial Columbus
Voyage and the absence of Priests accompanying the ships used in the voyages. I
also note that the voyages were financed by third parties not the Crown of
Spain. On the return of Columbus he went oddly to the crown of Portugal not
Spain. Hence many questions still abound as to the complexity of his agenda.
Now the models of the ships he traveled on were frequently
denoted with Maltese of Templar Crosses. Interesting speculation. There is no
evidence I believe either way as we do not have evidence of the sail design. But
this may point to a Sinclair ties as the Templars had gone underground to Malta,
France and Scotland.
There is no evidence to support that he committed any
atrocities to the native population on any of the three voyages, (Hollywood
notwithstanding) and the Carib Indians were not the nation states of the
Americas. He was not part of the later Conquistadors and died in Poverty to all
accounts.
So why the big deal aside from slanted histories and
mythologies? Well he did add vastly to navigation by discovering the south
Atlantic trade winds which were used regularly by himself and others after his
initial return. He also identified a destination with water resupply. With
these two anyone could make the voyage.
It simply became easy to get to a destination where you know
how long it would take (a water supply issue) and had a regular route constant
winds, and could return easilt (the mid Atlantic Trade winds). This was the
route used regularly by all navigators until the advent of steam. So the
results, many voyages could follow at any time and yes oddly Jewish Synagogues
date in Mexico from 1500. Interesting stuff!
Columbus continues to tie into the Sinclairs as an interesting
part and figure in history. It is family, the possible Templar - Masonic
connection, the exploration connection, and such speculative ideas as whether
Viking navigation was known in the mediteranian, (it was) whether there were
maps of the new world before Columbus (speculative) and whether the Jews
migration from Spain was tied in to the history (speculative and probable) It
took courage to do what he Columbus endeavored. It took courage for the sailors
with him. The same can be said of Henry Sinclair who arrived before Columbus.
The former lived when nation states were rising in Supremecy. The later lived
when nation states were fudalistic. Prince Henry possessed most of the
Navigation wisdom of his age before he departed for Greenland and points west.
Colubbus may have known all the navigation that came before 1490 which was
considerable.
Again we denote an intellectual arrogance to suggest that
these individuals traveled in ignorance of navigastion principals and knowledge,
that the maritime discipline was applied in isolation of similar knowledge
elsewhere.
Have Fun;
Neil an novice historian and student of Laurel and
others
he writes with a Canadian perspective
|