Ancient Greek Juan de Fuca - who was he?

To fully understand the below content, the following articles should be taken into consideration:

This article is about a gentleman who (allegedly) discovered the Juan de Fuca strait. This gentleman had many names. For us, his main name was Juan de Fuca. The name is deceiving, because he was (allegedly) from Greece and not from Spain. Well, if Greece was not enough, he might have been from ancient Greece. Oh, and he might have been an Apostle. We have no idea what Juan de Fuca looked like, but the Morgan Cigar Company wanted us to think that he looked like this.

For the longest time, his discovery of the abovementioned strait was questioned. As a matter of fact, his very existence was in doubt. The only reason de Fuca's discovery ended up being semi-accepted, was the below Fuca Pillar.
  • Fuca Pillar is a tall, almost rectangular, rock on the west side of Cape Flattery.
  • It is named after Juan de Fuca, a Greek sailor who explored for Spain.
  • Fuca has a doubtful claim to being the first European explorer to see the Fuca Pillar and to explore the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
  • The first generally accepted mention of the pillar was by John Meares in 1788.

Below you can see the strait named after him. I think he has never seen this particular strait, because this particular strait did not even exist at the time when Juan de Fuca visited the area.

Strait of Juan de Fuca
The Strait of Juan de Fuca is a body of water about 96 miles long that is the Salish Sea's outlet to the Pacific Ocean. The international boundary between Canada and the United States runs down the center of the Strait.

It was named in 1787 by the maritime fur trader Charles William Barkley, captain of Imperial Eagle, for Juan de Fuca, who sailed in a Spanish expedition in 1592 to seek the fabled Strait of Anián.
If the strait was named "Juan de Fuca" in 1787, why do we have it on a map produced in 1775? Well, we have it on many maps predating 1787, but this one is just for starters.

As far as I understand, the official reason we have it on the maps pre-dating 1787 was the Great Northern Expedition conducted by the Russians:
  • One of the most important achievements of the expedition was the mapping of the north east part of Asia.
  • The geography department of the St. Petersburg Academy of Science published in 1754 a map with the title Nouvelle Carte des Découvertes faites par des Vaisseaux Russiens.

I learned about this map from the below video. If you are interested in this topic, and would like to get a concise version of everything we officially know about Juan de Fuca, this video is a must. The video contains some bonus info you could find interesting.
  • The lady in the video stated that the above map, produced by the St. Petersburg Academy of Science was published in 1725.
  • I doubt this could be the case, because the academy did not get established until 1724.
    • The mapping was (allegedly) performed between 1733 and 1743.

Personally, I think the entire narrative (including the video above) was adjusted to the point where we will never know the truth. At the same time, nothing prevents us from conducting a little investigation of our own.

These are a few additional details I find strange:
  • The alleged discovery of the Strait of Juan de Fuca happened in 1592.
  • In 1754, 162 years later, the Russian Academy of Science placed the strait on a map and credited de Fuca with its discovery.
  • Why would Russians credit de Fuca? At the time, de Fuca was not even considered to be a real person.
  • Juan de Fuca did not specify the coordinates. How did Russians know that it was that specific strait?

Juan de Fuca
This guy is definitely worthy of a dedicated investigative article. Check out his known names. Most of them are well known, but some are not as much.
  • Juan de Fuca
  • Ioannis Phokas
  • Ivan Phokas
  • Apostolos Valerianos
This here is probably the most interesting reference to Mr. de Fuca.

Let's get through the known narrative real quick. Ioannis Phokas, better known by the Spanish translation of his name, Juan de Fuca, was a Greek maritime pilot in the service of the King of Spain, Philip II. He is best known for his claim to have explored the Strait of Anián, now known as the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Juan de Fuca

Phokás's grandfather, Emmanouíl Phokás, fled Constantinople at its fall in 1453, accompanied by his brother Andrónikos. The two settled first in the Peloponnese, where Andrónikos remained, but in 1470 Emmanouel moved to the island of Cefalonia.
  • Iákovos, Ioánnis's father, established himself in the village of Valerianos on the island and came to be known as "the Valeriáno Fokás" to distinguish him from his brothers.
  • It was in this village of Valeriáno that Phokás was born in 1536.
  • Little to nothing is known about his life before he entered the service of Spain, some time around 1555.
The name of the man known to history as Juan de Fuca is the source of some confusion. While Juan de Fuca is clearly a Spanish rendering of Ioánnis Phokás, some sources cite Apóstolos Valeriános as his "real" name.
  • It is possible that Phokás was baptized Apóstolos and later adopted the name Ioánnis/Juan (i.e., John) because Apóstol is not much used as a name in Spanish.
  • Given that Fokás/Fuca was the family name borne by the seafarer's father and grandfather, Valeriános is likely to be a nickname used on the island which would have been quite meaningless in the Spanish Empire.
Early Career
De Fuca's early voyages were to the Far East, and he claimed to have arrived in New Spain in 1587 when, off Cabo San Lucas in Baja California, the English privateer Thomas Cavendish seized his galleon Santa Ana and deposited him ashore.
  • He was a well-traveled seaman, perfecting his skill as a pilot in the Spanish fleet.
  • The King of Spain, he also claimed, recognized him for his excellence and made him pilot of the Spanish navy in the West Indies (a title he held for forty years), but there is no record in Spanish Archives of his name or position or of his visit to the royal court.
  • Before he made his famous trip up the northwest coast of the North American continent, he sailed to China, the Philippines and Mexico.
  • The Strait of Juan de Fuca between the United States of America and Canada was named for him by British Captain Charles Barkley because it was at the same latitude that Juan de Fuca described as the location of the Strait of Anián.
Voyages to the North
According to de Fuca's account, he undertook two voyages of exploration on the orders of the Viceroy of New Spain, Luis de Velasco, marqués de Salinas, both intended to find the fabled Strait of Anián, believed to be a Northwest Passage, a sea route linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
  • The first voyage saw 200 soldiers and three small ships under the overall command of a Spanish captain (with de Fuca as pilot and master) assigned the task of finding the Strait of Anián and fortifying it against the English.
  • This expedition failed when, allegedly due to the captain's malfeasance, the soldiers mutinied and returned home to California.
In 1592, on his second voyage, de Fuca enjoyed success. Having sailed north with a caravel and a pinnace and a few armed marines, he returned to Acapulco and claimed to have found the strait, with a large island at its mouth, at around 47° north latitude.
  • The Strait of Juan de Fuca is in fact at around 48° N, although Fuca's account of sailing into it departs from reality, describing a region far different from what actually existed there.
  • During the voyage, de Fuca also noted a "high pinnacle or spired rock", which may have been Fuca Pillar, a tall, almost rectangular, rock on the western shore of Cape Flattery on the northwestern tip of Washington beside the Strait of Juan de Fuca - although de Fuca noted it being on the other side of the strait.
Despite Velasco's repeated promises, however, de Fuca never received the great rewards he claimed as his due. After two years, and on the viceroy's urging, de Fuca travelled to Spain to make his case to the court in person.
  • Disappointed again and disgusted with the Spanish, the aging Greek determined to retire to his home in Kefallonia, but was in 1596 convinced by an Englishman, Michael Lok (also spelled as Locke in English and French documents from the period), to offer his services to Spain's archenemy, Queen Elizabeth.
  • Nothing came of Lok and de Fuca's proposals, but it is through Lok's account that the story of Juan de Fuca entered English letters.
Because the only written evidence for Fokás's voyages lay in Lok's account - researchers being unable to find records of the expedition in Spanish colonial archives - there was long much controversy over his discovery, indeed, whether he had ever even existed as a real person.
  • Several scholars have dismissed Juan de Fuca as entirely fictitious, and the 18th-century British explorer Captain Cook strongly doubted that the strait Fokás claimed to have discovered even existed.
  • With later English exploration and settlement of the area, however, Fokás's claims seemed much more credible.
Finally, in 1859, an American researcher, with the help of the U.S. Consul in the Ionian Islands, was able to demonstrate not only that Fokás had lived but also that his family and history were well known on the islands.
  • While we may never know the exact truths that lay behind the account published by Lok, it must be considered unlikely that the man himself was fictional.
KD: That was one of the most intriguing narratives I've seen in a while. Essentially, everything we know about Juan de Fuca's discovery of the abovementioned strait came from Michael Lok.






Well, the above text is just about the only source pertaining to the Strait of Juan de Fuca we have. Now, let's see what info can be had outside of the PTB gifted info.

What did de Fuca Discover?
Before we try to figure out what it was that Juan de Fuca might have discovered, I wanted to re-quote one of the most honest statements I have ever seen made by the PTB narrative compilers.
  • While we may never know the exact truths that lay behind the account published by Lok, it must be considered unlikely that the man himself was fictional.
I think I'm 100% down with this statement. The truth is somewhere, but it is not in the texts we have. If anything, we have a heavily altered version of the de Fuca's voyage, with all of the important details taken out. We need to remember that between 1500 and 1770, there were 5 main European colonizing countries.
  • Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, France and England.
These countries were in position to take over the world after certain catastrophic events. Essentially, these countries were the narrative writers. We all know that our history is written by the winners, and that losers did not contribute to the narrative. The info we have on de Fuca, comes from Michael Lok, an Englishman. He was related to such people as:
Naturally, when something, produced by a winner, comes out in print, it is an accepted version of our history for the time when it was published. Hence, Michael Lok's account is a part of the global historical narrative. As far as we know, there was not a single line of text produced by de Fuca himself. Here is what we do have:
  • Juan de Fuca was not mentioned anywhere but in Michael Lok's account
  • Juan de Fuca left no texts he authored
  • The narrative hints that the man himself did exist, but we may never find out the exact truth about his voyages.
KD: What did de Fuca discover? I think the dominant survivors (England, Spain, Portugal, etc) were taking over aka "colonizing" the rest of the less fortunate survivors, and their territories. Juan de Fuca was exploring the Pacific coast of North America, looking for the Northwest Passage.
  • In the process, he came upon a short-lived Sea of the West.
The Coordinates
Before we talk about the said sea, let's cover a few de Fuca related things. We are being told that he was an experienced sea navigator. As a matter of fact, the narrative claims that de Fuca had 40 years of experience. Yet, this is what we get for coordinates of the passage that he discovered:
  • ...a broad Inlet of Sea, between 47 and 48 degrees of Latitude.
Is this a joke? He didn't provide the exact coordinates? As we know, one degree of latitude equals approximately 69 miles, and one minute equals 1.15 miles. In other words, an experienced navigator provided the world with the instructions demonstrated on the below map.
  • Considering that the Strait of Juan de Fuca is outside of this 69 mile span, our experienced navigator made a total fool of himself. Well, at least according to the PTB.

Sea of the West
The Sea of the West, or Mer de l'Ouest, was a geographic misconception of an inland sea in the Pacific Northwest that appeared on many maps of the 18th century. The depiction was particularly common on French maps. The sea was supposed to be connected to the Pacific Ocean by at least one strait. Many different conjectures about the sea's shape, size, and position appeared on maps of the period.
  • Belief in the sea's existence derived from writings describing two voyages of discovery, one by an Admiral Bartholomew de Fonte, and one by Juan de Fuca.
  • De Fuca's voyage might have happened, but his account is now known to have contained many distortions and confabulations.
  • Admiral de Fonte, on the other hand, is not known to be a historical figure, and the account of his voyage is fiction.
  • Several maps in the early 1700s depicted the sea, but interest and belief in its existence waned until the mid 1700s, when, fairly suddenly, Mer de l'Ouest reappeared on maps and quickly became common for several decades.
KD: Before we continue, I wanted to bring up a few interesting details.
  • Juan de Fuca's discovery happened in 1592.
  • Michael Lok informed the world about the Strait of Juan de Fuca (aka an entrance to the Northwest Passage) in 1625.
  • Maps depicting the Sea of the West started getting published in 1750s.
  • Russians (in 1754) were the first ones to put the Strait of Juan de Fuca on a map.
And while the PTB clearly want us to think that mapmakers went crazy (and started placing a non-existent sea on their maps based on the accounts of de Fuca and de Fonte) the same narrative writers tell us the following:
  • Whether based on the de Fuca account or otherwise, a few manuscript maps in the 1600s showed speculative geography that included branches of the Pacific Ocean protruding deeply into the North American continent.
  • One such map from the late 1630s held by the Yale Center for British Art shows such a branch reaching as close as a few hundred miles from the east coast.
    • "Not yet discovered". How ridiculous is that?
Map of North America-1634.jpg

  • Apparently inspired by these inventions, Guillaume Delisle drew several maps by hand between 1695 and about 1700 that portray such eastern intrusions of the Pacific Ocean.
  • Joseph Nicholas Delisle, Guillaume's half-brother, printed copies of one of these maps.
  • Guillaume continued drafting and revising his conception of this western sea over decades, but he never published any maps depicting the Sea of the West despite his prolific output of printed maps.
  • A few maps based on Delisle's were produced over the next several decades.
KD: Let's blame everything on Mr. Delisle now. You gotta love a mapmaker, whose name was de l'Isle. The PTB are laughing at us. Our Mr. FromTheIsland had to be a pretty influential figure, because here are some of the more famous mapmakers who produced maps depicting the Sea of the West. Essentially, per the PTB, these are a bunch of proverbial "idiots" who drew imaginary maps.
Let's take a look at some of the maps.












Anyways, there are plenty of maps indicating the existence of an inland sea in the Pacific Northwest. There are plenty of contemporary mapmakers who considered this inland sea real enough to place it on their maps. If you review the progression, you could form your own opinion on the possible enormous changes suffered by this region within a relatively short span of time. Unfortunately, one of the biggest unknowns in this entire story is the actual date of the changes, for it looks like there were quite a few.
The existence of the above inland sea is definitely not supported by the current elevation map of the United States.


At the same time the key word here is "current". It has been pounded into our heads, that changes of this magnitude take millennia. What if it was not the case? What if land features similar to Grand Canyon could form over night?
If something like that was to happen over night, wouldn't we have whole nations perish? I think we would.
Additionally, wouldn't we have an explanation of why it took North American "colonists" such a long time to advance from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
  • White - colonized areas
  • Black - uncolonized areas

As you can see we have this wonderful ~200 to 300 year long settlement time gap. We do have an official explanation for that, but I do not trust it.

On the Right (West):
  • New York- 1624
    • New York state - admitted to the Union in 1788
  • Boston- 1630
    • Massachusetts - admitted to the Union in 1788
  • Baltimore- 1729
    • Maryland - admitted to the Union in 1788
  • Charleston- 1670
    • South Carolina - admitted to the Union in 1788
On the Left (East):
Scientists will cry bloody murder over this, but who knows? What if Cascade Mountain Range did form in 1770s?

1855 Source

Entrance to the Sea of the West
This is a pure speculation on my part, but if we were to imagine that some things could remain standing in the same spot and were present in both 1592 (de Fuca's discovery) and today, then we would need to take a closer look at this:


The accepted Fuca Pillar is anything but domed. It is also not on an island. If we could find an island with a pillar on top in the vicinity of 47 degrees of Latitude, that could be interesting. As it stands, I only found one spired rock in the area. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, its spire was dynamited off.
  • Pillar Rock is a pillar-like monolith in the Columbia River, near its mouth in Washington.
  • Formerly rising 75 - 100 feet above the water, it was dynamited and diminished to serve as the site of a navigational marker and light.
  • The Lewis and Clark Expedition camped twice near the rock, on November 7 and November 25, 1805.

Today, this former "75 - 100 feet above the water" rock looks like this.


Right next to our former Pillar Rock there is a Pillar Rock Island.


So... who knows? May be today's mouth of the Columbia River used to serve as a strait, through which Juan de Fuca entered the Sea of the West in 1592.
  • Per the narrative: Juan de Fuca says that he had reached 47 degrees latitude, turned east, and sailed into the straits for many days before returning to Mexico.

We do have post-1770 maps mentioning de Fuca, and some of them look like this.



Wanted to briefly mention the "dating" state of things. I have no idea what true dates we might have had at any point in history. For a point of reference purposes, it is convenient to use dates provided by narrative compilers, but that's about it. We have no idea how long ago things really happened, just like we don't know how many years separate certain events marked by the same year.

Judge for yourself, we have this map above stating something like:
  • Entered by Juan de Fuca in 1592.
And then, we have this map below, stating that Columbus discovered America in 1592, as well. What about 1492, 1464, 1469 or 1479? Do we really know what year it was? We know the accepted year, but not when it really happened. That is if it did happen, of course.

1652 Nova Totius Terrarum Orbis geographica ac hydrographica tabula_1_1.jpg


Juan de Fuca: the Name
We really have a pretty good list of various names attributed to our hero. Is it even possible for one person to have that many different names? We have what we have, so let's take a look at them.
  • Juan de Fuca
  • Ioannis Phokas
  • Ivan Phokas
  • Apostolos Valerianos
Juan de Fuca & Ioannis Phokas
We are being told that Juan de Fuca was a Spanish translation of his first (yup, there is a second real name too) real name Ioannis Phokas. Let's translate the "de" part:
  • de - "of" or "from"
Basically we are stuck with two possible meanings:
  • 1. Juan from Phokas - geographical location
  • 2. Jaun of Phokas - family relationship
There are no regions named "Phoka" or "Phokas", but there is a dynasty of "Phokas". And, as it comes out, our Juan was not some regular Juan.

The Phokas
Phokas or Phocas, was the name of a Byzantine aristocratic clan from Cappadocia, which in the 9th and 10th centuries provided a series of high-ranking generals and an emperor, Nikephoros II Phokas (r. 963–969).
  • Its members and their clients monopolized the high command positions of the Byzantine army for much of the 10th century and led the successful Byzantine offensive against the Arabs in the East.
  • As one of the leading families of the Anatolian military aristocracy, the Phokades were also involved in a series of rebellions that laid claim to power and challenged the emperors at Constantinople.
  • Their power was eventually broken by Basil II (r. 976–1025), and the family declined in importance after the 11th century.
You can read upon the above-linked narrative yourself, but the wiki article ends with this:
  • The Phokas name is rarely mentioned thereafter, until it experienced a revival during the 13th century in the Empire of Nicaea:
    • Theodotos Phokas, the uncle of Theodore I Laskaris (r. 1205–1222), became Megas Doux.
      • The Megas Doux was one of the highest positions in the hierarchy of the later Byzantine Empire, denoting the commander-in-chief of the Byzantine navy.
    • A certain Michael Phokas was stratopedarches in 1234.
      • Stratopedarchēs, was a Greek term used with regard to high-ranking military commanders from the 1st century BC on, becoming a proper office in the 10th-century Byzantine Empire.
      • It continued to be employed as a designation, and a proper title, of commanders-in-chief until the 13th century, when the title of megas stratopedarchēs or Grand Stratopedarch appeared.
      • This title was awarded to senior commanders and officials, while the ordinary stratopedarchai were henceforth low-ranking military officials.
    • Another family member was metropolitan bishop of Philadelphia.
      • In Christian churches with episcopal polity, the rank of metropolitan bishop) pertains to the diocesan bishop or archbishop of a metropolis.
KD: I honestly doubt that our Juan de Fuca was of the different Phokas family. As it stands, we only know what the narrative wants us to know:
  • Finally, in 1859, an American researcher (Alexander Taylor), with the help of the U.S. Consul (see if you can make out his name and title) in the Ionian Islands, was able to demonstrate not only that Fokás had lived but also that his family and history were well known on the islands.
If you want to know what some American "researcher" who was "helped" by some "U.S. Consul" was able to discover, please watch this video. It's really worth it, because in the end you get to see the Eagle. That's the moment where the proverbial legs start growing from their proper place of origin.


This Phokas family appears to be as ancient as dirt. This is probably why our Juan de Fuca was referred to as "ancient Greek". The above mentioned wiki article did not mention Flavius Phocas.
  • Flavius Phocas was Byzantine emperor from 602 to 610. The early life of Phocas is largely unknown, but he rose to prominence in 602, as a leader in the revolt against Emperor Maurice. Phocas captured Constantinople and overthrew Maurice on 23 November 602, and declared himself emperor on the same day.
Who knows, may be the family is much older than we could possibly imagine.
  • Saint Phocas is venerated as a martyr by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. His life and legend may have been a fusion of three men with the same name: a Phocas of Antioch, a Phocas the Gardener and Phocas, Bishop of Sinope.
    • Hieromartyr Phocas was born in the city of Sinope. During his adult years he became Bishop of Sinope. At the time of a persecution against Christians under the emperor Trajan (98–117), the governor demanded that the saint renounce Christ. After fierce torture they enclosed St Phocas in a hot bath, where he died a martyr's death in the year 117.
Ivan Phokas
There is nothing special about this version of Juan's name. I just found it interesting that there was a hint of something "Russian" in the way it was spelled. "V" is clearly a "U" here, and "I" is probably a "J".
  • I just wanted to demonstrate how some names might have gotten originated.



John Phokas
Now, this gentleman here is my main suspect. I understand that his life span does not match our Juan de Fuca's one, but as I've mentioned before, dates are highly questionable.

John Phokas was a 12th-century Byzantine pilgrim to the Holy Land. He wrote an account of his travels, the so-called Ekphrasis (or Concise Description) of the Holy Places, "the most elegant of Palestinian pilgrimage accounts". Doubt has recently arisen over whether Phokas was in fact the author of the Ekphrasis, which has been re-attributed instead to John Doukas.
  • As you can see, doubts are all over our historical narrative. That is according to the narrative writers themselves. What a trick.
Little biographical information about Phokas is available. One manuscript of the Ekphrasis contains a note stating that he was a priest and that his father, a certain Matthew, became a monk on Patmos. According to this marginal note, his trip to the Holy Land took place in either 1177 or 1195. He is known to have accompanied Emperor Manuel I (reigned 1143–80) on an expedition to the sea off Attaleia (now Antalya). He may be the same person as the Focas who, according to the Annales Herbipolenses, was sent by Manuel in 1147 to guide the crusading army of King Conrad III of Germany from Nicaea to Iconium.
KD: Not only does our Ioannis Phokas has the same name as this 12th century Joannes Phocas, but both of them share biographical traits:
  • Little biographical information about Phokas is available.
    • Pertains to both gentlemen.
  • Both were travelers.
Coat of Arms of the Phokas
I'm sorry, but when you lay a claim to a Coat of Arms depicted on the below photograph, there can be only two reasons for it. They are:
  • 1. You are full of baloney.
  • 2. Phokas are a royal, or former royal family.
You decide what we are dealing with here, but the description accompanying the below coat of arms sounds like this:
  • Family of Kefallinia claiming a Byzantine origin, though its presence and its (Venetian) title of nobility is not confirmed before the 15th century.
  • Members of the family served in the Venetian army, participated in the Orlov revolt (1768) and the Greek War of Independence (1821), and assumed various offices in the Ionian state.
  • Source
phokas-coat of  arms.jpg

Apostolos Valerianos
This is the second real (allegedly) name attributed to our Juan de Fuca. I guess anything could be possible, but I think this is a title of sorts. Here is the PTB explanation of this name:
  • It is possible that Phokás was baptized Apóstolos and later adopted the name Ioánnis/Juan (i.e., John) because Apóstol is not much used as a name in Spanish.
  • Valeriános is likely to be a nickname used on the island which would have been quite meaningless in the Spanish Empire.
That sounded like a truck load of BS, I know. May be this is why the PTB has a village named Valerianos.
  • Valerianos is a village and a community in the island of Cephalonia, Greece.
  • In 2011 its population was 154 people.
  • Valerianos - map
  • Valerianos - good luck trying to figure out when this village was founded.
    • I did not find it on any of the older maps.
    • Older texts did not help out either.
As far as Apostolos part of the name goes, in the video, there was a statement about the church in Valerianos, and how it was either dedicated to some Apostle, or something not far from that. One way or the other, no matter from what direction we approach, Apostolos Valerianos could not be Juan de Fuca's real name. The PTB offered two explanations:
  • 1. We do not know why he had this name.
  • 2. The first name of "Apostolos"was given because of some church.
    • The last name of "Valerianos" was given because of some insignificant village.
A Title
I think Apostolos Valerianos was not a name. It was a title. If we were to put all the name combinations together, here is what we would get.
  • 1. An Apostle from Valerianos, Ioannis Phokas, or
  • 2. An Apostle of Valerianos, Ioannis Phokas
What is the meaning of the word "Apostle"? Apart from the Bible related meaning the word means the following:
  • An apostle, in its most literal sense, is an emissary, from Greek ἀπόστολος (apóstolos), literally "one who is sent off".
  • The purpose of such sending off is usually to convey a message, and thus "messenger" is a common alternative translation; other common translations include "ambassador" and "envoy".
  • Apostle
If we accept that "apostle" and "ambassador" mean the exact same thing, then our above two bullets start looking like this:
  • 1. An ambassador from Valerianos, Ioannis Phokas
  • 2. An ambassador of Valerianos, Ioannis Phokas
I do not see any reason for a 1,000 foot wide village to have its own ambassador in the New World. Unless there was a more significant Valerianos city or country out there, we are left with one option only:
  • An ambassador of Valerianos, Ioannis Phokas
Question: Who was Valerianos? This name would most likely look like Valerian in English, or Valerianus in Latin.
  • Ioannis Phokas, a person whose possible coat of arms consisted of a pure crowned Imperial Double-headed Eagle, who could he be an ambassador for?
Emperor Valerian
Methinks, Ioannis Phokas would have served as an ambassador for some Emperor only. Do we have any Emperor Valerians out there? We sure do, but the PTB chronology makes this idea sound ridiculous.
  • Valerian was Roman emperor from 253 to spring 260 AD.
  • He persecuted Christians and was later taken captive by the Persian emperor Shapur I after the Battle of Edessa, becoming the first Roman emperor to be captured as a prisoner of war, causing shock and instability throughout the Roman Empire.
  • The unprecedented event and the unknown fate of the captured emperor generated a variety of different reactions and "new narratives about the Roman Empire in diverse contexts".
  • Valerian (emperor)
Of course, some of us do question the very existence of the ancient Rome in its narrative compliant state. Did it exist? It sure did, but it's form was nothing similar to the official version. This is my firm belief at the moment. For additional info on timing and chronology please help yourself to the below articles:
Emperor Varerian was the only individual to fit the profile of a properly named king or emperor I could find. I have no idea if it was him Juan de Fuca represented.
  • If you have a better idea, please share your candidate.

KD: I don't think we have any idea of who, or what our Juan de Fuca really was. It appears that only his name made it through the censorship of the PTB.

Feel free to contribute to this investigation.

Similar articles