The Curse of Oak Island has uncovered nothing of note even though it is on its seventh season. This is unsurprising when one remembers that there have been multiple treasure-hunting expeditions to said location in the past, meaning that it has received a thorough searching on multiple occasions. Never mind the fact that those who believe in the existence of the treasure can’t come to a consensus on what it is even supposed to be. Still, The Curse of Oak Island continues on, which in turn, means that it continues to provide a place for so-called “experts” to tout their stuff. One of the latest is James McQuiston, who moves in the same pseudo-historical circles as his predecessors on the show.
What Does James McQuiston Theorize About the Supposed Treasure of Oak Island?
On initial consideration, McQuiston’s theory about the treasure sounds much more plausible than the theories of his predecessors. After all, the theory that some Scottish notables buried something of value on Oak Island in the 17th century is much less ridiculous than the theories about the Holy Grail, the Ark of the Covenant, and the lost plays of William Shakespeare. Unfortunately, when one examines what McQuiston has written in the past, it becomes very clear that interested individuals might want to maintain a very healthy sense of skepticism about his claims.
For instance, McQuiston is one of the people who believe that Henry I Sinclair visited the New World before Christopher Columbus, which is something that sees a fair amount of mention in the pseudo-historical circles that are so beloved by the so-called History Channel. In short, Sinclair was a man who received the title of Earl of Orkney from the King of Norway in 1379 in exchange for a fee of 1,000 nobles plus the provision of 100 fighting men for a period of 3 months whenever he was called upon by his liege lord. Otherwise, we know very little about him, though a work commissioned by his grandson claimed that he was killed in battle. Something that may or may not have happened while fighting against English seamen who were attacking in response to an earlier Scottish attack on the English fleet.
In modern times, there are some people in pseudo-historical circles who think that Sinclair was a man named Prince Zichmni who led an expedition to Greenland. However, said individuals don’t stop there. Instead, they go further still by claiming that Prince Zichmni managed to reach North America before Christopher Columbus, which is based on very dubious evidence. For that matter, it should be mentioned that actual historians are very skeptical of the idea that Prince Zichmni is Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney, not least because it is based on the eyebrow-raising premise that the writer’s handwriting was bad enough for Sinclair to have been corrupted into Zichmni. Never mind the fact that they think that the letters claiming the existence of Prince Zichmni were nothing but a hoax.
As for the evidence that the pseudo-historians use to prop up their belief, it varies from the ridiculous to the very ridiculous. One example would be stone carvings on a chapel built by Sinclair’s grandson, which the pseudo-historians believe to be representations of North American plants even though they are nothing but stylized representations of common plants of European origin. Another example would be the claim that the legendary figure Glooscap of the Mi’kmaq people is based on an European explorer, meaning Sinclair. Something that is particularly nasty because such theories are often connected with very unpleasant views of indigenous peoples. After all, the claim that indigenous peoples saw European explorers as gods is an implicit statement of their inferiority. Something that is particularly true because such claims have been used to justify conquest and the exploitation associated with conquest on numerous occasions. Granted, the people who make such claims may or may not be doing so in malice, but the fundamental fact of the matter is that they are perpetuating a pretty nasty belief that has been put to some pretty nasty uses.
Having said that, it should come as no surprise to learn that Sinclair has been woven into a wide range of other pseudo-historical nonsense as well. For instance, it is common for those who believed that Sinclair visited North America to believe that he was a member of the Knights Templar, who remain a popular subject for pseudo-historians in the present time. However, this is very, very unlikely for the simple reason that Sinclair was born in 1345 while the Knights Templar were disbanded by Pope Clement V in 1312 under serious pressure from King Philip IV of France. Those who are unfamiliar should know that Philip IV had it out for the Knights Templar for a couple of reasons. One, he was intent on the centralization of the French state, meaning that the Knights Templar with their special privileges were one obstacle among many. Two, Philip IV was in serious debt to the Knights Templar, which not coincidentally, was the same reason that he expelled the Jews from France as well.
Regardless, when Philip IV destroyed the Knights Templar, he destroyed its leadership. In fact, there is a famous legend of the Knights Templar Grand Master Jacques de Molay called out when he was executed by being burned alive that both the Pope and the king would soon meet him before God, which was presumably inspired by the fact that both men died relatively soon after the execution. As for the rest of the Knights Templar, they were either pensioned off, taken into other military orders, or investigated by the Church but let go for the most part. Moreover, those in Portugal were able to rename themselves the Order of Christ and the Supreme Order of Christ of the Holy See because the Portuguese king refused to go after them in the same manner as his counterparts in other Roman Catholic countries. However, while most of the membership survived, there can be no doubt about the fact that the Knights Templar as an organization ended then and there no matter what pseudo-historians might think.
Further Thoughts
Summed up, McQuiston’s theory sounds less ridiculous than a lot of what has come up on the show. However, being less ridiculous isnt the same as being true, meaning that interested individuals should maintain a healthy sense of skepticism. This is particularly true because McQuiston’s other writings make it clear that he isn’t exactly what most people would consider to be a reliable and reputable historian to say the least.
Follow Us
