The Land of Ophir and the Ancients Ones....

[lamar]

Dear SWR,
It's my pleasure to be able assist people in their search for historical facts.
Your friend,
LAMAR

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oroblanco]

HOLA amigos,
Old Dog wrote

That creek has a really high concentration of arsenic and cyanide, (my way of telling the location)

OK amigo I know exactly where you are talking about - went there myself last summer, it is a very promising area. It is a real GEM of a prospecting area!

Concerning silver placers, I do not wish to name the exact place but there is a silver placer in Arizona, well north of Tucson, which is just like any gold placer except for being a silver deposit instead of gold. It is not well known and we plan on going back there in the future or I would name it, but if you do a bit of research you can find out about it.

Lamar wrote

Effigies were not permitted on the tombs of the Templars as they were considered to be pretenious and vainglorious, both of which are sins directly linked to pride.

Hmm well effigies on tombs of Templars may not have been permitted, BUT then how do we explain the Templar tombs with rather elaborate effigies? (Example)

This does not prove the Mexican tomb to be Templar, of course, just curious, and thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

Dear oroblanco;
May I enquire as to who resides in the tomb which you posted the photo of?
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

Dear SWR;
I am fairly certain that our very highly esteemed colleague, Oroblanco, was *throwing the dogs a bone*, that is, giving everyone something to collectively gnaw upon, my friend. The photo which he posted above is most assuredly not one of a deceased Templar knight and it most assuredly is NOT located in Mexico and I also am fairly sure that he knows this as well as I do.

The tomb in the photo which my friend Oroblanco posted can in fact be found in St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle in the Rutland Chapel area and is most commonly known as the Ros tomb. Inside of the tomb there lies Sir George Manners, 12th Lord(or Baron) Ros and his wife Anne. He passed away in 1513 A.D. AVM. and the chapel in which the tomb resides is generally not opened to public exhibits or viewing.

I've taken the liberty of posting another photo of the same tomb effigy, taken from a different angle which shows the facial features and countances of Sir George and Lady Anne in final repose. To sum up, the tomb in the above photos is in no way connected to the Templar legacy as Sir George passed away in 1513 A.D., a full 199 years after the dissolution of the Templar Order. Also, Sir George was an Anglican and the Templars pretty much restricted their membership to a *Roman Catholics only* sort of club, therefore I hold serious reservations that Sir George was offered an open invitation for membership.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

HOLA amigos,
Lamar wrote

Dear oroblanco;
May I enquire as to who resides in the tomb which you posted the photo of?

The photo is posted online and labeled as a "Templar tomb" but could be erroneous. It is definitely NOT located in Mexico. Here is an image of other Templar tombs also posted online, among quite a few, unless you are now saying that all such tombs which clearly have effigies are NOT Templars?
http://image40.webshots.com/40/4/76/25/362947625PZKREP_fs.jpg (It won't post directly, sorry)

another photo of a pair of Templar tombs, with effigies

<located at http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x46/Bainad/Urbex/Elgin Cathedral/Tombs.jpg>

So I repeat my question, if Templars were not allowed to have effigy tombs, why do we find such tombs?

On another issue, if the theory of Templars going to America is to hold water, then we ought to have at least one named Templar to have done it, right? We can't say Henry Sinclair, since he was born well after the Templars had been disbanded. Which Templar made the trip? Thank you in advance,

Oroblanco

 

[rangler]

Oro Roy
Of course the Templars used effigies
Lots of Templar effigies...

​

​

​

As far as a name is concerned , I dont think we can find one in the present
condition of the search, seeing that we are limited to online searching..
I think the forenic evidence, ie the effigy of the Templar drawing in the book
regarding Mexico is so far the earliest and best, dont forget the Sir Gunn the
Westford Knight quoted earlier - who accomplied Sinclair to the New World,
disbanded is not discredited sir!
I thank you in advance for your reply
rangler

​

A new photo of Sir Gunn the Westford Knight!

 

[lamar]

Dear Oroblanco;
First and foremost, allow me to apologize for my faux pas. It seemed to me that you were stating that the tomb which you posted a photograph of was located in Mexico.

Next, how can you or anyone state that any of the tombs in the above posted photographs are those of Templar Knights, my friend? To my eye, the effigies depict nothing more than male Europeans wearing chain mail and some with swords and others with shields. This was quite typical of the era and none of the photos thus far posted give even the slightest inkling that the inhabitant within was a Templar knight.

It is of my humble opinion that no photograph or other such rendering of a Templar tomb has thus far been posted on this topic, in light of several points. In several photos we can plainly see a typical long*kite* style shield. As a point of fact, this style of shield was not nearly as popular in the Holy Land with Crusaders as was the smaller *heater* style shield. The Crusaders preferred the heater to the full kite shield because the heater was much more practical, weighed less and it was much more manuverable when a knight needed to fight afoot, whereas the longer kite shield was meant to be utilized solely when mounted. The heater could also be easily adapted to mounted warfare, therefore it was naturally the practical choice of practically all Crusaders and almost certainly all of the religious military orders of the day.

Also, during the existence of the Templars, the kite shield was rounded at the top and it was only during the latter part of the Middle Ages that the top of the kite kite shield lost it's curvature and became flattened as is prominently shown in the photos. To expound upon this point of fact, the famed Bayeux Tapestry plainly and clearly depicts the round topped kite shield wielded by Norman invaders during the invasion of England in 1066.

Next, the poverty of the Templars was very well known. To leand credence to this notion, I now refer you to their full and complete title, which is: Pauperes Commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici, or the POOR Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon. They prided themselves on their poverty and even their seal depicts two knights astride a single horse, with the legend being that the knights were so poor that they could only afford one horse between them.

Please note that all Templars were monks, the same as Franciscians or Dominicans, and as such they also took the three sacred vows, that being the vow of poverty, chastity and obedience. In order for one to have had an effigy carved, that person would have needed a sizable sum of cash and influence and in order to have this, that person would have needed to have been of the landed gentry class, ie, nobility.

And so, if there were no effigies found on Templar tombs, why then are there effigies on tombs depicting Templars? There is a very simple answer to this question, my friend. First, the knight in question may have professed himself to the Templar Order for a fixed period of time, say for three years. This would have then given that knight the privledge of having his exploits and achievements depiected on his effigy, including those exploits achieved during his time of service as a Templar.

Next, the depiction may also show that the knight in question was a supporter of the Templar Order and at one time gave alms, or property or other form of aid to the Order. Charitable acts such as these would also have been prominently depicted on the knight's effigy.

Next, someone may have been lying when either the effigy was comissioned or was being manufactured. It's no secret that European nobility generally exaggerated their claims to fame to the point of absurdity and this feature was often times carried over into their crypts. I've seen firsthand, several tombs which depicted the knight slaying dragons, mermaids and one effigy depicted the knight in combat with several gargoyles or demons. It was plainly an algoric representation and it was not meant to be taken literally.

One cannot look at a tomb of a medieval knight and state that the person housed within was a Templar, my friend. Templar knights were monks and as such they had a strict habit which they wore at all times when they were not engaged in combat. The scenario of bands of Templar knights wandering about in full chain mail is a figment of fertile modern imaginations and it is simply was not so.

To sum up, I would like to state that I feel the tombs in the above posted photos are those of European nobility who had expired during the very late Middle Ages or very early in the Renaissence period and not at any time during the existence of the Templar Order.
Your friend;
LAMAR
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Smithbrown]

One of the reasons for the confusion over the identity of medieval effigies in Europe is the tendency for them to be called crusaders or templars. Here are two easy rules:

1. If there are two of them- a couple- they are not templars (they don't marry).
2. If they are wearing plate armour- they are not templars (introduced too late at the end of the 14th century).

Oroblanco-
your effigies are all too late to be Templars; the effigies at Elgin Cathedral are of local gentry; you can read about them here:
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/PSAS_2002/pdf/vol_029/29_329_410.pdf

Rangler-
At least some, if not all, of your effigies do date from the right period- they have mail coats- and do come from Temple Church in London, but that does not mean they are Templars. Where they have been identified, they have been found to be Patrons and Supporters of the Order, rather than rank and file members.

You can see the named effigies here:
http://www.crusader.org.uk/templechurch/effigies/index.html

I assume no one has been able to find out the present whereabouts of the Mexican sculpture? It would have been good to see a photograph; I know from my own experiences that drawings and engravings are not always reliable guides.

Smithbrown

 

[lamar]

Dear Smithbrown;
Thank you for explaining these facts to the group, my friend. There are a LOT of misconceptions pertaining to the Templars and the spreading of myths and legends does not to help separate the fact from fiction. It's refreshing to read of someone who is obviously very well grounded in the facts posting on this topic and I would like to ask you to continue posting your knowledgable views of the Templars. Once again, thank you for your response.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[desertmoons]

Smithbrown,

Panuco where the engraving was found has an interesting history. I cannot be sure as i have only a passing interest.....but based on one article I get the impression Cortes landed in the area (Veracruz) and that was the starting point of his conquering activities.

So it would not be out of the question that he or others traipsed by Panuco. And indeed if you look around a bit, you will find photos of the area with what many in this forum would consider to be Spanish markings and symbols.

That does not mean this engraving is Spanish and relatively modern . I've not found any examples or references of Colonial Spanish or Native Stone carvers being put to such work.


So it remains an enigma as to meaning and age. But it surely looks like an effigy to me and rather out of place and time. I suspect the attitude and placement of the figure's hands could be a clue as to its origins or meanings. Also the curved part at the top of the slab.

But i am no expert.
DM

 

[lamar]

Dear desertmoons;
At the outset, the book titled "Ramblings by land and sea" by Benjamin Moore Norman seems to be what it purports itself to be, that is, an illustrated journal of the author as he explores Mexico, however as we read further along, two oddities become apparent.

The first thing one notices is that no one else has ever described the same artifacts as Mr. Norman was able to describe, neither before nor after Mr. Norman's journeys. This clips a red flag onto the lanyard.

Next, none of the artifacts which are so richly described and illustrated in Mr. Norman's book have ever been located by any accredited researcher or historian. In other words, all of those marvellously wonderous works of native American art seem to have vanished into thin air, oddly enough. This hoists the red flag all of the way to the top of the pole, I'm afraid.

To sum it up succulently, I would take everything which was written and illustrated by Mr. Norman with a grain or two of the proverbial salt until such time as his claims can be verifiedindependently.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[desertmoons]

Lamar,

I must disagree. A perusal of guteneburg open source books , as one example will find intriguing photos of artifacts and occasional monumental sculptures found late 19th, early 20th century in mexico, central and south america, that seem to have disappeared...perhaps into private collectors hands.


It is not surprising to me that given we only have the internet and no scholarly types or local sources in Panuco to contribute to this thread that no trail can be found to the present day. It may be sitting in some local museum..perhaps one of the ones with the wheeled toys in it for all we know.

 

[lamar]

Dear desertmoons;
If you are referring to the Panuco, Mexico which is just about 20-30 miles inland of Tampico, I've been there. Many times, in fact. It used to be one of my favorite fishing spots along the coast when I was a kid. Unfortunately, I don't recall ever having heard of any effigies in the that area. If I would have then I most assuredly would have checked it out.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

HOLA amigos,

Lamar wrote

Next, how can you or anyone state that any of the tombs in the above posted photographs are those of Templar Knights, my friend?

I merely posted photos or links to photos which are on the internet and LABELED as Templar tombs, which I can neither verify nor disprove. It would be very odd indeed if so many effigy tombs (there are many online) which are being labeled Templar are indeed ALL not Templars.

Lamar also wrote

Next, the poverty of the Templars was very well known.

Yes they did swear an oath of INDIVIDUAL poverty, which did not hold for the Order itself nor the Church; their success in accumulating wealth as a group is well known. As you have pointed out, many of the Templars did not obey their oaths, leading to charges repression etc. Besides, there is no reason to believe that the dead Templar constructed the elaborate effigy(ies) rather this must have been done by friends/associates of the deceased, perhaps even wealthy Nobility whom were not even members of the Order.

Lamar also wrote

One cannot look at a tomb of a medieval knight and state that the person housed within was a Templar, my friend.

Likewise, one cannot look at a tomb of a medeival knight and state that the person housed within was NOT a Templar, my friend.

Smithbrown wrote

your effigies are all too late to be Templars;

As mentioned above, the photos and/or links are not my own, they are all photos posted on the internet and LABELED as Templars.

Good luck and good hunting amigos, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Oroblanco

 

[rangler]

Oro Roy
I think that it apparent that the Templar did use effigies, intended or not by themselves,
and as you say, they did not always adhere to the dictates of the One with the Big Hat.
'nuff said
rangler

 

[lamar]

Dear Oroblanco;
Would you happen to know of any CONFIRMED Templar tombs which have effigies attached to them or is everything supposition and hypothesis at this point, my friend? If you do in fact have any reliable information at your disposal, I implore you to share this so that I might further my own research into the history of the Templars.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Old Dog]

Here is another rat man that was hiding in an old group.
thought I would throw it out as it is in a different area than all the rest.

Thom

 

[Oroblanco]

HOLA amigos,
Lamar wrote

Dear Oroblanco;
Would you happen to know of any CONFIRMED Templar tombs which have effigies attached to them or is everything supposition and hypothesis at this point, my friend? If you do in fact have any reliable information at your disposal, I implore you to share this so that I might further my own research into the history of the Templars.

Confirmation? Here is an extract

The Templars were always buried in the habit of their order, and are represented in it on their tombs. This habit was a long white mantle, as before mentioned, with a red cross over the left breast; it had a short cape and a hood behind, and fell down to the feet unconfined by any girdle. In a long mantle of this description, with the cross of the order carved upon it, is represented the Knight Templar Brother Jean de Dreux, in the church of St. Yvod de Braine in France, with this inscription, in

p. 310

letters of gold, carved upon the monument--F. JEAN LI TEMPLIER FUIS AU COMTE JEAN DE DREUX. *



From The History of the Templars, chap X
onlinehttp://sacred-texts.com/sro/hkt/hkt14.htm
Supposition and hypothesis is the problem amigo, we are trying to winnow down to the facts.
your friend,
Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

Dear Oroblanco;
You wrote:
The Templars were always buried in the habit of their order, and are represented in it on their tombs.
This statement is not quite correct, my friend. Only PROFESSED members of the Order were OBLIGATED to be interred in the habit of their Order. This remained optional with non-professed members of the Order.

First, we must clear the air of a few misconceptions. Even in the society of academia, there seems to be no distinction between professed and non-professed religious laity, at least within the bounds of how it applies to the Roman Catholic Church. Also, there seems to be a lot of confusion in regards to what a layman and a cleric is.

A layperson is simply someone who has not recieved the proper theological instructions and therefore is a secular member of a religious Order. In very general terms, a person becomes a lay member of an Order after a period of postulancy, that is to say, they go through a waiting period. The customary waiting period is one year, although it is by no means carved into granite.

A cleric is someone who has recieved the proper theological instruction and is ordained by the Church. Of course, the Roman Catholic church only recognizes Her male members as clerics, therefore all nuns are considered to be laity, the term of which has always struck me as slightly ironic.

The Templars were strictly a Roman Catholic lay Order, as ordained and professed members of the Church are not permitted to take up arms, for any reason. The ordained clerics who were assumed to be Templars were in fact members of a different Society, or they were not attached to any specific Society and only wore the robes of the Templars as a honorary gesture. This was permissable and it was optional for the indivual cleric, unless their own Order prohibited the use and wear of another Order's habit.

A professed member was/is one who professes a lifetime vow of poverty, chastity and obediance and they remain as such throughout their lives. A non-professed member may also take the same vows, but for a set period of time, that usually being 3 years, or they may only take one or two of the vows. At the end of the spiritual *contract*, the person then has the option of professing their vows for life, if qualified to do so, to renew their vows for another set period of time, or to return to secular life.

Also, to sharpen the line even further between clerical staff and lay membership in the Roman Catholic church, there exists another class of member, known as the Diaconate. A Deacon is not a priest, yet because he has received advanced instruction, he has been ordained by the Church as member of clerical society with a limited role. During the Middle Ages, deacons were almost entirely comprised of Lay members, however the practice of having a diaconate society gradually fell into disuse, and within the last years prior to the Vatican II Council of 1967, deacons were comprised entirely of seminarians who were in their final year of instruction and who had yet to be ordained as priests. In modern times the role of the deacons has been revived and we may now find more deacons within the Catholic Church than ever before.

It is this distinction between priests and deacons that often becomes very blurred in regards to the Roman Catholic military Orders of the day and there have been many unintentional mistakes by scholars who have confused Templar deacons as being Templar priests. In short, the Templars had no ordained priests on their membership rolls but they did have a large proportion of deacons at their disposal. A deacon is an ordained member, yet is not a priest. One can consider a deacon to be sort of a mini-priest, with limited faculties at their disposal. The rules which apply to the priesthood do not apply to the diaconate and vice versa.

In the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic church recognized only two types of interrments, the first being interrment above ground, or below ground, in a tomb, or more precisely, a crypt, which most typically held one or more sarcophagai. This method was preferred by wealthy members of society and the surviving sarcophagai are often elaboratively and richly detailed. Being interred in a catacomb type of structure is also included in this method of interrment.

Being cremated was a Roman pagan ritual and as such it was abhorred by early Christians and by their preceeding Jewish ancestors, therefore, unless health concerns took precedence, being consumed by fire was never an option for Christians. This is why being burned at the stake was so popular, as it ensured that the heretic's soul could never enter the gates of Heaven.

Next, there is the practice of actual burial. This method is the one we most commonly see today, in which a person's mortal remains are placed in a wooden coffin, lowered into the earth, then covered with sod. This was the method most commonly employed by the impoverished classes during the Middle Ages.

From surviving documentation regarding the final interrment of Templars remains, we have at our disposal the very excellent Papal Bull, Omne Datum Optimum, which is often translated as "Every Perfect Gift", which is incorrect, as it actually means "All Beautiful Gifts" which can be translated to mean "the rights and privledges awarded to the Knights Templars".

This Bull was penned by Pope Innocent II in 1139 and it was highly unusual in that the Bull addressed the Templar Order specifically and it established the Templars as a Papal Order and was thus given Papal protection. This particular Bull also spawned two proceeding Bulls, Milites Templi by Pope Celestine II in 1144 and Militia Dei by Pope Eugene III in 1145.

Together, these three Bulls gave the Templars an extraordinary range of rights and privledges never before witnessed by the Roman Catholic church and because of these three Bulls, the Templar Order rose to a unprecedented height of power and influence, especially during the time of the Crusades.

It is from the Papal Bull Militia Dei (Soldiers of God) that we will concentrate our efforts because it spells out that the Templars had the right to construct their own churches and to bury their dead within the grounds of these churches and also to extract fees from the surviving family members of those who were interred within the grounds of the various Templar churches, yet who were not Templar members at the time of their death.

This proved to be EXTREMELY controversial during that time and it soon gave off the air that the Templars were somewhat "holier than thou" and they were also often accused of extorting monies from the impoverished society within their realm, and also gave cause for others to accuse the Templars of the sin of pride.

Because the three aforementioned Papal Bulls firmly established that the Templars were granted the right to construct and maintain their own churches, and because the Templars were subjected to orders only from the Holy See, in effect this meant that the Templars were able to establish themselves within the dioceses of Europe without having to pay the slightest bit of attention to the local Bishops. This caused a great many problems for the Templars later on and it also explains in very large part of why they were allowed to loan money for so many years.

Of course, when it came to burying the dead, the Templars seemed to take on a very cavalier attitude in regards as to who was to be interred on hallowed ground, especially in light of rather *healthy donations* from the wealthy class. If a person of means was an excommunicate or accused of heresy at the time preceeding their death, then that person positively could not be buried on sacred ground, in accordance with Roman Catholic doctrines, however the Templars tended to *turn a blind eye* as to the spiritual status of the recently deceased.

In other words, if a person of wealth were excommincated by the Church and passed away before being recommunicated, then that person could not be buried on church grounds, nor were they to receive a Christian burial. Therefore, the Templars took it upon themselves to enforce the Rule of their Order, which stated that they were to *bury the dead*. Of course, they took this rule quite literally and they often pointed out that their rule did not specify WHICH Christian dead were to be buried, merely that they were supposed to bury all dead Christians.

Also, professing themselves to be laity, they often pointed out that they had no way of ascertaining whether a person was excommunicated or not at the hour of death, therefore they could only assume that the person whom they were asked to bury was indeed a member of the Catholic church, in good standing with the Vatican and the local diocese.

Therefore, if a person of means passed away who had been excommnicated by the local Bishop, the family would take the deceased would to the local Templar Church for a decent Christian burial. That the Templars used a Deacon to perform the burial ceremony was of no consequence, as most secular members of society simply could not make a distinction between a priest and a deacon, as both were (and still are) ordained members of the Chruch. Also, the Templars had used the practice of employing Templar deacons in burial rituals in the Holy Land when no ordained priests were available, so they surmised that if it worked in the Holy Land, then it should work anywhere, including Europe.

And since the Templars were doing this, why not go all the way and permit the deceased to be interred in elaborate vaults, carved by stone carvers who were employed by none other than the Templars themselves, and also to elicit a healthy *donation* to ensure the care and upkeep of said vault, etc. In short, the Templars discovered a nice little niche in Roman Catholic society and they soon exploited it for all they were worth all over Europe. It turned out to be a real money making racket for the Templars and they soon started welcoming excommunicated Catholics like a starving man welcomes a crust of bread.

And now we find ourselves at the truth of the matter, my friend. Templars were always BURIED, that is to state they were never interred above groundor in tombs, nor were they permitted as individuals to lavish funds on their interrments. They did take their individual vow of poverty quite seriously, however, due to the three aforementioned Bulls, as an Order they were granted the right to become self-sustaining and they, as an Order, soon had the ways and the means to pursue this course for all they were worth.

Therefore, in light of these facts, whenever one visits a Templar cemetery, please recall that the persons interred in the above ground tombs were not members of the Templar Order, rather they were quite likely the gentry class and very likely of suspect spiritual status, and that they were the only ones who could have afforded the sarcophagai and the elaborate rituals involved.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

Dear Oroblanco;
As an aside, the link you've provided directs one to a book titled The History of The Knights Templars, written by Charles G. Addison and David Hatcher Childress, two authors who seem to excel in the realm of alternative history. As an example of their *expertise* regarding Templar history, I should now like to examine a particular excerpt:

In a long mantle of this description, with the cross of the order carved upon it, is represented the Knight Templar Brother Jean de Dreux, in the church of St. Yvod de Braine in France, with this inscription, in letters of gold, carved upon the monument--F. JEAN LI TEMPLIER FUIS AU COMTE JEAN DE DREUX

Let's now scrutinize the first initial, that being the letter "F". Messiers Addison and Childress seem to think this initial stands for the French word "Fra", which when translated into English means "Brother". Very well, this is entirely plausible, until we research the word Fra and discover that this particular wordwas not a part of French vocabulary until the 13th century, which is after the Templars were dissolved. Also, Fra is always spelled as FRA, being part of the original root word, FRIAR. Also, the initials FR are never used as this abbreviation is reserved for priests, as it refers to their title as Father.

It becomes readily apparant that the two authors in question have little grasp of the French language, my friend. The word Templier does NOT mean Templar in English, rather it means "Patron" or "Benefactor". FUIS AU COMITE means "Running at the comittee" and the sentence in question can be translated into English to mean "F. (initial of surname, such as Francois) Jean (French name for John) Li, most likely a last name or an abbreviation of a last name, as the word Li does not exist in either Latin or French, supporter of the comittee, John of Dreux.

To sum up, the passage means;
"F. John Li., comittee member and benefactor, (placed by) John of Dreux"

Nowhere does this monument give cause to assume that the monument erected to one F. Jean Li. by Jean of Dreux was in any way affiliated with the Templars, my friend. As an aside, wasn't Mr. Childress the same person who previously wrote that the word *gauze* is so named because it was first woven in Gaza?
Your friend;
LAMAR