Colony of Virginia vs. 1636 Map

with mustache seems like an irrelevant dead end of synonymity

Click to expand...

Curiously, that Government / Religion book I read in multiple spots notes the “mustache” war paint of the “Virginia Indians.”

xander said:

Curiously, that Government / Religion book I read in multiple spots notes the “mustache” war paint of the “Virginia Indians.”

Click to expand...

And all of a sudden, Al-gernon makes a shred of sense. Can you provide a reference?

Before a war was undertaken, the king always summoned his great men or werowances to attend the council. At these assemblies, whenever a war was expected, it was the custom of the young braves to paint themselves black, red or parti-colored (e. g. half the face red, half black or white with great circles of different hues around the eyes), to don monstrous moustaches and to decorate the body as fantastically as possi- ble.

Click to expand...

Yes. This is on page18-19.

I could have sworn there were a couple of other spots that brought it up, but the author must not have used the word moustache.

Algernon enjoyed some literary use 1520-1525 and again in the late 1500s. Unfortunately ngram can’t scrub books before 1800 it seems

KorbenDallas said:

Found this interesting excerpt. 33 to 37 covers South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia. Mythology they say.

View attachment 12398​

Click to expand...

We cant tell, no evidence, that before 17 centuries there were not any races except 3 different heights greek-like stature people with 15 % (in proportion) more brain space, perfect teeth, no incisors = no modern like people. It seems all of us is a recent product of hybridization, literally started around 1800, continued pretty much till early 1900.

Well finally pulled a laptop out and tool a close look through the Smith map dated 1606 and here is what i noticed.

First off it was not drawn by John Smith. He disconered (whatever that means) and detailed it to an engraver.

Surely this man on the ground in America Capt John Smith would have given the engraver drawings he had made whilst there but no he describes and details which to my mind throws the artifact itself into doubt and of course its contents. I do not see a man being given verbal description by another being able to put that description into an accurate drawing that resembles what the describer claims to have seen first hand. Certainly there is no way for the engraver to verify anything as to accuracy without first hand on site drawings or sketches provided by the man who was on site.

With that in mind here are the rest of the things I noticed.
Every number on the edge of the map is written normally except one. The 40 is reversed and the 4 is back to front so its a mirror reverse.

There is a single depiction of a row of trees. This is suggestive of man made planting and it is right on the coast.


This suggests windbreak perhaps to protect something from the onshore wind. But it is the only sign of possibly European occupation amongst the topographic symbols. I say European because I do not see a reason why anyone native to the land would bother with an artificial windbreak or a lined out orchard which is of course the other possibility for the line of trees. Europeans love straight lines.

It is always read as Jamestown but is it really what is engraved or written on the map?
I compared the only two J's I could find on the entire map.

They clearly do not look remotely alike. Not even close.
So here are the other letters and numbers I compared them to in an effort to establish what is actually written.



Nothing conclusive beyond it clearly not being a J. If it were actually a capital J and it wouldn't fit in due to the line of the river then why would the lettering simply not be made a bit smaller?
Well I reckon we are looking at forgery laid over a likely truth.

When I zoomed out it becomes quite obvious that lames towne is written in the only space available for it to be written. See for yourself what I am on about.



As you can see all the other space is taken up with topographical symbols and much smaller writing.
You will also notice it is the only recognisable English words in that screenshot.
This leads me to make the observation all of the English names are actually centred on what is named Chesapeake Bay and the shore around it.

There are a couple of English names and a rather odd attempt to show that English people had travelled the hinterland by naming a tree but you can easily see the lines whoever did the later additions used to align their writing.


Sparkes content, whatever it is referring to is clearly in a different hand and style to Mahajkahod whatever that is referring to. Compare the two letter K's.
There is nothing remarkable about the tree or the content that makes it worthy of naming. I suggest these are examples of forgery.

Here is a range of differences in labelling that is also indicative of forgery.


The English names in white boxes are I argue original to the engraving or drawing or whatever it is and the English names added in later are not.

To my mind here is what we are likely looking at.
There never was a Jamestowne. There was someone who was in America and they mapped out the coastline of this area in good detail noting shallows and rapids but I do not think they ventured much beyond the shore and crucially they drew a map and series of sketches of things. They may have explored up the valleys of the rivers that empty into the bay but not beyond.
I say this because of the obvious difference in the level of detail in the waterway edges to the hinterland detail.
All of the named geographical features bearing English names are on the waterways.

It is a map of waterways and coasts drawn by a navigator.. Someone well used to turning what they see from their boat into a usable map.
Over the top of that someone else has written in all of the wordage I have highlighted above. Impossible to say when and by whom it is even just possible it was Capt John Smith who added in the later details (hence the "detailed by Capt John Smith" in the legend) and he was given the map or stole or somehow other acquired it and made it into his own by the use of an engraver to produce this thing we see in front of us and claim it as his own and Jamestowne is or was real and he had been there.

It has to me the feel of something being contrived to give evidence of claim much like the United States said to have laid claim to parts of Antarctica by dropping a flag and a note of claim wrapped round a rock from an airplane.
No way on gods earth for anyone to verify such a thing but sadly this is how land is grabbed.

This map is used for the same purpose as far as I can tell.

Instead of seeing what we are told is there on these things or want to believe is there it behooves us all to individually look at what is actually there. I may be completely off kilter with my findings but Jamestown is a fiction.

Edit to add.
What happens to Fetherstones Bay?
Sparkes Valley or Sparkes Content?

These are screenshots of these two LOC tifs
Virginia
[Map of Virginia] / discovered and discribed [sic] by Captain John Smith 1606 [?] William Hole.

There are very obvious differences between them as you can see.
Both images are the tifs at 100% zoom


Further Edit to add
Blands C : and Downes dale come and go.


As does Washbonne C:

jd755 said:

He disconered (whatever that means) and detailed it to an engraver.

Click to expand...

Discouered/Discovered
Grauen/Graven

I was going to leave that one alone (-:

i did get curious as to when “discribed” morphed into “described” though

soleilbelmont said:

Discouered/Discovered
Grauen/Graven

Click to expand...

I did consider it is a u not an n in that legend but the only clear u is in the word leagues in the scale of leagues and the lack of clarity leaves me on the fence. However remiss of me to mention it in the text so thanks for helping me out.

Edit to add
Stopped being lazy and pulled the laptop out. Here are crops of the .tif at 200% zoom.
On that evidence the other two u's could well be u's and not n's. It certainly seems its easier for a U to slip to a V in modern english than an N.

Yeah. The evolution (or devolution) the language is certainly worth exploring. Funny how Vs and Us were used quite inversely, but we still call a W a “double u” even though we clearly write it as a “double v” unlike in Spanish, where it’s a “doble v”

again I digress.

with regard to the labeling though, I think we all too frequently mistake the serifs and embellishment as marks of superior penmanship, however it seems to be just as sloppy as many of my notes

I've been pronouncing the possibilities in my head. An interesting exercise.
Discovered, disconered, discoured..
They all sound solid English when spoken out loud as well.
Accent plays a key role in hearing the spoken word we never see in the written word and thus the spelling used in the written version of the spoken.
Though how it can be identified or unravelled I know not.

I believe the written word follows the spoken word, and the spoken follows the path of least resistance.

in my short time on this planet I’ve seen octopi turn octopuses, the apostrophe adopted by pluralization, and your turn to ur.

imagine what’s happened over centuries.