• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Phantom (Apocryphal; Transient) Islands

As an aside, some maps have Hy Brazil quite a bit to the south of the map that Mr. socks provided.
 
Your point, good sir, is well-taken. The size of islands is sometimes hard to determine especially from a distance. And some of them are no doubt, mirages. Saxemberg, mentioned earlier in this thread may well be an example of this.

On the other hand, the chief navigation problem for seamen has always been longitude, not latitude, and Rockall is quite a ways almost due north of the reputed location of Hy Brazil, and this makes it a bit less likely, in my humble opinion, that Hy Brazil is simply confused version of Rockall. Not impossible, just less likely.
It's also granite. Granite is nowhere near as permanent as one might think, even weakly acid rain reacts with the constituents to weaken and crumble it.

There was a column of pink granite near where I lived as a child, right on the sea, and it's surface would break up into small crumbs of stone if you rubbed it, until you got to under layers. When I went back to that place about 25 years later the whole structure had gone, eroded away. Probably about the height of a house and twenty feet across the base (estimating wildly).

Rockhall, with it's constant pounding and weathering, plus loads of low ph bird droppings, creating a relatively strong acid eating away at it, might well have been 10 times the size a thousand years ago, for all we know.

An island of that type with a channel through the middle, caused by a crack or fissure then weathering might not be so fanciful.
 
Your point, good sir, is well-taken. The size of islands is sometimes hard to determine especially from a distance. And some of them are no doubt, mirages. Saxemberg, mentioned earlier in this thread may well be an example of this.

On the other hand, the chief navigation problem for seamen has always been longitude, not latitude, and Rockall is quite a ways almost due north of the reputed location of Hy Brazil, and this makes it a bit less likely, in my humble opinion, that Hy Brazil is simply confused version of Rockall. Not impossible, just less likely.

Fair point. Of course Hy Brasil also had a sister island - Demar to its south west. That too seems to have disappeared:

isles.jpg
 
Angelino Dalorto's 1325 Carta Nautica and the 1339 map from Angelino Dulcert (who may be the same person) show multiple islands to the west of the British Isles. I can't upload a file with the required resolution, as it is too big, so you'll need to search for them yourself and save a copy at highest resolution.

Also, possibly the definitive text about legendary islands of the Atlantic is available here:

https://archive.org/stream/legendaryislands00babc/legendaryislands00babc_djvu.txt
 
Angelino Dalorto's 1325 Carta Nautica and the 1339 map from Angelino Dulcert (who may be the same person) show multiple islands to the west of the British Isles. I can't upload a file with the required resolution, as it is too big, so you'll need to search for them yourself and save a copy at highest resolution.

Also, possibly the definitive text about legendary islands of the Atlantic is available here:

https://archive.org/stream/legendaryislands00babc/legendaryislands00babc_djvu.txt
Duly bookmarked. Thank you for the link. I will certainly go through it.
 
Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya in Norwegian) was long regarded as a phantom island and even though it was discovered in 1739, it's existence and location were not confirmed until the 1890's, when a German survey ship finally established both. Bouvet was the subject of something of a spat between Norway and the UK as both lay claim to the tiny speck of volcanic rock as a whaling station. The dispute was settled (amicably) in Norway's favor, but no permanent manned stations were ever set up there.

Located at 54 S, 3 E, Bouvet is the most isolated island on the earth. It's nearest land is Antarctica almost 1000 miles (1600 KM) away.

In 1964 a lifeboat was found on the island by a British naval vessel, and to this day, there is no satisfactory explanation for its' being there.

https://excitingearth.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/the-mystery-of-bouvet-island/

I think it is a fascinating place, and have dreams of one day visiting, which is rarely allowed by the Norwegians.

It is the setting for the movie Alien vs Predator.
 
Yes likewise, fascinating stuff.
I am about halfway through the book that Mr Socks was kind enough to link to. I note some similar stories told by Gaddis in Invisible Horizons.

The way Gaddis told the story of the Seven Cities is almost the exact some story told in Legendary Islands of the Atlantic, although the name of the island is given by Gaddis as Asmayda or Mayda.

It is an interesting book although it was from the early 1920's.
 
Angelino Dalorto's 1325 Carta Nautica and the 1339 map from Angelino Dulcert (who may be the same person) show multiple islands to the west of the British Isles. I can't upload a file with the required resolution, as it is too big, so you'll need to search for them yourself and save a copy at highest resolution.

Also, possibly the definitive text about legendary islands of the Atlantic is available here:

https://archive.org/stream/legendaryislands00babc/legendaryislands00babc_djvu.txt
Interesting book. If anyone here decides to download it, the book itself is reproduced at the top of the link provided. On my screen it is a blue color and it is much easier to read. It also has the maps referenced in the book, which is not shown in the scan.

The medieval people sure had active imaginations when it came to their understanding of Atlantic geography.

Thank you once more for the link, Mr. Socks.
 
C&P of a post I did on another website.

I quote it here as a FWIW.


In March, 1882, some 200 miles west of Madeira and about the same distance south of the Azores, a British merchant ship suddenly found itself passing through muddy water and enormous shoals of dead fish. The next day they encountered more of the same.

Smoke was seen rising from mountains of an island which should not have existed. Where charts indicated a depth of several thousand fathoms, the anchor now hit bottom at only a few fathoms.

A landing party found itself on an enormous island with no trees, no vegetation, not even a sandy beach. It was totally bare, as though it had just risen from the sea. Volcanic
debris covered it.

What was more amazing was that the island showed signs of habitation in the remote past, and then disappeared back into the Atlantic. There was one other report of the island around the same time-frame from another ship.

The story is from an email from Jonathan Gray.

Thoughts?

There are a couple of problems here. One is the distances involved. There is a seamount about 600 miles (1000 KM) almost due west of Madeira, about the same distance south of the Azores, and nothing at 200 miles and I am not aware of any seismic disturbances in the area at the time. A volcanic event would produce a sizable earthquake if I am not mistaken, one that would cause a major tsunami.

Or am I all wet here?

OTOH Gaddis in his book, Invisible Horizons tells of the just-formed island Urania, evidently of a volcanic origin named after the destroyer HMS Urania in the Pacific off of Japan sometime in the late 1940's, so such things are possible, I suppose. Urania Island vanished after a couple of weeks.

That some phantom islands are newly-formed from submarine volcanoes is one possible explanation for at least some of them.
 
A submarine volcanic eruption need not be so violent as to produce tsunamis. The Axial Seamount - only 300 miles off the coast of Oregon - erupted beginning in May 2015:

http://www.livescience.com/50707-axial-seamount-eruption-gallery.html

... and no tsunami warning was issued by the US Tsunami Warning Centers, even though the Axial Seamount is actively monitored.

Coincidentally, such an eruption - including a surface plume of material big enough to be seen on Landsat satellite imagery - was noted in Tonga earlier this month:

http://www.livescience.com/57801-tonga-underwater-volcano-eruption-photo.html

I'd be willing to bet the surface side-effects noted in your quoted report - i.e., muddiness and dead fish - were recently evident off Tonga as well.

This article includes the following relevant comments from a geologist specializing in such undersea events:

... "It may continue for some days or weeks, and an island may form temporarily," Martin Jutzeler, a geologist at the University of Tasmania who studies underwater eruptions, said in a statement. "However, new volcanic islands are easily eroded by wave action." ...
 
Regarding the 1882 incident ...

That would be the story of the Jesmond. The surface conditions and the purported island were allegedly corroborated by a second vessel (Westbourne*). Jesmond's encounter occurred the first week of March 1882.

For example, see the incident's entry in The Atlantis Encyclopedia:

http://books.google.com/books?id=NwvgPxA62KkC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=jesmond 1882&source=bl&ots=g4W0VI3W_w&sig=omdaXgYFQck94m_2jG8iFrxQFIw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibpsrkmK_SAhXLsFQKHcERBSsQ6AEIRzAG#v=onepage&q=jesmond 1882&f=false

This and the numerous other online accounts of the Jesmond encounter vary quite a bit on details other than the events leading up to seeing the phantom island.

I mention this because you should consider these events as reported before becoming too confused about the distance (from Madeira and the Azores) bit.

The reported island wasn't 200 miles west of Madeira; it was 200 miles west of Madeira where the Jesmond first encountered the muddiness / dead fish. The island wasn't sighted until the following day, when the surface conditions were even more muddy / fish-fouled than the day before. The Jesmond had been steaming generally westward / southwestward all along.

I'm not claiming the island had to be associated with the seamount (circa 600 miles west of Madeira) you cited. All I'm claiming is that the Jesmond's phantom island was certainly more than 200 miles west of Madeira.

* FWIW: The account of the Westbourne's island sighting appeared in the New York Post on April 1.

EDIT: I forgot to mention the Jesmond allegedly arrived in New Orleans on March 31st. Its captain was interviewed for the New Orleans Picayune, which was the original source of the story. This would put the Jesmond story's first publication on or around April 1 as well.

EDIT #2: Corrected geo-references from Azores to Madeira. D'oh! :banghead:
 
Last edited:
To further confuse matters on the 1882 story ...

According to one or another of the sources I located online (such as they are ... ) the Jesmond and Westbourne captains reported the following lat / long coordinates for their encounters:

Jesmond:
31 25 N / 28 40 W

Westbourne:
25º 30' N / 24º W

I've entered these coordinates into 2 different online calculators, both of which indicate these positions are circa 800 km apart. :confused:

Just for the record ... I have no idea whether the figures above accurately reflect the positions allegedly reported in 1882. The figures above for the Jesmond are cited in multiple online accounts, and according to Google Maps (terrain enabled) they correspond to a seamount.

Another confusing issue is that if these figures are correct, the Westbourne (bound for New York) was significantly south of the Jesmond (bound for New Orleans). This doesn't make sense for two ships both of which had exited the Mediterranean at the Strait of Gibraltar.
 
Regarding the 1882 incident ...

That would be the story of the Jesmond. The surface conditions and the purported island were allegedly corroborated by a second vessel (Westbourne*). Jesmond's encounter occurred the first week of March 1882.

For example, see the incident's entry in The Atlantis Encyclopedia:

http://books.google.com/books?id=NwvgPxA62KkC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=jesmond 1882&source=bl&ots=g4W0VI3W_w&sig=omdaXgYFQck94m_2jG8iFrxQFIw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibpsrkmK_SAhXLsFQKHcERBSsQ6AEIRzAG#v=onepage&q=jesmond 1882&f=false

This and the numerous other online accounts of the Jesmond encounter vary quite a bit on details other than the events leading up to seeing the phantom island.

I mention this because you should consider these events as reported before becoming too confused about the distance (from Madeira and the Azores) bit.

The reported island wasn't 200 miles west of Madeira; it was 200 miles west of Madeira where the Jesmond first encountered the muddiness / dead fish. The island wasn't sighted until the following day, when the surface conditions were even more muddy / fish-fouled than the day before. The Jesmond had been steaming generally westward / southwestward all along.

I'm not claiming the island had to be associated with the seamount (circa 600 miles west of Madeira) you cited. All I'm claiming is that the Jesmond's phantom island was certainly more than 200 miles west of Madeira.

* FWIW: The account of the Westbourne's island sighting appeared in the New York Post on April 1.

EDIT: I forgot to mention the Jesmond allegedly arrived in New Orleans on March 31st. Its captain was interviewed for the New Orleans Picayune, which was the original source of the story. This would put the Jesmond story's first publication on or around April 1 as well.

EDIT #2: Corrected geo-references from Azores to Madeira. D'oh! :banghead:
Yes, indeed, fair sir; you are quite correct. Last night, I did some further checking and noticed that the Australian researcher, Karen Mutton, mentioned in another thread, goes into this as well. She gives the geographic co-ordinates of the newly-formed island as 31N, 28W. And there is a seamount in this vicinity.

And as you also point out, the lack of an associated tsunami does not detract from the story either, as the case of the Urania illustrates.

The story is looking somewhat more credible now. As an aside, I have Mutton's book on order from amazon, along with two others by Rupert T Gould.
 
... The story is looking somewhat more credible now. ...

I tend to agree - to the extent the story is focused on an anomalous, and presumably transient volcanically-induced, island.

However, once you look beyond that basic discovery per se ...

The Jesmond story has been associated with Atlantis for some time. This connection derives from the claims Robson and his crew landed on the island, found wondrous ancient human artifacts, and brought a collection of said artifacts with them to New Orleans. According to the newspaper story at the time (second-hand; via various authors ... ) Robson only showed these artifacts in confidence to the one reporter who interviewed him and claimed he was going to donate them to the British Museum upon his return to the UK. There's no record of any such donation being offered, much less transferred, to that or any other museum.

My plausibility meter readings steadily declined as I read through the Atlantis / artifact - focused versions of the story ...

... But my outright BS detector started squawking when I determined (a) the two ships' reported positions didn't add up and (b) the seminal accounts of both ships' encounters were apparently published on April 1.

... Which still leaves open the possibility that the 'newly emergent volcanic island' aspect was authentic, but became encrusted with fictive tantalizing Atlantis bits so as to turn a prosaic oceanographic / geographic note into a sensational April Fools story.
 
I tend to agree - to the extent the story is focused on an anomalous, and presumably transient volcanically-induced, island.

However, once you look beyond that basic discovery per se ...

The Jesmond story has been associated with Atlantis for some time. This connection derives from the claims Robson and his crew landed on the island, found wondrous ancient human artifacts, and brought a collection of said artifacts with them to New Orleans. According to the newspaper story at the time (second-hand; via various authors ... ) Robson only showed these artifacts in confidence to the one reporter who interviewed him and claimed he was going to donate them to the British Museum upon his return to the UK. There's no record of any such donation being offered, much less transferred, to that or any other museum.

My plausibility meter readings steadily declined as I read through the Atlantis / artifact - focused versions of the story ...

... But my outright BS detector started squawking when I determined (a) the two ships' reported positions didn't add up and (b) the seminal accounts of both ships' encounters were apparently published on April 1.

... Which still leaves open the possibility that the 'newly emergent volcanic island' aspect was authentic, but became encrusted with fictive tantalizing Atlantis bits so as to turn a prosaic oceanographic / geographic note into a sensational April Fools story.
Agreed: take away the ancient artifacts nonsense and it is a fairly believable story. As in the Urania Island discovery in the late 1940's off the coast of Japan. There, no claims were made that any artifacts were found, and I don't even think that any landings were attempted. Just curious: have you read Gaddis' book Invisible Horizons? It is a good read, but it is long out of print. It not only goes into phantom islands, it covers other sea mysteries. Henry Stommel's Lost Islands, OTOH is devoted to questionable islands
 
... Just curious: have you read Gaddis' book Invisible Horizons? It is a good read, but it is long out of print. ...

I honestly don't know if I've read Gaddis' book. It was first published in 1965, when I was moving from elementary to high school and voraciously reading a lot of Fortean-related books. In those days I was especially interested in sea / ocean Forteana, and I tended to always check out any book fitting that scope of interest.

In any case, if I've ever read Invisible Horizons it would probably have been at least 45 - 50 years ago.
 
I honestly don't know if I've read Gaddis' book. It was first published in 1965, when I was moving from elementary to high school and voraciously reading a lot of Fortean-related books. In those days I was especially interested in sea / ocean Forteana, and I tended to always check out any book fitting that scope of interest.

In any case, if I've ever read Invisible Horizons it would probably have been at least 45 - 50 years ago.
I just got a hard-cover version from amazon. I have two of Gould's books on order, as well as Karen Mutton's effort that I mentioned elsewhere, in this thread, if memory serves.
 
I am currently reading Baudolino by Umberto Eco, a work of fiction which tells the story of a young man’s adventures around the late 12th century mixing historical characters and mythical beings.

Early in the book, three students in Paris are discussing the possible shape of the world when Abdul, (half-Irish, half-French and brought up as a Moor in Jerusalem!) produces a map.

On it can be seen Hibernia/Ireland, the place of his mother’s birth and further south, the Blessed or Lost Isle. Not to be confused with Hy-Brasil, it is much further south off the coast of Africa.
Supposedly found by St Brendan in the 6th century. It was was last sighted in the 18th century and still being included on maps until then.

(Maps from Wiki page, dated 1707)
Screen Shot 2017-03-07 at 07.41.32jpeg.jpg Screen Shot 2017-03-07 at 07.42.06jpeg.jpg < Here, to the west of the Canaries.

St Brendan's Isle Wikipedia.

Reading about St Brendan, I find this page concerning Immrama.

"The Navigatio Sancti Brendani (Voyage of Saint Brendan) fits in with a then-popular literature genre, peculiar to Ireland, called an immram. Irish immrama flourished during the seventh and eighth centuries. Typically, an immram is a tale that describes the hero's series of seafaring adventures. (Some of these immrams involved the search for, and visits to, Tir na nOg, an island far to the west, beyond the edges of the world map.)”

Which maybe goes toward explaining why so many of these phantom islands are close to or have connections with Ireland.
 
New South Greenland was supposedly discovered by Benjamin Morrell in 1823.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Greenland

There's plenty of reason to suspect Morrell of deceit in reporting his alleged discovery. I've always considered the most benign interpretation to be that his claimed / recorded positions were 'way off and he was actually viewing the Antarctic Peninsula (aka Graham Land). Morrell himself complained he was operating with deficiencies in his available navigational equipment, and his account of the discovery voyage was written years after the fact.
 
There's plenty of reason to suspect Morrell of deceit in reporting his alleged discovery. I've always considered the most benign interpretation to be that his claimed / recorded positions were 'way off and he was actually viewing the Antarctic Peninsula (aka Graham Land). Morrell himself complained he was operating with deficiencies in his available navigational equipment, and his account of the discovery voyage was written years after the fact.
Agreed. Even Gould, who the wiki article describes as favorably inclined towards Morrell, said of Morrell, that if he said it was raining heavily outside, 'you would feel quite safe in leaving your oilskin below'. This was from his first book.

Unfortunately for my purposes, Gould saw fit to remove his essay on New South Greenland from later editions of his second book.

I'll see if I can't find it.
 
Back
Top