America in Asia: 1827 State of Nations Map

This map makes very little sense when viewed from the traditionally dogmatic point of view. As a matter of fact it makes no sense at all. There would have to be some drastic developments in the history of this world for this map to make sense. Why do we even have a map like this? Why do we have America in Asia, and Scythia in Europe?

Antique hand colored map, from Anthony Finley's "A New General Atlas, Comprising a Complete Set of Maps, representing Grand Divisions of the Globe, Together with the Several Empires, Kingdoms, and States in the World; Compiled from the Best Authorities, and corrected by the Most Recent Discoveries", 1827. From the section : "Atlas Classica; or Select Maps of Ancient Geography, both Sacred and Profane" 1827.

State of Nations at the Christian Era



Map Source: State of Nations at the Christian aera From Pinkerton on the Goths

In the 1820's, Anthony Finley produced a series of fine atlases in the then leading American cartographic center, Philadelphia. Finley's work is a good example of the quality that American publishers were beginning to obtain. Each map is elegantly presented, with crisp and clear engraving and very attractive pastel hand shading. Topographical and political information is copious, including counties, towns, rivers, and roads. This 1820s was a period of significant development in the eastern United States, with great growth of population, expansion of the transportation nexus, and political changes. As Finley was very concerned to depict as up-to-date detail as was possible, his maps show this development in a graphic and most informative manner. Finley's maps present an accurate and fascinating picture of the United States in the early decades of the nineteenth century. This is an excellent series of maps from the nascent American cartographic world.

Note: I was unable to find a Wikipedia page dedicated to this Anthony Finley cartographer. There was one in Wikimedia with a bunch of maps on there. Makes you wonder why?...

Some Anthony Finley related links:

KD: Why would we have this 1827 map so seriously messed up, or is there something we do not now?

We could probably blame John Pinkerton for the weirdness of this map, but he died impoverished. This particular feature has become somewhat of a red flag, as far as historical tool-people go.
Why would we have this 1827 map so seriously messed up, or is there something we do not now?
With respect to the thought that North America was or is a part of Asia, I wonder again, as I often do with placenames and designations, whether we are missing some context.

Everyone knows that America was allegedly named for Amerigo Vespucci, but I’d imagine less know where “Amerigo” is derived from:
Amalric or Amalaric (also Americ, Almerich, Emeric, Emerick and other variations) is a personal name derived from the tribal name Amal (referring to the Gothic Amali) and ric (Gothic reiks) meaning "ruler, prince".
Amerigo is the Italian variant of Amalric, which literally means “ruler of the Amall.” The Amall being:
The Amali – also called Amals, Amalings or Amalungs – were a leading dynasty of the Goths, a Germanic people who confronted the Roman Empire during the decline of the Western Roman Empire. They eventually became the royal house of the Ostrogoths and founded the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy.
Wiki also drops this in:
The Amal clan was claimed to have descended from the divine. Jordanes writes:

Now the first of these heroes, as they themselves relate in their legends, was Gapt, who begat Hulmul. And Hulmul begat Augis; and Augis begat him who was called Amal, from whom the name of the Amali comes. Athal begat Achiulf and Oduulf. Now Achiulf begat Ansila and Ediulf, Vultuulf and Ermanaric.
All sounds strangely familiar to any number of "myths and legends." And, as with most, incredibly convoluted. Consider that Amalric allegedly meaning "ruler of the Amal" and you get a list like this:
So, all of them would be "Amalric" in a literal sense, but Athalaric's alleged NAME can also be written as Amalaric. I find it funny that Wiki decided to list his name as Athalaric here, but references him as Amalaric in most other places. It's almost as if they want to obscure how confusing this actually is to sort out. It's the equivalent of the Queen of England's first name being "Queen."

As usual, I have no conclusion about any of this, or the significance of all these people sharing the name (especially the Kings of Jerusalem):

It is interesting that the Amall played a role in the end of the western Roman Empire, as America would later play a role in the end of the British Empire (if one wants to believe that any of these empires ever really end). But I think my larger point is even if a historian is being honest, I am not sure how you can capably sort out all these individuals when they have multiple names/titles, compounded by language differences (a point made more dramatically by Fomenko). You don't have to believe in a hugely coordinated conspiracy to rewrite history, even with the best intentions this is all a huge puzzle with multiple near-identical pieces and we have no idea what the finished picture would even look like in any way.

Again, none of this is to even dismiss the possibility that America and Asia are/were physically connnected... that could be true and we're still missing part of what the designation "America" even means in the first instance. I think being named after Amerigo Vespucci is probably the least convincing explanation though, all things considered!
Last edited:
Here is another very interesting take on the history of the name “America”

In addition to referencing the Germanic possibility (Amerigo Vespucci) some other very interesting points are raised:

Amerrisque Mountains
Wikipedia, lacking citations, but rather (alarmingly?) corroborative of the previously cited booklet.

Amerristiquiqque or Amerristiquiqguie

“If Mr. Marcou were not so sure of his facts, it would not be easy to believe him when he says that the American plains and plateaux and mountains went without names in the 16th century.
The longer the assertion is considered, the harder it is to believe.
One of two things must be true: either
the mountains and plains and plateaux did not make their appearance until the year 1601, or Mr. Marcou is mistaken.”

Page 188

This I find particularly reminiscent of conversations regarding a dramatic reshaping of the world in or around this time.

This is my first post, made on my mobile device. Go easy.

Similar articles