archaeology, Who named state Virginia?

Who named state Virginia?

Author	Message
johansso #1 / 38	Who named state Virginia? The 'consensus' however disputed by some have been that {filter}ia in today's US got it's name from Elizabeth I who was known as the {filter} queen. Well that to have been disputed, but the official information seem pretty well to correspond with the {filter}ia - Wikipedia page on net.... http://www.**.com/ {filter}ia That could have been that, if it hadn't been for early maps, such as Girolamo Ruscelli's from 1561..... http://www.*.com/ ~maps/exhibit2/05.jpg a bit earlier than the 'consensus' for {filter}ia, or what do you say? more early maps on http://www.**.com/ ~maps/exhibit2/sec1.htm Inger E
Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:39:20 GMT

Reni #2 / 38	Who named state Virginia? Quote: > The 'consensus' however disputed by some have been that {filter}ia in today's > US got it's name from Elizabeth I who was known as the {filter} queen. Well > that to have been disputed, but the official information seem pretty well to > correspond with the {filter}ia - Wikipedia page on net.... > http://www.**.com/ {filter}ia > That could have been that, if it hadn't been for early maps, such as > Girolamo Ruscelli's from 1561..... > http://www.*.com/ ~maps/exhibit2/05.jpg > a bit earlier than the 'consensus' for {filter*}ia, or what do you say? Not really. Elizabeth I became Queen in 1558. Thanks to Cabot, that part of America was in British hands from 1497.
Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:31:11 GMT

johansso #3 / 38	Who named state Virginia? Quote: > > The 'consensus' however disputed by some have been that {filter}ia in today's > > US got it's name from Elizabeth I who was known as the {filter} queen. Well > > that to have been disputed, but the official information seem pretty well to > > correspond with the {filter}ia - Wikipedia page on net.... > > http://www.**.com/ {filter}ia > > That could have been that, if it hadn't been for early maps, such as > > Girolamo Ruscelli's from 1561..... > > http://www.*.com/ ~maps/exhibit2/05.jpg > > a bit earlier than the 'consensus' for {filter}ia, or what do you say? > Not really. Elizabeth I became Queen in 1558. Thanks to Cabot, that part > of America was in British hands from 1497. While the former is correct, the later isn't. Apart from which, it wasn't until November 1558 Elizabeth became queen. The first English colony in the New World was the Roanoke colony goes back to 1580's without a colony no one could claim that any part was in for example British hands.... (more about the colony: http://www..com/ ) Apart from which Cabot reached the Caribian but there were the Spaniards... While it's true that he sailed from Bristol in May 1497, there definitely isn't any consensus which part of America he visited before he returned 6th August. http://www..com/ Even if it had been a consensus, there aren't any proven factors to indicate that Viriginia could have been claimed by the Brits before after 1561 and definitely not by Cabot. So Cabot and British claims before 1561 wouldn't have made Ruscelli write '{filter*}ia' on correct place on map. Inger E
Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:53:12 GMT

David #4 / 38	Who named state Virginia? Quote: > The first English colony in the New World was the Roanoke colony goes back > to 1580's without a colony no one could claim that any part was in for > example British hands.... (more about the colony: > http://www.*.com/ ) > Apart from which Cabot reached the Caribian but there were the Spaniards... > While it's true that he sailed from Bristol in May 1497, there definitely > isn't any consensus which part of America he visited before he returned 6th > August. http://www..com/ > Even if it had been a consensus, there aren't any proven factors to indicate > that Viriginia could have been claimed by the Brits before after 1561 and > definitely not by Cabot. So Cabot and British claims before 1561 wouldn't > have made Ruscelli write '{filter}ia' on correct place on map. Only a really poor researcher would believe that Ruscelli named {filter}ia on his 1561 map of North America. Here is a very clear, well-presented version of Ruscelli's 1561 map: http://www.*.com/ and here is an explanation of why the name {filter}ia appears on some copies: http://www.**.com/ David B.
Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:07:05 GMT

Reni #5 / 38	Who named state Virginia? Quote: >>>The 'consensus' however disputed by some have been that {filter}ia in > today's >>>US got it's name from Elizabeth I who was known as the {filter} queen. > Well >>>that to have been disputed, but the official information seem pretty > well to >>>correspond with the {filter}ia - Wikipedia page on net.... >>> http://www.**.com/ {filter}ia >>>That could have been that, if it hadn't been for early maps, such as >>>Girolamo Ruscelli's from 1561..... >>> http://www.*.com/ ~maps/exhibit2/05.jpg >>>a bit earlier than the 'consensus' for {filter}ia, or what do you say? >>Not really. Elizabeth I became Queen in 1558. Thanks to Cabot, that part >>of America was in British hands from 1497. > While the former is correct, the later isn't. Apart from which, it wasn't > until November 1558 Elizabeth became queen. > The first English colony in the New World was the Roanoke colony goes back > to 1580's without a colony no one could claim that any part was in for > example British hands.... (more about the colony: > http://www..com/ ) > Apart from which Cabot reached the Caribian but there were the Spaniards... > While it's true that he sailed from Bristol in May 1497, there definitely > isn't any consensus which part of America he visited before he returned 6th > August. http://www..com/ > Even if it had been a consensus, there aren't any proven factors to indicate > that Viriginia could have been claimed by the Brits before after 1561 and > definitely not by Cabot. So Cabot and British claims before 1561 wouldn't > have made Ruscelli write '{filter}ia' on correct place on map. Several attempts were made to colonise {filter}ia in the 16th century but not much was done until Sir Walter Raleigh got a trading company together in 1584. Nonetheless, England had claimed {filter}ia as her territory for the previous hundred years or so. I read somewhere that Bermuda, which had long been an English territory, was previously called {filter*}eola.
Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:17:56 GMT

Jack Linthicu #6 / 38	Who named state Virginia? Quote: > >>>The 'consensus' however disputed by some have been that {filter}ia in > > today's > >>>US got it's name from Elizabeth I who was known as the {filter} queen. > > Well > >>>that to have been disputed, but the official information seem pretty > > well to > >>>correspond with the {filter}ia - Wikipedia page on net.... > >>> http://www.**.com/ {filter}ia > >>>That could have been that, if it hadn't been for early maps, such as > >>>Girolamo Ruscelli's from 1561..... > >>> http://www.*.com/ ~maps/exhibit2/05.jpg > >>>a bit earlier than the 'consensus' for {filter}ia, or what do you say? > >>Not really. Elizabeth I became Queen in 1558. Thanks to Cabot, that part > >>of America was in British hands from 1497. > > While the former is correct, the later isn't. Apart from which, it wasn't > > until November 1558 Elizabeth became queen. > > The first English colony in the New World was the Roanoke colony goes back > > to 1580's without a colony no one could claim that any part was in for > > example British hands.... (more about the colony: > > http://www..com/ ) > > Apart from which Cabot reached the Caribian but there were the Spaniards... > > While it's true that he sailed from Bristol in May 1497, there definitely > > isn't any consensus which part of America he visited before he returned 6th > > August. http://www..com/ > > Even if it had been a consensus, there aren't any proven factors to indicate > > that Viriginia could have been claimed by the Brits before after 1561 and > > definitely not by Cabot. So Cabot and British claims before 1561 wouldn't > > have made Ruscelli write '{filter}ia' on correct place on map. > Several attempts were made to colonise {filter}ia in the 16th century but > not much was done until Sir Walter Raleigh got a trading company > together in 1584. Nonetheless, England had claimed {filter}ia as her > territory for the previous hundred years or so. I read somewhere that > Bermuda, which had long been an English territory, was previously called > {filter}eola. A group of colonists on their way to {filter}ia were shipwrecked there in 1609. This incident was known to Shakespeare when he wrote The Tempest. Long called Somers Islands, the Bermudas were first governed by chartered companies but were acquired by the crown in 1684. The islands were dependency of {filter}ia, and James I (of England) decided to change the name from {filter}eola (Little {filter}ia) to The Somers Islands. Queen Elizabeth of England is credited with either naming it for herself or accepting Sir Walter Raleigh's doing so in 1584. What it was called before that is anyone's guess. http://www.**.com/
Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:28:20 GMT

Alan Crozie #7 / 38	Who named state Virginia? Quote: grou Quote: > ps.com... > > > >>>The 'consensus' however disputed by some have been that {filter}ia in > > > > today's > > > >>>US got it's name from Elizabeth I who was known as the {filter} queen. > > > > Well > > > >>>that to have been disputed, but the official information seem pretty > > > > well to > > > >>>correspond with the {filter}ia - Wikipedia page on net.... > > > >>> http://www.**.com/ {filter}ia > > > >>>That could have been that, if it hadn't been for early maps, such as > > > >>>Girolamo Ruscelli's from 1561..... > > > >>> http://www.*.com/ ~maps/exhibit2/05.jpg > > > >>>a bit earlier than the 'consensus' for {filter}ia, or what do you say? > > > >>Not really. Elizabeth I became Queen in 1558. Thanks to Cabot, that > part > > > >>of America was in British hands from 1497. > > > > While the former is correct, the later isn't. Apart from which, it > wasn't > > > > until November 1558 Elizabeth became queen. > > > > The first English colony in the New World was the Roanoke colony goes > back > > > > to 1580's without a colony no one could claim that any part was in for > > > > example British hands.... (more about the colony: > > > > http://www..com/ ) > > > > Apart from which Cabot reached the Caribian but there were the > Spaniards... > > > > While it's true that he sailed from Bristol in May 1497, there > definitely > > > > isn't any consensus which part of America he visited before he > returned 6th > > > > August. http://www..com/ > > > > Even if it had been a consensus, there aren't any proven factors to > indicate > > > > that Viriginia could have been claimed by the Brits before after 1561 > and > > > > definitely not by Cabot. So Cabot and British claims before 1561 > wouldn't > > > > have made Ruscelli write '{filter}ia' on correct place on map. > > > Several attempts were made to colonise {filter}ia in the 16th century but > > > not much was done until Sir Walter Raleigh got a trading company > > > together in 1584. Nonetheless, England had claimed {filter}ia as her > > > territory for the previous hundred years or so. I read somewhere that > > > Bermuda, which had long been an English territory, was previously called > > > {filter}eola. > > A group of colonists on their way to {filter}ia were shipwrecked there > > in 1609. This incident was known to Shakespeare when he wrote The > > Tempest. Long called Somers Islands, the Bermudas were first governed > > by chartered companies but were acquired by the crown in 1684. The > > islands were dependency of {filter}ia, and James I (of England) decided > > to change the name from {filter}eola (Little {filter}ia) to The Somers > > Islands. > > Queen Elizabeth of England is credited with either naming it for > > herself or accepting Sir Walter Raleigh's doing so in 1584. What it > > was called before that is anyone's guess. > > http://www.*.com/ > Well Jack, > it was anyone's guess before I put forward a map from 1561.... > guess you missed that Girolamo Ruscelli had {filter}ia on correct place and > his map is from 1561..... > http://www..com/ ~maps/exhibit2/05.jpg Wrong date. Read David B's post. That map is from 1598, published after Ruscelli's death.. If you look at http://www..com/ and scroll down to the map designated 1561:01c, you'll see a list of the things that were added for the 1598 edition of the atlas. These new features include the name {filter}ia. The original map from 1561 does not show {filter}ia: http://www.**.com/ Problem solved. Alan
Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:07:05 GMT

Tom McDonal #8 / 38	Who named state Virginia? Quote: > ps.com... >>>>>> The 'consensus' however disputed by some have been that {filter}ia in >>>> today's >>>>>> US got it's name from Elizabeth I who was known as the {filter} queen. >>>> Well >>>>>> that to have been disputed, but the official information seem pretty >>>> well to >>>>>> correspond with the {filter}ia - Wikipedia page on net.... >>>>>> http://www.**.com/ {filter}ia >>>>>> That could have been that, if it hadn't been for early maps, such as >>>>>> Girolamo Ruscelli's from 1561..... >>>>>> http://www.*.com/ ~maps/exhibit2/05.jpg >>>>>> a bit earlier than the 'consensus' for {filter}ia, or what do you say? >>>>> Not really. Elizabeth I became Queen in 1558. Thanks to Cabot, that > part >>>>> of America was in British hands from 1497. >>>> While the former is correct, the later isn't. Apart from which, it > wasn't >>>> until November 1558 Elizabeth became queen. >>>> The first English colony in the New World was the Roanoke colony goes > back >>>> to 1580's without a colony no one could claim that any part was in for >>>> example British hands.... (more about the colony: >>>> http://www..com/ ) >>>> Apart from which Cabot reached the Caribian but there were the > Spaniards... >>>> While it's true that he sailed from Bristol in May 1497, there > definitely >>>> isn't any consensus which part of America he visited before he > returned 6th >>>> August. http://www..com/ >>>> Even if it had been a consensus, there aren't any proven factors to > indicate >>>> that Viriginia could have been claimed by the Brits before after 1561 > and >>>> definitely not by Cabot. So Cabot and British claims before 1561 > wouldn't >>>> have made Ruscelli write '{filter}ia' on correct place on map. >>> Several attempts were made to colonise {filter}ia in the 16th century but >>> not much was done until Sir Walter Raleigh got a trading company >>> together in 1584. Nonetheless, England had claimed {filter}ia as her >>> territory for the previous hundred years or so. I read somewhere that >>> Bermuda, which had long been an English territory, was previously called >>> {filter}eola. >> A group of colonists on their way to {filter}ia were shipwrecked there >> in 1609. This incident was known to Shakespeare when he wrote The >> Tempest. Long called Somers Islands, the Bermudas were first governed >> by chartered companies but were acquired by the crown in 1684. The >> islands were dependency of {filter}ia, and James I (of England) decided >> to change the name from {filter}eola (Little {filter}ia) to The Somers >> Islands. >> Queen Elizabeth of England is credited with either naming it for >> herself or accepting Sir Walter Raleigh's doing so in 1584. What it >> was called before that is anyone's guess. >> http://www.*.com/ > Well Jack, > it was anyone's guess before I put forward a map from 1561.... > guess you missed that Girolamo Ruscelli had {filter}ia on correct place and > his map is from 1561..... > http://www.*.com/ ~maps/exhibit2/05.jpg > to my knowledge 1561 name {filter}ia can't refer to the 'consensus' that you > refer to from 1584..... so my question still stands unanswered. At the web site David pointed out, you will see that there are three versions of that map. The first, base, map is 1561. However, it is the third map, dated 1598, that bears the name '{filter}ia': "1561:01c [1561] - [1598]: RUSCELLI, Girolamo state 3 TIERRA NVEVA< [2a, ob - 4a, ob] From: Claudius Ptolemy [Giuseppe Rosaccio ed.] Geografia Di Clavdio Tolomeo Alessandrino ...', Venice, 1598 State 3: the plate has again been reworked, with many additions, including the following place names: '{filter}IA', 'AVAGAL', 'INDIA NOVA' 'NOVA FRANCIA' 'Porto de St. Helena' 'TERRA CORTE REAL'. Some ships, a sea monster, mountains and islands have also been added. Burden: North America, 30: state 3." http://www.**.com/ 1598 is after 1584, as you may have divined. So your question no longer stands unanswered. Unless you have information that the specific map in question is not from after 1584. You'd show us, right?
Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:52:41 GMT

johansso #9 / 38	Who named state Virginia? Quote: > > ps.com... > >>>>>> The 'consensus' however disputed by some have been that {filter}ia in > >>>> today's > >>>>>> US got it's name from Elizabeth I who was known as the {filter} queen. > >>>> Well > >>>>>> that to have been disputed, but the official information seem pretty > >>>> well to > >>>>>> correspond with the {filter}ia - Wikipedia page on net.... > >>>>>> http://www.**.com/ {filter}ia > >>>>>> That could have been that, if it hadn't been for early maps, such as > >>>>>> Girolamo Ruscelli's from 1561..... > >>>>>> http://www.*.com/ ~maps/exhibit2/05.jpg > >>>>>> a bit earlier than the 'consensus' for {filter}ia, or what do you say? > >>>>> Not really. Elizabeth I became Queen in 1558. Thanks to Cabot, that > > part > >>>>> of America was in British hands from 1497. > >>>> While the former is correct, the later isn't. Apart from which, it > > wasn't > >>>> until November 1558 Elizabeth became queen. > >>>> The first English colony in the New World was the Roanoke colony goes > > back > >>>> to 1580's without a colony no one could claim that any part was in for > >>>> example British hands.... (more about the colony: > >>>> http://www..com/ ) > >>>> Apart from which Cabot reached the Caribian but there were the > > Spaniards... > >>>> While it's true that he sailed from Bristol in May 1497, there > > definitely > >>>> isn't any consensus which part of America he visited before he > > returned 6th > >>>> August. http://www..com/ > >>>> Even if it had been a consensus, there aren't any proven factors to > > indicate > >>>> that Viriginia could have been claimed by the Brits before after 1561 > > and > >>>> definitely not by Cabot. So Cabot and British claims before 1561 > > wouldn't > >>>> have made Ruscelli write '{filter}ia' on correct place on map. > >>> Several attempts were made to colonise {filter}ia in the 16th century but > >>> not much was done until Sir Walter Raleigh got a trading company > >>> together in 1584. Nonetheless, England had claimed {filter}ia as her > >>> territory for the previous hundred years or so. I read somewhere that > >>> Bermuda, which had long been an English territory, was previously called > >>> {filter}eola. > >> A group of colonists on their way to {filter}ia were shipwrecked there > >> in 1609. This incident was known to Shakespeare when he wrote The > >> Tempest. Long called Somers Islands, the Bermudas were first governed > >> by chartered companies but were acquired by the crown in 1684. The > >> islands were dependency of {filter}ia, and James I (of England) decided > >> to change the name from {filter}eola (Little {filter}ia) to The Somers > >> Islands. > >> Queen Elizabeth of England is credited with either naming it for > >> herself or accepting Sir Walter Raleigh's doing so in 1584. What it > >> was called before that is anyone's guess. > >> http://www.*.com/ > > Well Jack, > > it was anyone's guess before I put forward a map from 1561.... > > guess you missed that Girolamo Ruscelli had {filter}ia on correct place and > > his map is from 1561..... > > http://www.*.com/ ~maps/exhibit2/05.jpg > > to my knowledge 1561 name {filter}ia can't refer to the 'consensus' that you > > refer to from 1584..... so my question still stands unanswered. > At the web site David pointed out, you will see that there are > three versions of that map. The first, base, map is 1561. > However, it is the third map, dated 1598, that bears the name > '{filter}ia': The first map is what we who have had the pleasure of working with map-drawing calls a concept-map. There are three maps in between the one that David unfortunatly for him believes to be the first edited one. Not correct, neither the information he provide that that one was the first one with {filter}ia on. He could easily have found the third in between edited 1590 and that wasn't the earliest one with '{filter}ia' on but has on the other hand a very interesting information for the name before. Reason why I didn't answer David or Alan on this one is that the Italian local library which had (still have?) images of the first two edited versions seems to be down for the moment. It's early morning, was late night when I read their articles, and I haven't had time nor possibility to get hold of my usual contact for Italian url:s. I am not even sure I can get hold of her today. The confuse here in groups when it comes to maps are the one which been here so many times. That must be due to the fact that hardly anyone of you are familiar working with Medieval maps, nor with map-making at all. Concept maps aren't the same as origins. They usually comes together with a long list of what we could call check-points, a list of positions with or without 'names' but with other information given if no names are present. It's also a hugh problem to explain for you, or for anyone else for that matter, the confusion that's caused by many of the sites on net who sell or inform of the maps. That's simply not the third 'state' it's a rewriting of an earlier edited map. So in that sense it could be called third version and by some uneducated or not used to work with maps third 'state' but it's not what it seems to be. And that has no bearing for the name {filter}ia either. The location of English to {filter}ia wasn't done in 1598, nor was the voyage which Renia refered to in any way proven to have visited {filter}ia area, that's neither a consensus for that nor a true history. The first settlers sent in 1606 to establish '{filter*}ia' was sent to the Chesapeake Bay area. Same area which Elizabeth I, could read that Swedes had settled on the map she had from Erik XIV of Sweden when their marriage negotiations started again after her so called 'Dear John' letter. There were Swedes living in that area documented as I told you by the first Brittish Governor to have lived there before the Dutch and the English arrived. More to follow. I will be off net for some hours. Inger E
Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:08:39 GMT

Alan Crozie #10 / 38	Who named state Virginia? Quote: grou Quote: > > > ps.com... > > >>>>>> The 'consensus' however disputed by some have been that {filter}ia in > > >>>> today's > > >>>>>> US got it's name from Elizabeth I who was known as the {filter} > queen. > > >>>> Well > > >>>>>> that to have been disputed, but the official information seem > pretty > > >>>> well to > > >>>>>> correspond with the {filter}ia - Wikipedia page on net.... > > >>>>>> http://www.**.com/ {filter}ia > > >>>>>> That could have been that, if it hadn't been for early maps, such > as > > >>>>>> Girolamo Ruscelli's from 1561..... > > >>>>>> http://www.*.com/ ~maps/exhibit2/05.jpg > > >>>>>> a bit earlier than the 'consensus' for {filter}ia, or what do you > say? > > >>>>> Not really. Elizabeth I became Queen in 1558. Thanks to Cabot, that > > > part > > >>>>> of America was in British hands from 1497. > > >>>> While the former is correct, the later isn't. Apart from which, it > > > wasn't > > >>>> until November 1558 Elizabeth became queen. > > >>>> The first English colony in the New World was the Roanoke colony goes > > > back > > >>>> to 1580's without a colony no one could claim that any part was in > for > > >>>> example British hands.... (more about the colony: > > >>>> http://www..com/ ) > > >>>> Apart from which Cabot reached the Caribian but there were the > > > Spaniards... > > >>>> While it's true that he sailed from Bristol in May 1497, there > > > definitely > > >>>> isn't any consensus which part of America he visited before he > > > returned 6th > > >>>> August. http://www..com/ > > >>>> Even if it had been a consensus, there aren't any proven factors to > > > indicate > > >>>> that Viriginia could have been claimed by the Brits before after 1561 > > > and > > >>>> definitely not by Cabot. So Cabot and British claims before 1561 > > > wouldn't > > >>>> have made Ruscelli write '{filter}ia' on correct place on map. > > >>> Several attempts were made to colonise {filter}ia in the 16th century > but > > >>> not much was done until Sir Walter Raleigh got a trading company > > >>> together in 1584. Nonetheless, England had claimed {filter}ia as her > > >>> territory for the previous hundred years or so. I read somewhere that > > >>> Bermuda, which had long been an English territory, was previously > called > > >>> {filter}eola. > > >> A group of colonists on their way to {filter}ia were shipwrecked there > > >> in 1609. This incident was known to Shakespeare when he wrote The > > >> Tempest. Long called Somers Islands, the Bermudas were first governed > > >> by chartered companies but were acquired by the crown in 1684. The > > >> islands were dependency of {filter}ia, and James I (of England) decided > > >> to change the name from {filter}eola (Little {filter}ia) to The Somers > > >> Islands. > > >> Queen Elizabeth of England is credited with either naming it for > > >> herself or accepting Sir Walter Raleigh's doing so in 1584. What it > > >> was called before that is anyone's guess. > > >> http://www.*.com/ > > > Well Jack, > > > it was anyone's guess before I put forward a map from 1561.... > > > guess you missed that Girolamo Ruscelli had {filter}ia on correct place > and > > > his map is from 1561..... > > > http://www.*.com/ ~maps/exhibit2/05.jpg > > > to my knowledge 1561 name {filter}ia can't refer to the 'consensus' that > you > > > refer to from 1584..... so my question still stands unanswered. > > At the web site David pointed out, you will see that there are > > three versions of that map. The first, base, map is 1561. > > However, it is the third map, dated 1598, that bears the name > > '{filter}ia': > The first map is what we who have had the pleasure of working with > map-drawing calls a concept-map. There are three maps in between the one > that David unfortunatly for him believes to be the first edited one. Not > correct, neither the information he provide that that one was the first one > with {filter}ia on. He could easily have found the third in between edited > 1590 and that wasn't the earliest one with '{filter}ia' on but has on the > other hand a very interesting information for the name before. Reason why I > didn't answer David or Alan on this one is that the Italian local library > which had (still have?) images of the first two edited versions seems to be > down for the moment. It's early morning, was late night when I read their > articles, and I haven't had time nor possibility to get hold of my usual > contact for Italian url:s. > I am not even sure I can get hold of her today. > The confuse here in groups when it comes to maps are the one which been here > so many times. That must be due to the fact that hardly anyone of you are > familiar working with Medieval maps, nor with map-making at all. Concept > maps aren't the same as origins. They usually comes together with a long > list of what we could call check-points, a list of positions with or without > 'names' but with other information given if no names are present. > It's also a hugh problem to explain for you, or for anyone else for that > matter, the confusion that's caused by many of the sites on net who sell or > inform of the maps. That's simply not the third 'state' it's a rewriting of > an earlier edited map. So in that sense it could be called third version and > by some uneducated or not used to work with maps third 'state' but it's not > what it seems to be. And that has no bearing for the name {filter}ia either. > The location of English to {filter}ia wasn't done in 1598, nor was the voyage > which Renia refered to in any way proven to have visited {filter}ia area, > that's neither a consensus for that nor a true history. The first settlers > sent in 1606 to establish '{filter}ia' was sent to the Chesapeake Bay area. > Same area which Elizabeth I, could read that Swedes had settled on the map > she had from Erik XIV of Sweden when their marriage negotiations started > again after her so called 'Dear John' letter. There were Swedes living in > that area documented as I told you by the first Brittish Governor to have > lived there before the Dutch and the English arrived. > More to follow. I will be off net for some hours. It's not such a hugh problem. Here's a simple chronology for you to follow. 1561 Girolamo Ruscelli publishes his atlas, which includes a map of North America where {filter}ia is not marked. Here is that map http://www.*.com/ +Southeast+0562> If you want to see it for yourself you can go to the Royal Library in Stockholm and order it. Type in the title: La geografia di Claudio Tolomeo Alessandrino 1564 Ruscelli publishes a second edition. {filter}ia is still not shown on the map of North America. 1566 Ruscelli dies. 1574 A new edition of Ruscelli's atlas, revised by Giovanni Malombra, is published. The map of North America still does not mark {filter}ia: http://www.*.com/ +Southeast+3139 1585 Sir Walter Raleigh gives the name {filter}ia to a colony in North America, in honour of the {filter} Queen, Elizabeth. 1598 A new edition of Ruscelli's atlas is published, revised by Gioseppe Rosaccio. The map of North America now marks the newly founded colony of {filter}ia: http://www..com/ +Southeast+0672 2007 Inger finds the 1598 map online and mistakenly assumes that it was drawn in 1561. David B shows her the real 1561 map. Inger insists that she is right and everyone else is wrong. The Nordenski?ld collection of Ptolemy maps in Helsinki has all these editions of Ruscelli if you want to see them for yourself: http://www..com/ You will see that no map shows {filter*}ia before it was named in 1585. How could it? Alan
Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:45:18 GMT

David #11 / 38	Who named state Virginia? Quote: > The first map is what we who have had the pleasure of working with > map-drawing calls a concept-map. There are three maps in between the one > that David unfortunatly for him believes to be the first edited one. Not > correct, neither the information he provide that that one was the first one > with {filter}ia on. He could easily have found the third in between edited > 1590 and that wasn't the earliest one with '{filter}ia' on but has on the > other hand a very interesting information for the name before. Reason why I > didn't answer David or Alan on this one is that the Italian local library > which had (still have?) images of the first two edited versions seems to be > down for the moment. It's early morning, was late night when I read their > articles, and I haven't had time nor possibility to get hold of my usual > contact for Italian url:s. > I am not even sure I can get hold of her today. > The confuse here in groups when it comes to maps are the one which been here > so many times. That must be due to the fact that hardly anyone of you are > familiar working with Medieval maps, nor with map-making at all. Concept > maps aren't the same as origins. They usually comes together with a long > list of what we could call check-points, a list of positions with or without > 'names' but with other information given if no names are present. > It's also a hugh problem to explain for you, or for anyone else for that > matter, the confusion that's caused by many of the sites on net who sell or > inform of the maps. That's simply not the third 'state' it's a rewriting of > an earlier edited map. So in that sense it could be called third version and > by some uneducated or not used to work with maps third 'state' but it's not > what it seems to be. And that has no bearing for the name {filter}ia either. > The location of English to {filter}ia wasn't done in 1598, nor was the voyage > which Renia refered to in any way proven to have visited {filter}ia area, > that's neither a consensus for that nor a true history. The first settlers > sent in 1606 to establish '{filter}ia' was sent to the Chesapeake Bay area. > Same area which Elizabeth I, could read that Swedes had settled on the map > she had from Erik XIV of Sweden when their marriage negotiations started > again after her so called 'Dear John' letter. There were Swedes living in > that area documented as I told you by the first Brittish Governor to have > lived there before the Dutch and the English arrived. > More to follow. I will be off net for some hours. Don't forget to let us know the ISBN. David B. PS The 1590 reference is likely to be De Bry's version of Roanoake colony governor John White's map: http://www.***.com/ (sorry the image is a bit crude, but the notes are useful)
Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:50:51 GMT

a.spencer #12 / 38	Who named state Virginia? Quote: > >>>The 'consensus' however disputed by some have been that {filter}ia in > > today's > >>>US got it's name from Elizabeth I who was known as the {filter} queen. > > Well > >>>that to have been disputed, but the official information seem pretty > > well to > >>>correspond with the {filter}ia - Wikipedia page on net.... > >>> http://www.**.com/ {filter}ia > >>>That could have been that, if it hadn't been for early maps, such as > >>>Girolamo Ruscelli's from 1561..... > >>> http://www.*.com/ ~maps/exhibit2/05.jpg > >>>a bit earlier than the 'consensus' for {filter}ia, or what do you say? > >>Not really. Elizabeth I became Queen in 1558. Thanks to Cabot, that part > >>of America was in British hands from 1497. > > While the former is correct, the later isn't. Apart from which, it wasn't > > until November 1558 Elizabeth became queen. > > The first English colony in the New World was the Roanoke colony goes back > > to 1580's without a colony no one could claim that any part was in for > > example British hands.... (more about the colony: > > http://www..com/ ) > > Apart from which Cabot reached the Caribian but there were the Spaniards... > > While it's true that he sailed from Bristol in May 1497, there definitely > > isn't any consensus which part of America he visited before he returned 6th > > August. http://www..com/ > > Even if it had been a consensus, there aren't any proven factors to indicate > > that Viriginia could have been claimed by the Brits before after 1561 and > > definitely not by Cabot. So Cabot and British claims before 1561 wouldn't > > have made Ruscelli write '{filter}ia' on correct place on map. > Several attempts were made to colonise {filter}ia in the 16th century but > not much was done until Sir Walter Raleigh got a trading company > together in 1584. Nonetheless, England had claimed {filter}ia as her > territory for the previous hundred years or so. I read somewhere that > Bermuda, which had long been an English territory, was previously called > {filter}eola. I think Bermuda was actually included within {filter*}ia whenever. And an infinite border to the west, if I remember rightly! Surreyman
Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:08:20 GMT

a.spencer #13 / 38	Who named state Virginia? Quote: Quote: > > > ps.com... > > >>>>>> The 'consensus' however disputed by some have been that {filter}ia in > > >>>> today's > > >>>>>> US got it's name from Elizabeth I who was known as the {filter} > queen. > > >>>> Well > > >>>>>> that to have been disputed, but the official information seem > pretty > > >>>> well to > > >>>>>> correspond with the {filter}ia - Wikipedia page on net.... > > >>>>>> http://www.**.com/ {filter}ia > > >>>>>> That could have been that, if it hadn't been for early maps, such > as > > >>>>>> Girolamo Ruscelli's from 1561..... > > >>>>>> http://www.*.com/ ~maps/exhibit2/05.jpg > > >>>>>> a bit earlier than the 'consensus' for {filter}ia, or what do you > say? > > >>>>> Not really. Elizabeth I became Queen in 1558. Thanks to Cabot, that > > > part > > >>>>> of America was in British hands from 1497. > > >>>> While the former is correct, the later isn't. Apart from which, it > > > wasn't > > >>>> until November 1558 Elizabeth became queen. > > >>>> The first English colony in the New World was the Roanoke colony goes > > > back > > >>>> to 1580's without a colony no one could claim that any part was in > for > > >>>> example British hands.... (more about the colony: > > >>>> http://www..com/ ) > > >>>> Apart from which Cabot reached the Caribian but there were the > > > Spaniards... > > >>>> While it's true that he sailed from Bristol in May 1497, there > > > definitely > > >>>> isn't any consensus which part of America he visited before he > > > returned 6th > > >>>> August. http://www..com/ > > >>>> Even if it had been a consensus, there aren't any proven factors to > > > indicate > > >>>> that Viriginia could have been claimed by the Brits before after 1561 > > > and > > >>>> definitely not by Cabot. So Cabot and British claims before 1561 > > > wouldn't > > >>>> have made Ruscelli write '{filter}ia' on correct place on map. > > >>> Several attempts were made to colonise {filter}ia in the 16th century > but > > >>> not much was done until Sir Walter Raleigh got a trading company > > >>> together in 1584. Nonetheless, England had claimed {filter}ia as her > > >>> territory for the previous hundred years or so. I read somewhere that > > >>> Bermuda, which had long been an English territory, was previously > called > > >>> {filter}eola. > > >> A group of colonists on their way to {filter}ia were shipwrecked there > > >> in 1609. This incident was known to Shakespeare when he wrote The > > >> Tempest. Long called Somers Islands, the Bermudas were first governed > > >> by chartered companies but were acquired by the crown in 1684. The > > >> islands were dependency of {filter}ia, and James I (of England) decided > > >> to change the name from {filter}eola (Little {filter}ia) to The Somers > > >> Islands. > > >> Queen Elizabeth of England is credited with either naming it for > > >> herself or accepting Sir Walter Raleigh's doing so in 1584. What it > > >> was called before that is anyone's guess. > > >> http://www.*.com/ > > > Well Jack, > > > it was anyone's guess before I put forward a map from 1561.... > > > guess you missed that Girolamo Ruscelli had {filter}ia on correct place > and > > > his map is from 1561..... > > > http://www.*.com/ ~maps/exhibit2/05.jpg > > > to my knowledge 1561 name {filter}ia can't refer to the 'consensus' that > you > > > refer to from 1584..... so my question still stands unanswered. > > At the web site David pointed out, you will see that there are > > three versions of that map. The first, base, map is 1561. > > However, it is the third map, dated 1598, that bears the name > > '{filter}ia': > The first map is what we who have had the pleasure of working with > map-drawing calls a concept-map. There are three maps in between the one > that David unfortunatly for him believes to be the first edited one. Not > correct, neither the information he provide that that one was the first one > with {filter}ia on. He could easily have found the third in between edited > 1590 and that wasn't the earliest one with '{filter}ia' on but has on the > other hand a very interesting information for the name before. Reason why I > didn't answer David or Alan on this one is that the Italian local library > which had (still have?) images of the first two edited versions seems to be > down for the moment. It's early morning, was late night when I read their > articles, and I haven't had time nor possibility to get hold of my usual > contact for Italian url:s. > I am not even sure I can get hold of her today. > The confuse here in groups when it comes to maps are the one which been here > so many times. That must be due to the fact that hardly anyone of you are > familiar working with Medieval maps, nor with map-making at all. Concept > maps aren't the same as origins. They usually comes together with a long > list of what we could call check-points, a list of positions with or without > 'names' but with other information given if no names are present. > It's also a hugh problem to explain for you, or for anyone else for that > matter, the confusion that's caused by many of the sites on net who sell or > inform of the maps. That's simply not the third 'state' it's a rewriting of > an earlier edited map. So in that sense it could be called third version and > by some uneducated or not used to work with maps third 'state' but it's not > what it seems to be. And that has no bearing for the name {filter}ia either. > The location of English to {filter}ia wasn't done in 1598, nor was the voyage > which Renia refered to in any way proven to have visited {filter}ia area, > that's neither a consensus for that nor a true history. The first settlers > sent in 1606 to establish '{filter*}ia' was sent to the Chesapeake Bay area. > Same area which Elizabeth I, could read that Swedes had settled on the map > she had from Erik XIV of Sweden when their marriage negotiations started > again after her so called 'Dear John' letter. There were Swedes living in > that area documented as I told you by the first Brittish Governor to have > lived there before the Dutch and the English arrived. > More to follow. I will be off net for some hours. > Inger E You're confused so you assume we're confused? Surreyman
Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:18:52 GMT

a.spencer #14 / 38	Who named state Virginia? Quote: > > >>>The 'consensus' however disputed by some have been that {filter}ia in > > > today's > > >>>US got it's name from Elizabeth I who was known as the {filter} queen. > > > Well > > >>>that to have been disputed, but the official information seem pretty > > > well to > > >>>correspond with the {filter}ia - Wikipedia page on net.... > > >>> http://www.**.com/ {filter}ia > > >>>That could have been that, if it hadn't been for early maps, such as > > >>>Girolamo Ruscelli's from 1561..... > > >>> http://www.*.com/ ~maps/exhibit2/05.jpg > > >>>a bit earlier than the 'consensus' for {filter}ia, or what do you say? > > >>Not really. Elizabeth I became Queen in 1558. Thanks to Cabot, that part > > >>of America was in British hands from 1497. > > > While the former is correct, the later isn't. Apart from which, it wasn't > > > until November 1558 Elizabeth became queen. > > > The first English colony in the New World was the Roanoke colony goes back > > > to 1580's without a colony no one could claim that any part was in for > > > example British hands.... (more about the colony: > > > http://www..com/ ) > > > Apart from which Cabot reached the Caribian but there were the Spaniards... > > > While it's true that he sailed from Bristol in May 1497, there definitely > > > isn't any consensus which part of America he visited before he returned 6th > > > August. http://www..com/ > > > Even if it had been a consensus, there aren't any proven factors to indicate > > > that Viriginia could have been claimed by the Brits before after 1561 and > > > definitely not by Cabot. So Cabot and British claims before 1561 wouldn't > > > have made Ruscelli write '{filter}ia' on correct place on map. > > Several attempts were made to colonise {filter}ia in the 16th century but > > not much was done until Sir Walter Raleigh got a trading company > > together in 1584. Nonetheless, England had claimed {filter}ia as her > > territory for the previous hundred years or so. I read somewhere that > > Bermuda, which had long been an English territory, was previously called > > {filter}eola. > A group of colonists on their way to {filter}ia were shipwrecked there > in 1609. This incident was known to Shakespeare when he wrote The > Tempest. Long called Somers Islands, the Bermudas were first governed > by chartered companies but were acquired by the crown in 1684. The > islands were dependency of {filter}ia, and James I (of England) decided > to change the name from {filter}eola (Little {filter}ia) to The Somers > Islands. > Queen Elizabeth of England is credited with either naming it for > herself or accepting Sir Walter Raleigh's doing so in 1584. What it > was called before that is anyone's guess. > http://www.*.com/ My references suggest that Amadas & Barlow initially named Roanoke Island '{filter}ia' on their first scouting arrival. '{filter}ia' then was initially applied loosely to virtually all the 'new' area from the now New York area south. Bermuda was originally called 'Bermuda' from 1503, after the discoverer Bermudez. The shipwrecked 1609 Somers expedition only stayed temporarily to repair ships, then continued to {filter}ia. Bermuda was included within the overall {filter*}ia, with settlers going from there to the islands in 1612. I get the impression that the 'Somers Islands' name was briefly used, and maybe unofficial. Certainly, the 'Bermuda Company' settlers were named as such from 1616. Surreyman
Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:36:26 GMT

Page 1 of 3

[ 38 post ]

Go to page: [1] [2] [3]